Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Theology and the Future of Humanity - a sketch for a lecture

What will become of us? Or, what will we become? Or, lest the notion of ‘becoming’ sound too passive: what can we become? There is no doubt that the destiny of humanity is rushing up to meet us at a speed unprecedented in human history. We are closer to the future than we ever have been before. A number of meta-narratives compete to describe the future of humanity. Some are infra-historical, and describe the future of human being, in progressive terms, as moving from glory to glory. The genre of this narrative is epic, with Adam cast as the epic hero emerging triumphant from the struggle of history. Others are apocalyptic, and describe the future in terms of an often disastrous rupture with the present, usually on account of human evil or ineptitude. Adam is cast in this narrative as a tragic protagonist, victim of his own nature.

These descriptions of the future of humanity may be religious or materialist. However, in neither type of story is the other possibility adequately described. The progressivist narrative (‘epic’) cannot account for the brute historical fact of human recidivism. The apocalyptic vision (‘tragic’) is deeply misanthropic, and in denial about the remarkable achievements of human beings. Both story-types are forms of an idealism which into which the actual human experience must be squeezed without remainder – which explains why they are currently in unresolved combat.

We can illustrate this from a reading of UK author Zadie Smith’s 2000 novel White Teeth. Smith’s rich, sprawling, picaresque narrative of late twentieth century London is a telling description of life in a post-colonial Western city, where human identity is being re-shaped in the multicultural melting-pot. The novel humorously presents and critiques several competing futurisms – religious, political and scientific. For Smith, human destiny is not something we have a lot of say over. We may have small prisms of choice, but for thoroughly postmodern Zadie, to claim to have a uniform explanation, whether it be religious or rationalist, flies in the “teeth” of the hilarious that is happening all around us. In the words of those other misanthropes Radiohead: “we’re all accidents waiting to happen.” We are after all, victims of the random. The best future humans, for Smith, are those that don’t succumb to some fanatical programme for change, but just love. Smith’s answer to the tension between ‘epic’ and ‘tragic’ stories is ‘comic’. For her, Adam is a clown.
What then of ‘theology’? In a sense all of these narratives are ‘theological’, whether explicitly so or not. A Christian theology, however, presents a point from which both kinds of narrative may be subject to critique. Much of Smith’s critical vision finds itself endorsed from a Christian theological point of view. However, Christian theology tells a story of its own (‘gospel’) about the future of humanity. Adam, in this story, is redeemed by the second Adam.

As Irenaeus of Lyon observed, the New Testament compresses the story of humanity into the story of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. It is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which took place by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 4:17) that is the type of our destiny, sown in dishonour and raised in glory. Having made reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth, Jesus of Nazareth is the exact radiance of God’s being, the image of the invisible God. Remarkably, the transformation was won from within the human sphere, by a man in the likeness of sinful flesh.

6 comments:

byron smith said...

Is it misanthropic to be pessimistic about the future? Are there historical moments in which such (relative) pessimism is justified? If one were standing in Europe in 1938 watching the storm clouds gather, some pretty hefty doominess would seem pretty rational. Not that one ought to have abandoned all hope or the will to struggle against despair, but it would have made good sense to acknowledge the depth of the coming darkness.

So could part of theology's contribution be an orientation to the future that is willing to face and acknowledge likely threats (and even acknowledge that they may well exceed human ingenuity) without being paralysed by them? Keeping a space open for action that does not rely on the expectation of a "successful" outcome. This indeed is the (potential) martyr's stance, is it not? To see in dire threat to what one loves (include one's own life) the opportunity to witness to the trustworthiness of the God who raises the dead?

If Jesus is the type of our destiny, then the expectation (or at least a geniune openness to the possibility) of even the death of humanity is not inconsistent with a future imagined in the light of the gospel. Such a death could be an opportunity for the people of God to follow in Christ's footsteps by remaining faithful amidst its approach, refusing to sanctify evil pursued for the "greater good" of human survival.

Just a thought.

byron smith said...

But of course, to avoid any confusion, I am not talking about cholesterol.

byron smith said...

PS There is a difference between description of the current path we are on and a fatalistic prescription that this is the way that things have to (ought to?) be.

So receiving a dire diagnosis ("your cholesterol levels are sky-high and it is seriously affecting your heart's ability to function. On this trajectory, you are likely to experience a major myocardial infarction within the next couple of years.") is no excuse for inaction ("Oh well, since that is what is likely, I may as well go back for seconds at Hungry Jacks.")

I guess I'm trying to say that the researchers who point out the correlation between cholesterol and heart disease or the doctors who report on the state of one's arteries are not necessarily buying into a misanthropic apocalypticism by speaking in grave tones of the path ahead.

michael jensen said...

Yes, it might be true.

There is a strain of misanthropy in some ecological gloominess, isn't there?

byron smith said...

Of course! Not just some; I'd say much, or even most. My point is simply that it is not necessarily so.

I'm looking forward to seeing where this lecture ends up going.

Anonymous said...

Hi, it is me again.

We have had 1700 years of Christian-ISM and yet the world is now in a state of almost terminal insanity.

Yes Christian-ISM which means that it is first and foremost an ideology. And like all ideologies it is about power and control. Christian-ISM has always sought to gain power and control over every one and every thing. This became the aegis and momentum of Christian-ISM the very moment that the early church was co-opted by the Roman state - signified by Constantine's Sword.

This blood-soaked deadly cultural script has now reached its almost INEVITABLE end or late time situation

Before you can even begin to talk about the future of humankind in 2011 you have to be very clear about what human beings are in Truth & Reality. Which is the only basis for right life altogether. Right life being intrinsically free of the self-divided DOUBT-mind which you discuss at length in your next posting.

You also have to know what the situation of the world is really like and how we got to here too. Plus the nature of what is usually promoted as religion.

References on Right Life

www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-life.aspx

www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html

www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon

www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

On the state of the world and how we got to here:

The last reference above

www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm

www.beezone.com/news.html

www.dabase.org/coopcomm.htm

www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2 The Taboo Against the Superior Man (our entire "culture" is mounted on this taboo, which is to say that the doubt filled self-divided every-person now "rules" the world)

On the Great Tradition of humankind - or transcending religious provincialism.

www.adidam.org/teaching/17_companions/great_tradition

http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings.html