Pastor: God is omni...This was the chant of the people in the church that I attended on Christmas Eve in Berwyn, IL. It was not something I liked, as you may have guessed from my general dislike of omni's. In my opinion, this pastor may have just said that God is omni omni (all all), and have admitted that he was just trying to worship 'a bigger God than anyone else'. This also seems to be moving away from traditional orthodoxy, which isn't too surprising given the neglect of proper historic scholarship and teaching in the evangelical church in the US. At least, the attempt to find out how it was, rather than just trying to prove that what the church holds to now has always been held in the same way. Their view of their own theology, much like Plato's god, is an unmoved mover.
All: Everything!
Pastor: We are omni...
All: Nothing.
As a sidenote, I think that claiming that God is omni omni could also be linked to pantheism, but I'm sure that wasn't the (conscious) intention of that pastor.
However, there are a couple of omni's that I may like. One for God, one for us. They arise from my reading in quantum physics and cosmology respectively. Looking at the small to see the big, and the big to see the small.
First, God's omni: Omnipresent.
Cup your hands, and imagine what you are holding. Not a vacuum. Instead, there are trillions upon trillions of atoms. Remove these. Vacuum? Not yet. There's trillions of tiny 'particles' like neutrinos and invisible photons (from many sources, including the background radiation of the universe itself). Remove these. Vacuum? Almost. However, "careful investigation of this vacuum reveals the strange appearance of elementary particles in this emptiness. Even where there are no atoms, and no elementary particles, and no protons, and no photons, suddenly elementary particles will emerge. The particles simply foam into existence."
"Particles emerge from the 'vacuum'. They do not sneak in from some hiding place when we are not looking. Nor are they bits of light energy that have transformed into protons. These elementary particles crop up out of the vacuum itself - that is the simply and awesome discovery. I am asking you to contemplate a universe where, somehow, being itself arises out of a field of 'fecund emptiness'... This radical emergence takes place throughout the entire universe... The ground of the universe then is an empty fullness, a fecund nothingness." (Brian Swimme, The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos)
This fecundity, creativity, abundance, giftedness, this is God. This is how I can imagine God being omnipresent - even in the void, God is there. At the darkest depths, and the wildest places, God is bubbling forth, an over-abundance.
Now our omni: Omnicentric.
This one is too complicated for me to explain here fully. This one emerges out of Hubble's discovery of the motion of the galaxies. If we start at the earth, and move bigger in scale, we get the Solar System, the Milky Way galaxy, the Local Group (of galaxies), the Virgo Supercluster, the universe. The discovery that Hubble made is that all the other superclusters are moving away from our own, the further the faster. This puts us at the centre of the universe However, because of the theories of relativity (thanks to Einstein), it turns out that wherever you are in the universe, you are at the centre.
"For we have discovered an omnicentric evolutionary universe, a developing reality which from the beginning is centered upon itself at each place of its existence. In this universe of ours to be in existence is to be at the cosmic centre of the complexifying whole.
"If there are Hubble-like beings in the Hercules Cluster of galaxies, seven hundred million light-years away, and such creatures are pondering the universe from that perspective, they will also discover that the galaxies in the universe are moving away from them. They will thus conclude on the basis of this evidence that they are at the centre of the universe's expansion, and they will be correct." (Swimme)
What an incredible universe!
As an additional note, I prefer to use the words 'the universe' instead of 'God'. Not as an inert space where things happen, but as the active gifting and promise of all, of redemption. Universe. Uni-verse. One verse. One song. How beautiful! (See Tolkien's creation story in the Silmarillion for an incredible myth of creation-song)
1. I think it was Aristotle that wrote of the unmoved mover in his "Metaphysics".
ReplyDelete2. Aren't we working (at least according to Paul) to make God omni in omni (all in all)? But I understand you don't want all the Greek baggage.
3. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that you prefer to say "the universe" instead of "God". What makes the universe more than an inert space? What makes it gift and promise? Is the universe inherently good?
1. Ah, my mistake. Yes, it was Aristotle. I admit I have never properly studied any of the ancients and so easily get confused between them. And generally blame everything on Plato (MMols, kill me now), even tho I think I prefer him to Aristotle. I also blame Augustine at lot, but not here. :)
ReplyDelete2. Yeah, it's the Greek baggage I want to distance from.
3. I think things like the universe's creativity (the quantum foam bubbling forth (that is far from inert)) is a good thing. At least, creativity is better than non-creativity in my view. I don't want to nail down the universe, and I don't like the word/concept 'inherently', but yes, I guess I am saying that the universe is more good than evil. I think it has direction, purpose, desire (for becoming all-in-all), gift and promise that nothing (or no-one) gives to it, but it has it in itself. Because there is nothing but it.
I guess many would say this is straight pantheism, but I think that it is panentheism because the universe (God) is made manifest in different degrees in different things, times, people and places. But maybe that's more of a nuanced pantheism than panentheism? (Who admits to being a pantheist anyway?)
Well, you are right about a Mols taking offense at your Plato scape-goating (You probably have to worry more about me, anyway...). Reading a text recently about the pervasiveness of metaphor (this may help with thinking of God as the Universe, but I'm still not sold on that...)--I have come to appreciate metaphor as something that we live out of. Plato, as (arguably) the most proficient practitioner of metaphor in all of philosophy, should be one we strive to emulate instead of castigate, but that's just me. The metaphors of life that he chose to see may not be ones that we hold today (a lot has changed in a couple thousand years), but thinking about the metaphors we live by is a fruitful and important project, both for epistemology and for ontology.
ReplyDeleteWhat metaphors are we choosing to live by? One interesting one that English speakers use linguistically, and (again, arguably) live by has to do with the way we think of (talk about) time. (I think you and Nik will like this, Stu) By saying things like, "In the weeks following..." (meaning the future) as well as "In the coming weeks..." (again meaning the future), we conceive of time in a dual fashion; the future is moving toward us, just as we are moving into the future. The future future is behind the future, just as much as it is in front of it.
What do you think?
I would like Plato if everyone took him to be saying "Live out of metaphor" or used him in that way. But they generally don't. I'm very much getting into living out of metaphor, and consciously choosing what metaphors to live out of.
ReplyDeleteI like the future thing, it's good to point out that kind of language. I'm currently struggling with the whole thing, trying to get my head around it for my IDS essay. So thanks. :)
You say, "I would like Plato if everyone took him to be saying "Live out of metaphor" or used him in that way. But they generally don't." (ok, everyone knows that) but, I don't see why that means you should hate Plato then, just disagree with the people that misinterpret him (like we vigilant Platonists are doing all the time!) Maybe if YOU start "using him in that way" then you will see better how to contradict the misreadings.
ReplyDeleteI also have great problems with how people see Jesus, and use him to further hate, injustice, exclusion, war, etc. The are some parts that I like about Jesus, esp. when I read the gospels (which is pretty rarely), and there are some things I like about Plato (critique of the city, etc.) However, because of the general way both of these are used, I have difficulty saying I like them, as to so many that would mean that I like the normal interpretations of them.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Jesus reveals God to me very much, if at all, because of how he has been used and how Western culture has interpreted (and dumbed-down) his message over 2500 years. Our very language is based off making sure we interpret what Jesus does/says so that we can think we fit within his 'good books'. Similarly for Plato, our way of thinking is based of many of the things Plato says, and as far as I can see our general way of thinking has resulted in devastating evil that is causing the earth herself to die.
I'm currently writing a post that talks about letting language die when it is no longer useful, instead of constantly trying to give it life-extensions. I think we may somewhat do the same for people like Jesus and Plato too. Sydney Carter's Anonymous puts this thought nicely:
The Jesus who
keeps saying 'I am Jesus,
look at me,
there is no substitute'
is an impostor, Do not trust
the Christian cult of
personality, I came
to turn you on and not
to turn you off,
to make you free and not
to tie you up.
My yoke was easy and
my burden light
until they made
salvation copyright, and
all in the name of Jesus.
So forget
my name was ever Jesus.
From now on
I am anonymous.