Living Water

Sitting in church one day, listening to an explication of the 47th chapter of Ezekiel*, I had an epiphany. I wouldn't call it groundbreaking or revolutionary, but I do think it is a statement most people would deny and yet find a million different ways to say precisely the same thing. Our obsession with Greek metaphysics and centuries of cultural biases in language and ideology have made this simple assertion into something akin to a blasphemy. Our God is the God of chaos. First, I would point out that avoiding this conclusion requires some very careful theology as so long as we admit to the presence of Chaos in the Universe, and we accept God as Lord over all, then He must have a purpose for it.

In ancient cultures, especially those surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (ie Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Babylon, etc.), water was frequently used as a symbol for two things: purification and chaos. Ponder that one for a moment.

Water is always on the move. Rain forms ponds, ponds overflow into streams, streams form rivers, rivers run into seas or oceans, currents move that water around until it once again evaporates back into the sky. When water stops moving, it does one of two things: it either stagnates or it evaporates to start its journey all over again. Water is perhaps one of the most chaotic natural elements we experience. The expression "you can never step into the same river twice" is very true, because the river has no stable existence. It is not 'ordered' in any real sense of the word. Like water, our lives are chaotic, and necessarily so. No two days are exactly the same, no matter how hard we try to make them seem that way sometimes. When our lives become stagnant, they lose meaning. We need new experiences, new joys and even sorrows if they're meaningful. Newness is always chaotic, but newness of life is exactly what we are called to.

The entire notion of choice hinges on chaos. Choice implies there is no mechanical order to reality. On the larger scale, science seems to be backing up this very point. Quantum physics continues to side with the unpredictability of the universe. Decades ago, the Uncertainty Principle showed it impossible to ascertain both the location and the velocity of a subatomic particle. Recent discoveries seem to show every particle blinking in and out of existence, so not only can we not grasp components, but we can never be sure when they are even truly there. However, the grand scale at which we experience these infinite chaotic events appears to be relatively stable. Sufficient chaotic events, when viewed together, miraculously turn into miraculously stable patterns. It need not be this way, but so it is. Perhaps more interestingly, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (chaos for all intents and purposes) always increases. Today, there is more chaos in the universe than there was yesterday. Unless there is some major change, it seems that our entire cosmos is designed to slowly creep into greater and greater levels of chaos, until eventually it will need to be remade into a new heaven and a new earth. Conveniently, God told this to people centuries ago, and now we're realizing at a slightly different level what that means.

We have created elaborate theologies to evade the simple assertion that God is chaos as well as order. The critical feature is that God is living water, not stagnant pools. The majority of our frustration comes from our unwillingness to accept chaotic events in life, and through that frustration God calls us to to be washed over by chaos and come out clean, vibrant, and joyfully prepared to begin new work. Water breaks up dirt and grime, and our baptism in it is designed to break apart our preconceived notions of how the universe is supposed to work, our psychological walls which prevent us from loving one another, and our hardened sense of self so that we can enter into something greater. Chaos is central to our significance as beings, and is central to God's activity in our lives. In a universe of escalating chaos, the teachings of Christianity, and the acceptance therein of the chaos around us, becomes increasingly critical for our spiritual survival.


*Ezekiel 47:1-12

The man brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar. He then brought me out through the north gate and led me around the outside to the outer gate facing east, and the water was flowing from the south side. As the man went eastward with a measuring line in his hand, he measured off a thousand cubits and then led me through water that was ankle-deep. He measured off another thousand cubits and led me through water was knee deep. He measured off another thousand and led me through water that was up to the waist. He measured off another thousand, but now it was a river that I could not cross, because the water had risen and was deep enough to swim in -- a river that no one could cross. he asked me, "Son of man, do you see this?" Then he led me back to the bank of the river. When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. He said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Sea. When it empties into the Sea, the water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds -- like the fish of the Great Sea. But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt. Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for good and their leaves for healing."

Farmageddon

I've always been fascinated by the notion of original sin. Augustine believed that original sin was derived from sex, as this was an inherently idolatrous act, and yet it is through this idolatry that all humans come into existence. While interesting, and to some degree perhaps intellecutally defensible, I have a hard time accepting this. The original sin was outright disobedience, which produced a social and intellectual change, perpetuated without intention or action. As such, humanity's sinful nature, like its Fall, must be something more earth-shattering and yet mundane. The toxic fruit taken from the tree of knowledge was not likely a metaphor for embracing our carnal nature. I would argue instead that it was an abandonment of that nature. "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17) The emphasis is on the tree itself, and that which makes the tree unique. It is a tree of knowledge, and when eaten from, will cause death. My assertion is that humankind, not God, created that tree. The original sin was not consumption, but production. Farming.

The moment humanity was able to control food production, it began to provide for its own welfare rather than relying on Providence. It was the moment when humanity could pretend God was not the sole provider, but that it could truly be like God and bring forth life from the soil. It was arrogant, open defiance to the benevolent Creator. And most certainly, this was a knowledge that could not be undone. The moment it was known, it was unforgettable. More importantly, it was not forgotten. Life became about more than simple, fundamental survival. Agriculture fundamentally altered the human psyche, and eternally changed human society.

Agriculture was developed in a area known as the fertile crescent, which is the modern day region known as the Middle East. Somewhere around 9000 BCE, hunter-gatherer tribes began building permanent settlements and tending the earth. Populations rapidly grew too large to be supported by hunting and gathering, and thus humanity became totally dependent on tending the soil. In order to fashion farming implements and create adequate housing, forests were felled and minerals quarried. Eventually, groups came into contact and began competing for resources. Originally, a population could never grow enough to be a burden. In fact, having a large population helped gather effectively and hunt efficiently. Now, populations became necessary liabilities, and the best job for a necessary liability is a dangerous one. Able-bodied individuals could be conscripted to serve the tribe by attacking opposing groups who posed a threat, or controlled meaningful resources. Eventually, society became what we see today.

And what do we see today? Death would be a good description. Not necessarily in the individual, physical sense. Had we never tasted the fruit, individuals would still be born and eventually die. What we see today is a twofold type of death: the death of the planet, and the death of our souls. Civilization has rapidly consumed the world's resources, slowly destroying it through environmental degredation. More frighteningly, it is literally in our power to cause the death of everything on this planet. There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to completely obliterate it, and release enough radiation to finish off whatever may have somehow survived the explosions. Personally, I see this as the flashier but ultimately less important kind of death. Far worse is the spiritual death that is slowly taking over the developed world, that is, the world farthest from the earliest form of society. This goes far beyond the growth of atheism. In fact, the shallow spirituality of many who still identify with religious traditions is far more problematic. At any rate, this is the rational conclusion to "civilization." As God becomes less obvious and, in a pragmatic way, less necessary, our connection to the Divine becomes weaker. We are dying as a species, and dying as spiritual entities. Those deaths are far worse than the natural death of an individual, which is of little concern given the hereafter.

And so, I conclude. What has been credited as being humanity's second greatest discovery (I'll give making fire first) farming is in actuality humanities first great sin, and the beginning of our slow and agonizing death. This is not something that can be undone, nor should we consider trying. Instead, we must recognize the nature of our condition, and seek to live as simply and faithfully as possible. In the end, there will be a new creation. Let us make the best of this one until we get to the next.

Amateur Atheists

There are few things that annoy me more than atheists who seek to intellectually destroy any hope for faith and yet have never put much thought into their own assertions. As of late, the topic of concern has been social moral order. I will begin with the caveat that even under religious doctrines, the details of morality are less than ideally clear, and oftentimes the basic tenents of religion have been misused in such a fashion as to utterly obliterate basic principles. However, my intention is to show that there is at least a hope for some form of stable moral order under Christianity which is not feasible sans divinity.

Nietzsche understood the difficulty of eschewing God from the scope of human society. The terror of nihilism was a powerful force to overcome, and many simply do not have the mental fortitude necessary to do so. Modern atheists seem intent on saying that humanity could let go of the 'shackles' of religion and continue as normal. Unfortunately, this positions fails to consider two critical components of moral order: an ethical scale, and ramifications when ethical principles are violated.

First, we look at the ethical scale of good versus evil. At the moment, there seems to be some general agreement about basic ideas of what constitutes an appropriate activity and what does not. Killing someone who insults your mother is perhaps not the best course of action, and forcing a child to participate in sexual activity is typically frowned upon. On what basis, however, do we call these things 'bad' or 'wrong'? If the only thing determining this is our own instincts, our own drive for survival, there is nothing evil about it. Perhaps we could argue these things are inconvenient or inefficient, but this is hardly the same thing in my mind. Right and wrong beg for some kind of greater sense of appropriateness. To eschew the divine and make gods of ourselves, we now face the task of redefining all that is appropriate. The inertia of society has never been enough to deter opportunists, and further invalidating notions of right and wrong simply open the door for everyone to define these concepts on their own. With no reference point, my ideas of appropriate are equally as valid as anyone else's. Any attempt to create general principles around the furtherance of human society at large depends wholly upon one's concept of the goal of society at large, and thus is just as fluid. With God, we can at the least say there is a fairly concrete basis for morality, and simply continue to argue about the details rather than ask if the system can exist at all.

While religions tend to be murky about what precisely good and evil are, they are quite adept at saying what happens if you do evil. Heaven and Hell, in various forms, are present in virtually every system. This is primarily a question of incentive. If I do something wrong, what is the cosmic response? Without any form of divine response, there is no reason to do what is right. If we were able to peer into our genetic code and find inscripted therein the ten commandments of sociobiology, many would say we could function off of that. I contend that, without ultimate ramifications, there is no reason to do good. Survival is not enough of an incentive for some, and most of the time wrong seems to be rewarded anyways. Even if the activity is such that one does risk life and limb, a good chance of being able to avoid punishment may overcome that fear. Damnation has never been enough to hold back everyone, but at the very least there is some kind of knowledge that this is the possible result of their actions. Take away all punishment, and all the incentive to do good is gone. Whether or not I should do everything, I can do everything, and that 'freedom' is a dangerous thing for all of us.

Most counter arguments that I have heard stem from a single argument: humanity is better than that. I would love to agree, but I simply can't. Intellectuals like to assume that most people are as intelligent as them and compassionate people like to assume that most people are as generous as them. These assumptions are well-intentioned, but far too often outside of the scope of statistical reality. Overwhelmingly, humanity is ignorant and self-seeking when it has the opportunity to be so. I'm not saying we are by nature evil. I wholly believe that humanity is by nature neutral. Unfortunately, it is much easier to recognize the benefits of evil, and even harder to counter them.

Thus, I conclude. Moral order cannot be sustained without a greater reality as its source. If one wishes to argue it is possible, the entire notion of good and evil must be tossed out the window and reconstructed. Then, whatever results from that must be made so potently enforced in this world that no one dares transgress. Even this may not mitigate the purposelessness felt by most people who cannot construct for themselves a reality with sufficient meaning to live in. The fall of religion is, in my humble opinion, the fall of society as we know it.