They worry that if universalism is true, we have no free will–and that therefor life is meaningless. But they are wrong. In universalism, it is assured that each of us shall arrive at heaven; but perhaps how and when we get there is up to us. In that is the story of each of us, our meaning. One may watch a play knowing it is a comedy or a tragedy, and therefor knowing that certain important things about the end are inevitable. Does that make the play meaningless? Does it spoil it for us? Indeed, perhaps the inevitability of a certain kind of ending is the very thing that gives the rest of the play its meaning.
ON THE NECESSITY OF A GENERAL RESURRECTION OF THE WORLD
In these grim and dangerous times the forces of darkness conspire to make us despair and write ourselves off.
The problem with a conservative, or should we even say mainstream Christian eschatology, is that it implies that whereas resurrection is understood as overcoming death, as the person coming back from the dead with new life and new existence, thereby defeating death, there is no such equivalent for the world as such. (By “world” here I mean the world God made, and which has been transformed or built upon by us in history for better or worse.) That is, the commonly held eschatological attitudes seem to imply not that the world will die and be resurrected, but that it will die permanently, and be replaced by a new world. Though this new Earth may be immortal, the one it replaced will be dead forever. But in that sense and problematically, death’s victory over the world will be sealed as permanent. The individual my rise from the grave triumphant, but the world he or she had lived in will have been condemned forever.
Religion thus often exhorts us to be better people, to give over this sin or that one, to be more loving, or faithful, or truthful, or whatever. It does not claim that moral perfection is possible this side of the grave, but does say improvement is possible, and commanded by God. But at the same time, any real improvement in the politics of the world, its economic or social structures, is usually rejected by religion as either being in vain, or even outright blasphemous: an attempt to force the coming of God’s kingdom before God’s own good time.
But are our deeds, great and small, in the course of human history of any consequence in the long run, or are they not? Do we have ultimately no place in the creation as actual creators, or as J.R.R. Tolkien might have put it, sub-creators? Or must we as a species be stripped clean of all history and reformatted with entirely new programs, rendering the previous ones not only forgotten but vanished without a trace?
I am not talking about “salvation by works,” but the salvation of works. Do our works, our lives, our history as a species, have meaning or not? Nor can this question be escaped by asserting our works have nothing to do with our salvation. Might not works be important in the eyes of God without saving anybody?
If there is not some form of continuity between the dead person or world on the one hand, and the resurrected person or world on the other, there is no resurrection. Parents having another child after the first one dies is no victory over death, and no salvation of the dead child. Nor will it undo their grief, no matter how much they may be rejuvenated or rejoice in their new offspring. The idea of healing the deep family wound simply by replacing the beloved is obscene.
Likewise, there is something profoundly nihilistic in believing in resurrection of the individual, but not of the world. Individuals do not exist as such, detached from the world, any more than we find healthy rosebushes floating about in outer space. What makes the rose what it is, is in part its connection to its world via soil, light, water and air, all the surrounding insects and microorganism that are a part of its life. Likewise, if we are, as St. Paul says, organs in Christ’s body, then it is true as Donne says that “no man is an island, entire of itself.” For the full salvation of the individual, the salvation or redemption—not mere replacement–of the world is needed.
If there is no new Earth, a resurrected Earth that is, a reborn Earth, then what we have is fertile ground for frustrated and vengeful fantasies of annihilation. The Christian eschatologist writes for himself permission to look upon the destruction of the world with glee, as if he will be standing aside with hands on hips, nodding in approval as an ancient enemy gets its comeuppance. (Christian eschatology is far too often a way of allowing a sickening misanthropy hide out in the open.) We give ourselves permission to shit on the creation, even to destroy it, because, after all, it is doomed to eternal nonexistence in any case.
It is deeply revolting and an offense to reason to assert that while charity to the poor is smiled upon by the Lord, the improvement of economic systems such that such charity is not so much needed is seen as some kind of impiety.
God’s creation was and is good. And it is to be saved. And if we as individuals are to be saved, what we have made in this world, however much may have to be cast into the flames either for destruction or purification, was not given into our power to make only for us to make it in vain.
But in effect, with this mainstream eschatology, it is implied that we are to be like transplanted rosebushes. In so far as we thought we saw God in the world around us, even though we were also conscious of its terrible corruption, we were apparently deluded.
If history is to be wiped out, then it was always and already meaningless. Everything we have ever done is of no significance. But if that is so, why the relentless nagging of scripture and conscience to do this thing and not do that thing?
A priority of being over doing I can understand and tend to agree with. But the annihilation of the deed is nihilism.
AN ABYSS OF SEEMING OPPOSITES
One might describe the relationship of the human race to God, in Christianity, as deeply neurotic. But indeed, how could it be otherwise?
Consider how God must be, in effect, an abyss of apparently opposite extremes. On the one hand, there is the intolerance of evil, the demand for perfection, the insistence that all shall be as it should be, according to his divine and infallible will. There is the anger at sin and injustice, and so on. No one, at least, no one who is unrepentant, will get away with anything. As the guilt-ridden Claudius says,
In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ‘tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ‘tis not so above.
There is no shuffling; there the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence. (Hamlet 3:3:57-64)
On the other side of the equation there is the infinite forgiveness of even the worst and least excusable of human offenses, the implacable insistence on forgiveness and salvation, mercy to those whom even the most merciful of us could not forgive, even though every pain, every injustice, every indignity ever inflicted on any human being—from the most to the least deserving of them—is always and also suffering for the Almighty who is doing that forgiving.
It is a commonplace that we cannot comprehend God, but what I have just outlined above is one of the infinite ways in which this is so. Therefor, faced with a God who is implacably against us and will never overlook the least of our sins, but at the same time a God who takes our side passionately against the retribution we have set ourselves up for, how can we possibly perceive this God accurately? It is as if we stand in the middle of a road which recedes from us infinitely in both directions. For he is the fierce advocate of flaming sword, but also the one who bleeds and who feels more for the bleeding and for those who blood them than any of us can imagine.
So, we cannot imagine him. And that means, according to our individual situations and temperaments, we are inclined either to see him as a monster of rage and punishment, one who can never be even a little happy with us, let alone satisfied, or some simpering milquetoast who can do nothing but groan impotently on a cross and offer excuses for our every failure, making no demands on anyone at all. The first version presents himself to us as a terror, and the second version is powerless.
God is too big for us to perceive him–except perhaps in rare moments of illumination—in any way other than one of these two distorted ways. The contradiction is not in God, but our smallness. Nor is the truth, I think, a simple matter of finding a “happy middle,” though from the point of view of daily life, that approach may be useful. But I think the truth in this matter is somewhat beyond us.
One must be careful of trying too hard to make sense of God.
ARISTOCRACY
When aristocracy as such became discredited, people still found in themselves a desire, acknowledged or not, to look down on somebody. It is the old sin of pride. Just because aristocracy is abolished or muted does not mean its proud and ancient desires disappear. If they cannot achieve satisfaction in the old political structures, they shall find new ways.
And so, much of the 19th to 21st centuries’ opposition to “modernity,” however defined, may owe some of its existence to the old desire to feel superior. The aristocrat of the spirit looks down on the NOW in the name of the PAST. He cannot, perhaps even in his own eyes, despise openly in the name of “blood,” or even class, and maintain credibility. But he can cook up some theory—even one which may have considerable truth in it—wherein he stands by the past over and against the present. Thus, he can despise all and sundry about him as the benighted commoners in effect, those who do not understand or appreciate the old ways. This is a source of tremendous satisfaction. The other type of snob, the one who despises the past in the name of the present, must be content to despise the dead. It is much harder in this situation to pose as the brave knight living in enemy territory but soldiering on nonetheless. To cast one’s attack broadly against “modernity” can be to gloat in one’s superiority in the face of an enemy whose power outstrips one’s own (while, in effect, living in no greater danger than anyone else); this is more gratifying to the ego than to gloat over a helpless corpse.
C.S. LEWIS’S PHILOSOPHY OF HELL AND A NEW WORLD
C.S. Lewis never wrote about politics very much, but in the eighteenth letter of The Screwtape Letters he has his devil, Screwtape, say the following:
The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses. Even an inanimate object is what it is by excluding all other objects from the space it occupies; if it expands, it does so by thrusting other objects aside or by absorbing them. A self does the same. With beasts the absorption takes the form of eating; for us, it means the sucking of will and freedom out of a weaker self into a stronger. ‘To be’ means ‘ to be in competition’.
This philosophy could be seen as what has always been the dominant politics of the world—or the sin of pride in its structural or corporate manifestation—whether the rulers were soldiers, priests, hereditary aristocrats, or business people. Capitalism, with its “war of all against all,” its social Darwinism, is the locus of the Devil’s philosophy in the current age.
Many Christians simply accept Churchill’s dictum that history is “just one damned thing after another.” Whatever he meant by that, they see it as an essentially meaningless and contemptible series of events and eagerly await the Christ to come back and wipe it all out, taking us to heaven. They are disappointed in life, and want it to be punished. And for what they imagine to be their admirable otherworldliness, they think they shall be rewarded with a new world that has no connection to and very little similarity to this one.
What is a resurrection? It is a rebirth, a new person, but a person not entirely discontinuous with the old person. It is the old person who has died but is transfigured and reborn. Otherwise, there is no resurrection, but simply the death of one person followed by his or her replacement by another who is entirely someone else.
Thus it is, I believe, with the new Earth that is destined to be born.
The Christian’s approach to history should not be that of an unloving parent troubled by a chronically and seriously sick child, hopefully counting the days down to when that child shall die and the parent be presented with a healthy replacement. The parent wants the child to be saved, not replaced, and this is what we should want for the world—not just for the individuals within it.
Much of Christian eschatology, unfortunately, is simply a disguised desire for genocide, geocide, even.
HELL IS POLITICAL
Many of the early Christians were very cheerful, very good, very fearless. There was a real danger they might have no fear of death; and this would never do. Christ came to defeat sin and death, and death is a much reduced master if he is not feared. Fortunately, there was an answer: the Christians’ faith in the resurrection could not be easily shaken; but it could be more easily twisted.
Enter hell. The solution was simple. If people do not fear anything in this life because their deepest faith is in the life to come, make that life to come uncertain: not by denying its reality, but by making that reality potentially terrifying. Tell them that they very well will live forever after they die, but that they must step very carefully in this life or end up in perpetual torment.
And so death, the retreating ancien regime, poisoned the wells for the advancing revolutionaries who were overthrowing him; he re-established his foothold on Earth in the very midst of a church that was to lead the revolution against him. For now, Christians again lived in fear. And their fear of the next world gave them all the vices and weaknesses people experience when their fears are only of this one.
The pagan world of the Middle East had believed in a dark and shadowy afterlife, a world of shades and shadows, of ghostly spirits who had forgotten their Earthly lives and wandered forever in gloom. This miserable fate had been thought to await all but a few privileged ones favoured by the gods for whatever reason. But now, after the victory of Christ, this shadowy underworld was superseded in its misery and terror by the Christian hell.
Thus it is that in wars and revolutions, the enemy puts up such resistance that one looks back longingly, like the Hebrews in the desert after leaving Pharoah, upon a time that was miserable, but less miserable than now. Would it not have been better to make bricks without straw under a tyrant than be where we are now? Would it not have been better to submit to death, its power and propaganda, to be “realistic” and bow to his “natural” reign, than rebel and find ourselves cast into the flames?
But not so fast. For death never had power to make a hell, only the fear of it. Death never cast us into the flames but only into the fear of them. Death has enlisted us against ourselves in his war against us, and we need not commit this self-betrayal. Nor need we believe that the rise of hell as a propaganda pinion of the Church was ever inevitable, or, even if inevitable, need we see it as anything other than a tremendous bluff, which itself is doomed inevitably to fall.
Hell is decidedly political.
ON MERIT AND CAPITAL
We are often told to beware those who seek the easy way. But I would add, beware those who accept only the hard way, for they have chosen to make the accumulation of merit the focus, even the whole point, of their lives. Merit thrives on difficulty—indeed, cannot be produced without it.
And what is merit? Let us not confuse it with virtue. Virtue, or perhaps virtues in the plural, might be described as the powers to do or be good. Analogously, a person might go for a walk to sustain or improve her powers of locomotion. Of course, going for a walk can be, should be, of itself a good thing. So, her walk has two purposes then. But what if she views her walk as meritorious as well? Merit comes in when she expects something from some unspecified or transcendent source for this action, as opposed to simply improved health or the pleasure of a Summer’s day. She might not even expect to get this something. She may be satisfied with, even prefer, that she simply deserve it. A debt is owed her, and that debt takes no particular form, but is in fact pure debt.
Of course, if she is religious, she will likely be thinking of receiving God’s commendation. But it is not necessary for her to be at all religious in order to have, even if not consciously, an almost religious devotion to her own merit. Lacanian psychology, for example, speaks of the “Big Other,” an entity in the psyche for whom one is in effect performing, whom one wishes to impress. This entity could be God, a parent, a historical figure, an influential person from one’s life, etc.
In critiquing merit, I do not intend to disparage the general idea of an exchange in favor of some more altruistic or unselfish motive for doing everything. That is not the issue here. What is at stake is this quasi-mystical bartering as the center of life: that is to say, a frame of mind which says I have the power of doing good, and will choose to exercise it to gain this ghostly merit: in other words, to put the beyond into my debt.
For merit is nothing of itself (again, it is not to be confused with virtue, or with good character, for example) but is rather, a kind of promissory note.
And in this sense, merit is much like money—is perhaps its foundation or prototype, or progenitor. They have similar tendencies, especially when we look at money in capitalism. Merit might be described as value in the spiritual realm, without being spirit, just as capital is value in the material realm without being material.
For in capitalism, one increases one’s capital for this reason: to invest and in turn increase one’s capital further, and to no known limit. Capital, which can be used rationally to purchase use values, is used to increase itself, and to that end in itself, rather than to the purchase of more use values. Use values are subordinated to exchange values in the most idiotic and indeed nihilistic philosophy humanity may yet have devised.
Likewise, with merit. Those who seek merit do not desire to trade it for something else they supposedly really want. They want the merit itself.
The pursuit of merit, which may actually be, or at least bear a strong connection to the sin of pride, is the spiritual foundation of the very material practice of capitalism. (Why is pride a sin? Perhaps because it seeks to put God in one’s debt, and therefor completely misunderstands the nature of God and humanity.) Many generations before Adam Smith or his contemporaries, religious people of various sorts were pursuing merit. The wiser amongst them would be alert to this tendency in themselves, this wandering from the path of virtue, in effect, and adjust themselves accordingly as far as possible.
But just as merit is a ghostly thing, a promissory note that can never keep its promise, so is capital. Pride and capital know no natural bounds, and thus, as we see in environmental destruction, for example, destroy nature itself.
ACCEPTANCE AND “REALISM”
A Buddhistic or Tollean acceptance of what is is worlds apart from “realism.” “Realism”–an ideological word if ever there was one–is idolatry towards all negativity in what is. Realism sneakily and in a cowardly manner (all the while swaggering about—it is impossible to use the word “realism” without at least a hint of swagger) conflates that which simply is with that which is not as we would like it. To be “real,” something must be opposed to us, thwarting us, and the “realist” therefore is a tough guy who can “face” all this. Realism is not the honest knowledge or acceptance of something negative, but the denial that anything that is not negative could be entirely real. Realism is the worship of a dark god, the modern version of a now quaint and rather annoying Satanism. The stupid vulgarity of pentagrams, animal-headed people, and bloody sacrifice is replaced with an equally vulgar and stupid salute to despair. Realism is active, arrogant, worshipful failure, and hates or despises all who do not get on board. The realist, like many who are intimidated and dominated by a bully, is humiliated by the very existence of those who are not, and is compelled to discount them as “naïve.”
One needs to learn how to say, “so it is” with neither swagger nor self-abasement.
DAVID GRAEBER AND CAPITALIST HOPELESSNESS
Coming close to the end of David Graeber’s marvellous Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011) I encountered the following:
How did we get here? My own suspicion is that we are looking at the final effects of the militarization of American capitalism itself. In fact, it could well be said that the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At its root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world—in response to the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s—with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, flourish, or propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police, various forms of private security firms and military intelligence apparatus, and propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy. Maintaining this apparatus seems even more important to exponents of the “free market,” even than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain what happened in the former Soviet Union? One would ordinarily have imagined that the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and the KGB and the rebuilding of the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around. This is just an extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, the apparatus is just a drag on the system; all those guns, surveillance cameras, and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and don’t really produce anything, and no doubt it’s yet another element dragging the entire capitalist system down—along with producing the illusion of an endless capitalist future that laid the groundwork for the endless bubbles to begin with. Finance capital became the buying and selling of chunks of that future, and economic freedom, for most of us, was reduced to the right to buy a small piece of one’s own permanent subordination.
In other words, there seems to have been a profound contradiction between the political imperative of establishing capitalism as the only possible way to manage anything, and capitalism’s own unacknowledged need to limit its future horizons, lest speculation, predictably, go haywire. Once it did, and the whole machine imploded, [Graeber seems to be referring to the 2008 financial meltdown here] we were left in the strange situation of not being able to even imagine any other way that things might be arranged. About the only thing we can imagine is catastrophe.
But what has brought this situation about? Let me assert that in the West at least, the two great systems of hope, as we may call them, have been Christianity and socialism—perhaps most specifically, Marxism. Socialism has been betrayed by many of its so-called friends and alleged proponents in the form of party dictatorships, while being ruthlessly stamped out in hearts, minds, and the world by its enemy, capital. Christianity has been co-opted by worldly power largely into two camps: an ostensibly apolitical religion concerned solely with private faith and individual salvation on the one hand, and on the other hand a grotesque corruption of the Word of God into an aggressively and absurdly pro-capitalist, even fascist direction. This perverse politics is not even a parody of Christianity, but an outright contradiction. American Christian fundamentalism is as much a contradiction of Christianity as the Soviet Union was of Socialism (see Noam Chomsky, “The Soviet Union Versus Socialism”).
We are accustomed to looking at politics in terms of “Right” and “Left.” This is useful. (Of course, these useful labels are also routinely abused out of dishonesty or ignorance, as when the corporate media and those who use it as their only source of information refer to Democrats or liberals as “the Left”—cavalierly waiving socialism, communism, anarchism and anyone who actually is a leftist out of existence, or perhaps pretending that Hilary Clinton’s views are but a hairsbreadth to the right of Karl Marx’s). However, we might also look at politics in terms of hope versus despair.
For it is only the Left, whether secular or religious, that has offered us any hope. The Right is another matter. Whereas the Left says that we can change things fundamentally, and for the better, such hopes tend to bring sneers of contempt to the faces of the Right, which proudly invokes “realism,” or perhaps “human nature,” or “the will of God” as in Luther’s conviction that the Almighty had given power and authority to the princes and so on. On a theological level, the religious wing of the Left sees God as working not only in some otherworldly heaven, but has plans for this world, that may well include upheaval and revolution, but do not include writing the world off.
On the specifically religious plane, Left and Right are literally worlds apart. The religious Left takes seriously the Biblical claim that “God so loved the world…” but the religious Right can’t wait to see him turn it into a fire pit. Paradoxically, while the Right is therefor very otherworldly (in a most unhealthy sense) it preaches what is in fact a worldly gospel that absolutely loses sight of the poor and oppressed, handing over power and authority to the rich: the very people scripture most often castigates.
Despair is a choice, and it is political.
For what “liberals,” the “woke” or “politically correct,” for all their faults–real, imagined or exaggerated–have in common is a belief that we can and therefor should improve things in major ways, that merely tinkering with the status quo is not enough. The endless tirades since the late 80s or early 90s about “PC” and how everyone, apparently, is held in holy terror of its hysterical dictates mask what is in fact a deeper fear: that we can and therefor must change the world.
Hope can be frightening.
What really pains the Right is the possibility that that liberal/leftist realm is actually pointing out our real responsibilities, and our real powers, if we but use them. And this call to action, if correct, alleviates us all from our excuses to do nothing.
That is the real terror: responsibility.
But in fact, the problem runs deeper, and is more interesting than that. A politics of mere responsibility, though it would be an immense improvement over the slash and burn mentality of capital, has the same weakness as religion does when it loses its heart and degenerates into phariseeism. “Thou shalt not,” in the long run, or “thou shalt” does not have the staying power in public or personal life that is needed for real change. A genuine sense of ethical responsibility easily degenerates into a prim and censorious temperament, and lacks the power needed to overcome the darker elements of individuals or systems.
And what the Left and Right have often had in common is this phariseeism.
What is the answer? Perhaps I should leave that discussion for a later post.
THE ODDS OF SALVATION
They say that humans must have free will to be important, to love and be loved. Therefor, it is inevitable some will choose to reject God. And choosing to reject God is to put oneself in hell.
Therefor, they say, hell is justified.
But is it actually inevitable, given the free wills of billions of souls, that some will reject God? What is this “inevitable” mathematically speaking? What percentage of the total number of souls should we expect will be saved given this inevitability? 50%? 25%? 1%? Even given billions of souls, is a 25% salvation rate more likely than 100%? If one flips a coin 100 times one can predict mathematically what the odds are it will be heads every time. The odds that it will be heads 50 times are presumably much greater. But a coin is a known quantity. Its result is random (the random is not predictable, except in a broad statistical sense) not freely chosen. The odds against it turning up heads 100 times out of 100 are extremely low. If we treat free souls like flipped coins, it seems impossible that all shall be saved. But are we not, in assuming a significant number of lost souls, making a mistake in treating them like flipped coins? Must freedom be unpredictable? Random? Arbitrary?
Does freedom operate according to the laws of chance? And if not, why should all being saved be less likely than, say, half?
Why could not the perfect freedom of all guarantee the salvation of all? What is the more likely result, and how do we know?
POSTED JULY 31, 2023