Monday, July 22, 2019

The One Thing Necessary



Although we are observing the feast of St. James, I chose to keep the readings appointed for today because I couldn’t resist this story about Mary and Martha.[1]   We so rarely have women figure prominently in our readings that I didn’t want us to miss one of the few opportunities to hear one of them.   I also wanted to maintain the continuity of the readings, as this story is meant to be heard in relationship to the parable of the “good Samaritan,” which we heard last Sunday (both of which are unique to Luke’s Gospel).  

It takes some work to hear the story of Mary and Martha.  Sorting out what Jesus said, what the early Christian community said about him, and how what was said is heard in our context is a lot to juggle.   That is always true, but this story seems to hit a nerve, especially for women.  Just because a story is about women doesn’t mean it is for women in the sense of expressing their dignity and equality with men.  Let’s take a moment to acknowledge why this is such a hard story to hear.

It is difficult to hear yet another man – even Jesus – telling women what they need and how they should behave.  The options for Mary and Martha are either passively to sit at Jesus’ feet – making him feel special and adored – “Oh Jesus, you are so smart” – or to labor for him in the kitchen.  When Martha asks for help, she complains to Jesus.  Why does he need to mediate the relationship between Martha and her own sister?  Isn’t it possible for women to relate to each other in ways other than as rivals for some man’s attention?  And you can almost hear the condescension in Jesus’ voice when he responds, “Martha, Martha.”  Mary has chosen the better part: me!  Isn’t that what you really want?  What could be better than sitting at my feet?

A feminist interpretation makes one suspicious that our Gospel text re-inscribes women’s traditional role as caretaker of men’s emotional and physical needs; women as trophies or servants or both.  Let’s not give Mary too quick as pass as the “good girl” and Martha too hard a time for being “hysterical.”  It is important to recognize the legitimate discomfort that many women – and sympathetic men – feel upon hearing this story.  How is this story good news for women? 

I suspect Jesus was not quite such a sexist bore as Luke makes him out to be.  There are hints around the edges of the story that move us into more liberating territory.  Notice that Jesus is at Martha’s home.  She is the householder, and she is offering the kind of hospitality that Jesus commends and exemplifies.  Jesus said he came to serve, not to be served.  Martha is anxious about her service – in the Greek, her διακονίαν; what by Luke’s time is a technical term for a leadership role in the early church:  a deacon.   The first hearers of this story would have identified Martha as the leader of a house church. The text of Luke, by the way, doesn’t specify the nature of Martha’s service.  There is no mention of cooking in the kitchen.  We supply that inference through our own sexist assumptions about gender roles; maybe, Luke is playing on that assumption; but maybe, not.   

Many commentators note that Mary’s passive listening is described in terms associated with the role of a disciple, an apprentice to a spiritual teacher.  Perhaps Luke is hinting at the leadership of women in the early church, but obliquely, uncomfortably, in such a way as to obscure their agency.  Is this a hint, or a cover-up? 

Compare the treatment of Mary and Martha in John’s Gospel.  There, the sisters engage in theological conversation with Jesus; they are not passive recipients of his wisdom; and they are not rivals.[2]  Martha is the first to confess that Jesus is the Messiah, a distinction accorded to Peter in the other Gospels.[3] Mary anoints and washes Jesus feet before his arrest, providing the model of sacrificial love that Jesus later employs in washing his disciples’ feet during his last supper with them.[4]  Imitation is the highest form of praise.   This is a discipleship of equals.

Luke downplays all this.  Maybe it is getting too hot to handle by the time he is writing his Gospel, as the early church quickly moved to accommodate itself to patriarchal culture by squashing the leadership of women.   Luke seems to want to have it both ways:  signaling the prominence of Martha and Mary, without scaring the horses. Martha and Mary were just too important in Jesus’ life for the Gospel writers to simply ignore them; their imprint on the theological imagination of the early church too significant.  So why does Luke tell us this story?  

Recall, as we heard last Sunday, that just prior to his visit to Martha’s home, Jesus engaged in theological conversation with a religious leader that culminated in his telling the parable of the good Samaritan.[5]   That interchange revolved around the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”[6]  This, by the way, is not a question about life after death.  It is about participation in the life of the age to come, the promised future in which God’s reign of justice and peace is realized on earth.  It is a question about how to live so as to realize the promise.

When Jesus throws the question back to the scribe, he responds by quoting the Torah, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”[7] When the scribe presses Jesus to define the neighbor, Jesus tells the famous parable of the good Samaritan.  The point is shocking: my neighbor is the enemy, the other, the person I am taught to despise, who shows me mercy.  When I break through my prejudices about the other and see them as fully human as myself, as capable of love, then enemies become friends.   This is what it means to love your neighbor as yourself.  When we do this, we share in God’s promised future.

This parable illustrates the second part of the Great Commandment:  loving your neighbor as yourself.  But what about the first part?  Luke tells us the story of Marth, Mary, and Jesus to illustrate what it looks like to love God out of the whole of your heart, in the whole of your being, mind, body and soul, and why this is so important.  Tellingly, Luke sandwiches the story of Martha and Mary in between this parable and Jesus’ instructions about how to pray; providing the Lord’s Prayer as a model and emphasizing the importance of persistence in asking for what we need – as did Martha! – concluding with the startling statement: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”[8]  Let’s look again at Martha and Mary through this lens.

Martha is tired, Martha is anxious.  She is carrying a heavy burden.  It isn’t just the pressure of being a good hostess.  Her service is much more than that:  it is the challenge of loving her neighbor as herself, of leading a community struggling to resist evil without mirroring it.  In this, she is imitating Jesus.  She has the weight of the world on her shoulders; at least, it feels that way. 

Am I doing enough?  Is it making a difference?  What if we fail?  If you’ve ever asked yourself these questions, if you’ve ever worried about the world your children and grandchildren will inherit, it your heart is broken with every new post and tweet, if you are spiraling in outrage with every turn of the news cycle, then pay attention to Martha, because she has the right instinct.  She goes straight to the Source for help, and she demands what she needs: a sister, a community, to help her realize God’s promised future. 

Is Jesus chiding Martha or identifying with her?  “I know you’re worried, distracted by many things; who wouldn’t be?  But keep your eye on the prize:  there is only one thing necessary.  Remember the first part of the commandment.  Ground yourself in the love of God, and everything else will flow from that.  Mary isn’t simply venerating me; she isn’t checked out or avoiding the work.  She is imitating me too; she is opening herself to the gift of God’s Spirit that infuses us with the energy we need to love our neighbor by drawing us more deeply into communion with God, the Source of love.” 
  
Martha, Mary, and Jesus constitute a Trinitarian icon of love in this story.  In the round dance of giving and receiving that they model we are invited to remember that we are created in God’s image.   Yes, we are commanded to love our neighbor, but we can only do that in so far as we become transparent to God, so that love can flow through us from its infinite Source.   If we are trying to save the world on our own steam, we will burnout quickly or worse:  we will do more harm than good. 

Martha, Mary and Jesus are a group of friends who help each other to remember the first part of the Great Commandment when things get tough.  Loving your neighbor as yourself isn’t an easy way to live, but it is the only way to live well.  It takes a community of friends to make it possible; friends who support our desire for God and God’s promises.  

Today’s Gospel isn’t about a choice between Mary or Martha; contemplation or action, worship or service.  It is about Mary, and Martha, and Jesus – you, me, and God - the community of love that realizes God’s promises together. 

Here is the take away:  unplug from the news cycle.  Turn off your phone.  Put the ear buds away.  I’m not asking you to tune out from the world, but to tune into its Source.  Turn to wonder, to awe, to gratitude to God for this most amazing life.  Allow yourself to rest in God’s love.  Take your identity from God – not from mom or dad, not from work or school, not, God forbid, from your Twitter feed.  Don’t let the many distractions tweak you.  Ask for what you need –  the one thing necessary – the love of God which is being poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us[9] – and you will begin to know how to love your neighbor as yourself, because you will know what it is to be loved by God.



[1] Luke 10:38-42.
[2] John 11:17-37. 
[3] John 11:27.
[4] John 12:1-8; 13:1-15.
[5] Luke 10:25-37.
[6] Luke 10:25.
[7] Luke 10:27. Cf. Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18.
[8] Luke 11:1-13.
[9] Romans 5:5.

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

The Company of Prophets: Hope Dealers for God






One of my favorite t-shirts – I can’t remember where I first saw it – had printed on the front of it: “I AM A HOPE DEALER.” God is calling us to be prophets of hope, visionaries of the future into which God is inviting us.   We are called to be a company of prophets.

This morning, our scripture texts provide an opportunity to reflect on this calling.  The language of prophecy may seem outdated, other-worldly, describing a spiritual elite that doesn’t have much in common with us or our time.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Prophets are us.  There are some in this room.  And there are plenty of openings for new applicants to the company.   Let me break it down this way:  

1.     Prophets are made, not born.
2.     Prophets are team players, not lone rangers.
3.     Prophets are Spirit led, not ego driven.
4.     Prophets are hope dealers, not doomsayers. 

Prophets are made.  This is very clear in our reading from II Kings, the story of the leadership transition from the prophet Elijah to his successor, Elisha.  When Elisha receives Elijah’s mantle (or cloak) as a symbol of his authority, it is the culmination of a long apprenticeship.  Elijah was deep in meditation on Mount Horeb, when God instructed Elijah to name Elisha his successor.[1]   The text doesn’t tell us this, but I suspect that Elijah had his eye on Elisha for a while.  He recognized his leadership potential, and God confirmed this intuition. 

When Elijah came down from the mountain, he found Elisha plowing the fields with 12 yoke of oxen.  Elijah threw his mantle over Elisha and roped him into the company of prophets. Elisha’s decision to accept this invitation was an irrevocable commitment. Elisha responded by kissing his parent’s good-bye, honoring their role in preparing him for this moment.  He then slaughtered the 12 oxen and made a feast for the people in his village; an act of celebration and of generosity, but also a divestment of his assets such that there is no going back to his old way of life.  There are no oxen to fall back on!  This is an act of radical trust in God.[2]

We are told again and again in the text that Elisha followed Elijah, repeating the refrain, “I will not leave you.”[3]  Whatever else was involved in Elisha’s training, it included the development of a profound relationship of love and loyalty.  This relationship was not rooted simply in personal affinity, but in shared devotion to God.  Their love for one another was comprehended by a larger love for the people of Israel, and for God.   Prophets are formed by this experience of love. 

Prophets are team players.  It is easy to read the text and fail to notice the emphasis on the company of prophets.  It isn’t just Elijah and Elisha.  There are bands of prophets in Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho.[4]  In the process of moving toward Elijah’s final translation into the mystery of God, Elisha is introduced to these communities of prophets.  Elisha is initiated into a company of prophets; he is not a solo practitioner.[5]  Elisha engages in the spiritual practices of the community and becomes steeped in its traditions.  Prophets can critique the tradition, it’s political and religious institutions, and their leaders, precisely because they are profoundly conversant with it. 

One doesn’t just wake-up one morning and decide to be a prophet.  It requires commitment to a spiritual practice, rooted in a tradition, that seeks to awaken us to the power and presence of God and renew the life of the community in conformity with the creative, life-giving, loving intention of God.  For the company of prophets in ancient Israel, this loving intention was expressed in the Torah or covenant between God and Israel.  It is the touchstone that informed the prophets’ critique of contemporary injustice and corruption, and provided a foundation of trust in the future that God desires for us.

Prophets are Spirit led.  We are not given detailed instruction on the education of prophets.  We do know that prophets are transparent to God’s presence and power, transmitting divine energy and communicating a vision of reality that transcends their personal abilities.  God works through them.  How is this possible? 

The texts bear witness to the usual methods:  prayer, meditation, fasting, and worship.  We know from Elijah’s story that he encountered God in sheer silence through the practice of meditation in solitude.[6]  There are also references to ecstatic rituals among the company of prophets, involving a de-centering of the ego that opens pathways to channel spiritual power.[7]   There is also a more prosaic practice shared by the prophets: they listened attentively to the needs of those who were poor and suffering in Israel; the victims of injustice; and those who had no advocate.  Prophets come close to the pain in their communities.  They do not take refuge in their own privilege or power, but in the healing and empowering love of God.[8] 

These practices open the prophets to the Spirit.  They cultivate awareness of reality and a willingness to confront painful and difficult truths.  Prophets are not fortune tellers; they simply perceive the consequences of the present course of action that any woke person can see.  Prophets sometimes have a reputation for being confrontational or pessimistic, when really all they are doing is making conscious what others prefer to deny, dismiss, or even destroy rather than acknowledge.  Prophets and kings go together in ancient Israel, because the prophets are always revealing what the kings prefer to keep hidden.[9] 

Elijah becomes so transparent to God’s presence and power that he simply disappeared.[10]  No more Elijah!  What is left is a double-portion of his spirit, the Spirit of God with which he became aligned, transmitted to Elisha.   This is the hallmark of genuine prophecy; to become so transparent to God that the “I” unites with the “Thou” and becomes available to empower others for service.  Elijah knew the fulfillment of his mission would lie in a future of God’s creating that transcended him, requiring him to entrust himself to the work of others after him.  Prophets know that it is not about them; it is about God’s future.

When the company of prophets at Jericho saw the spirit of Elijah resting on Elisha, they bowed down before him.[11]  This was not simply an act of obeisance.  It was an act of confirmation.  Elisha’s initiation was complete.  Elijah gave himself completely in service to God so that Elisha and others could live into God’s future.  Elijah – like Moses, like Dr. Martin Luther King, like Harvey Milk – would not experience the fulfillment of the hope for which he struggled.  But he shared his power so that, one day, we would realize God’s dream.

Prophets are hope dealers.  Elijah and Elisha struggled against the injustice of their day, cursed the evil they resisted, and warned of the consequences of refusing to repent and renew God’s covenant of love and justice.  But that is only one part of the story.  When Elisha takes up Elijah’s mantle, he strikes the water of the Jordan River and a pathway across the water opens for him to return from the wilderness into the promised land.[12]  Elisha re-enacts the movement of God’s people from slavery to freedom; from want to abundance; from despair to hope. 

This is what prophets do: they announce the vision of God’s promised future that we cannot yet see.  They enact that vision in word and deed, creating and renewing a pre-figurative community in which that promise is realized already.  That is what it means to be Israel.  That is what it means to be the Church.  We are called to be the company of prophets living God’s future now. 

Prophets courageously name what is wrong with the world.  They are not dope dealers.  They don’t give us false reassurances, trying to numb us out, making us easier to manipulate and exploit for their own benefit.  They tell the truth in the service of awakening us to the need to change, to allow God’s Spirit to blow afresh through us to repair the world.  Prophets do not deny the pain of the past and the suffering of the present, but neither are they in bondage to it. They imagine God’s future and invite us to live into that future together.  Genuine hope is rooted in the truth, however painful, and is open to the future in deep trust that God is not done with us yet.[13]

I want to close with a couple of observations about how Jesus deepens our understanding of the company of prophets.  Jesus was considered by many to be a prophet; perhaps even the reappearance of Elijah.[14]  Like Elijah, Jesus was raised up into the life of God, but by transcending death rather than avoiding it.  The Spirit of Jesus is not poured out on just one person, but upon all who awaken into Christ consciousness.  Jesus does not claim the title of prophet but, rather, “Son of Man”:  human being.  All human beings have access to the Spirit.  The company of prophets is not an exclusive club.

Prophecy is, however, a demanding commitment.  It requires a radical de-centering of ego that leaves us without recourse to our usual means of security and control; we must give away the equivalent of our yoke of oxen and exchange it for Jesus’ yoke.[15]   This includes renunciation of violence as a means of prophetic action.  Unlike Elijah and Elisha, Jesus refuses to curse his enemies or bring down fire from heaven upon them.[16]  With Jesus, there is only blessing, no curse, purifying the prophetic vocation of its ambivalence about violence and its potential to mirror the very evil it resists.[17]

With Jesus, prophecy as the cultivation of complete trust in the power of divine love is radicalized and becomes an expression of ultimate freedom, liberation, nirvana, moksha, salvation.  It is a demonstration in word and deed of the power of self-giving love to realize God’s promises here and now.  In a world of dope dealers, let us be hope dealers.  Let us follow Jesus and become prophets of God’s future. 



[1] I Kings 19:1-16.
[2] I Kings 19:19-21.
[3] II Kings 2:2, 4, 6.  Compare Peter’s response to Jesus in John 18:17, 25-27 and 21:15-19.
[4] II Kings 2:3, 5, 7.
[5] II Kings 2:15, 4:38-41, 6:1-7, 9:1-3 indicate Elisha exercised a leadership role among the company of prophets.  The precise social location of the company of prophets and their function in ancient Israel is a subject of much scholarly debate.  See John S. Kselman, “The Social World of the Israelite Prophets: A Review Article,” in Religious Studies Review (Volume II, No. 2, April 1985), pp. 120-129. 
[6] I Kings 19:8-13.  Compare Jesus’ frequent retreats to pray in solitude, especially in Luke’s Gospel: Mark 6:30-32; Matthew 14:1-13; Luke 4:1-15, 5:16, 6:12-13, 22:39-44.
[7] These ecstatic rituals sometimes include kings as well; cf. Saul’s naked frenzy with the company of prophets (I Samuel 19:19-24) and David’s nude capering before the Ark of the Covenant (II Samuel 6:14-23). These stories are some two centuries earlier than the company of prophets in I and II Kings, but indicate a continuous tradition and practice over time; at least, in the northern kingdom.  For an intriguing investigation of the homoerotic character of the relationship between YHWH and Israel’s first kings, and the cult of the prophets as possessed of YHWH’s phallic power, see Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel (New York: Continuum, 2005).   
[8] Elisha is a good example.  Consider his intervention to assist a widow being impoverished by a creditor (II Kings 4:1-7); his healing of an enemy general (II Kings 5:1-19); his giving life to a dead son (II Kings 4:32-37); and his miraculous feeding of the hungry (II Kings 4:42-44). 
[9] Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “The Prophetic Critique of Kings,” Ex Audito (2, 1986 ), pp. 82-95.
[10] II Kings 2:9-11.
[11] II Kings 2: 15.
[12] II Kings 2:13-14.
[13] Constance Fitzgerald, OC, “From Impasse to Prophetic Hope: Crisis of Memory,” CTSA PROCEEDINGS 64 (2009): 21-42. 
[14] Luke 9:18-22.
[15] This is the force of the “hard sayings” in Luke 9:57-62.
[16] Luke 9:51-56.  Jesus makes clear that the “Son of Man” will suffer violence, not inflict it, unlike the prophets who precede him; cf. I Kings 18:40 and II Kings 2:23-24.
[17] Luke 6:27-36.

The Trinitarian Vision



In the beginning is the relationship, and reality is relational all the way through and all the way down.  It’s all about relationship.  This is an existential truth, deeply rooted in our experience.  That is what the Christian symbol of God as Trinity tries to convey.  

Unfortunately, the traditional language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the idea of these being three “persons,” tends toward a kind of tri-theism.  This language is, of course, rooted in the biblical texts, but there it is invoked in a narrative context in which the meaning of the terms is clearly derived from the character of God’s relationship with the world.  In literature, individuals are not presented in the abstract and then proceed to have relationships.  Rather, it is through engaging in relationships that the character of a person is revealed.[1]  Experience gives rise to the symbol, and what is being expressed in the symbol of God as Trinity is an experience of relationship.  

As this narrative language was taken up into philosophical speculation, the symbols, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were easily misunderstood as three substantial beings who have a relationship with each other.  But that is not what the early theologians of the church were trying to convey.  Following the biblical tradition, they experienced God’s power in relationship to the Source of the created world, to Jesus as the incarnation of that Source, and to the Spirit of love pervading the relationship that is invisible but still concretely present.

This experience of relationship is so powerful that they imagined God as relationship without remainder; not as three persons who have relationships, but rather three subsistent relations distinct but constitutive of one divine reality.  God simply is the relations that God has.[2]  The substantive nouns drawn from biblical narrative used to describe these subsistent relations obscures their dynamic and interdependent character.   What the Symbol of the Trinity expresses is the character of reality as emergent (deriving from a Source rather than self-generating), as evolving (the becoming of all that is), and as internally related (revealing an implicate order in its dynamism). 

Raimon Panikkar argues that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a homeomorphic equivalent to the nondual advaita tradition in India:  emphasizing the constitutive relational nature of reality that cannot be characterized as either unity or duality.  This is difficult to grasp, because we have internalized so deeply the ideology of liberal individualism.  We really do think we are absolutely independent, self-constituted monads bumping against each other like so many billiard balls; merely externally related, if at all. 

But that is not the case.  It is my relationship to you that makes you, “you,” and me, “me.”  We are internally related to each other and co-constitutive of our identities.  I am “me” in relationship to “you,” and you are “you” in relationship to “me.”  This explains why the death of a loved one is so wrenching; or a divorce, or even a child growing up and going off to college.  Notice, too, that this means that I am “me” only in so far as I am for “you;” and you are “you” only in so far as you are for “me;” we are the energy of love that unites us.  In this way, we participate in the very life of God, the subsistent relations within the Godhead that constitute the generative, self-giving, dynamic of love. 

We are constituted by, and constitutive of, a universe that is an irreversible, emergent process.  The universe is an evolving constellation of relationships moving toward greater complexity and consciousness, marked by centricity or self-organization at every level from the physical to the biological to reflexive-consciousness.    Each self-organizing part is constitutive of a larger whole, from the atom to the molecule to the cell to the organism to the ecosystem to the planet to the cosmos.   Each is related to all.

There is a convergence underway in the new sciences of quantum physics, systems biology, and ecology moving us away from the modern age’s mechanistic view of nature to a renewed holism that
has reversed the relationship between the parts and the whole.  The properties of the parts are not intrinsic properties but can be understood only within the context of the larger whole.  What we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseparable web of relationships.  Therefore, the shift from parts to the whole can be seen as a shift from objects to relationships.  A system is an integrated whole whose essential properties arise from the relationships among its parts.  Nature is an interlocking network of systems . . . Nature is more flow than fixed.[3] 

In the beginning is the relationship, and reality is relational all the way through and all the way down.  It’s all about relationship.  It isn’t that you and I form relationships.  It is that relationships form us.  And God is the relation of all relations, the depth dimension of reality uniting humanity and the cosmos in an emergent, evolving, dynamic system of systems ordered and energized by love.

Ilia Delio writes that
Evolution unveils a depth of integrated wholeness that is open to more unity, centricity, and consciousness.  Love is not sheer emotion or simply a dopaminergic surge in the limbic system; it is much more deeply embedded in the fabric of the universe.  Love is the integrated energy field, the center of all centers, the whole of every whole, that makes each whole desire more wholeness.  While love-energy may not explicitly show itself on the level of the pre-living and non-reflective, it is present inchoately as the unifying principle of wholeness as entities evolve toward greater complexity.  “But even among the molecules,” Teilhard [de Chardin] wrote, “Love was the building power that worked against entropy and under its attraction the elements groped their way towards union.”  Love-energy marks the history of the universe.[4]

The new science is aligning with a new religious consciousness in the reimaging of the primordial and perennial trinitarian tradition of reality as Spirit-Matter-Consciousness.  In this vision,
“Everything that exists, any real being, presents this triune constitution expressed in three dimensions . . . The cosmotheandric intuition is not a tripartite division among beings, but an insight into the threefold core of all that is insofar as it is.”[5]

The Christian symbol of the Trinity is a particular expression of the universal experience of reality as trinitarian, expressed differently in the symbols of other cultures.   It is a vision of reality whose source, end, and energy is love.  It is a vision we desperately need to reclaim. 

As that part of the universe which has become self-conscious, we humans have become responsible for a “cultural selection” that operates in addition to natural selection to decisively affect the evolution of love on earth.  We can choose to align ourselves with the truth of the Trinitarian vision through the cultivation of Christ-consciousness in ourselves: the realization of our deep interconnection with, and responsibility for, life in the cosmos.

Constance Fitzgerald argues that
Our ability to embody our communion with every human person on the earth and our unassailable connectedness with everything living is limited because . . . we continue to privilege our personal autonomy and are unable to make the transition from radical individualism to a genuine synergistic community even though we know intellectually we are inseparably and physically connected to every living being in the universe.  Yet the future of the entire earth community is riding on whether we can find a way beyond the limits of our present evolutionary trajectory.[6]

What is required is a deep surrender of the ego in trust that God’s power, the power of love, is working through us.  We are invited to participate in the next great evolutionary leap, at the spirit level, the level of consciousness, in which we grow into the fullness of Christ.  Fitzgerald goes on to say that
The evolution of spirit or consciousness . . . happens not just or mainly through physical propagation but through a spiritual one in which people “bear fruit by virtue of the atmosphere which radiates from them on their environment and . . . also by means of the works which they produce in common and through which they propagate their spirit.  This idea of spiritual generativity may sound far-fetched or ungrounded, until we consider what scientists are discovering and speculating about the true nature of our world.  For example, as long ago as 1982 it was reported that “under certain circumstances sub-atomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them, whether an inch, 100 feet, or 10 billion miles apart.”  Scientist David Bohm’s explanation:  there is a deeper and more complex level of reality than we experience, an “implicate order or unbroken wholeness” from which all our perceived reality derives.  If such a fabric of interconnectedness exists in nature, it is no stretch of the imagination to apply it to consciousness.  Genuine contemplatives have testified to this long before scientists.[7]

We can experience this deeper and more complex level of reality, “because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.”[8]  It is our hope and our responsibility.  May the Spirit of truth that Jesus promised lead us into all truth and to the fullness of the Trinitarian vision.[9]



[1] David S. Cunningham, These Three Are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), p. 62.
[2] Ibid, pp. 59-65.
[3] Ilia Delio, The Unbearable Wholeness of Being (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018), p. 32.
[4] Ibid, p. 44.
[5] Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), p. xii.
[6] Fitzgerald, “From Impasse to Prophetic Hope: Crisis of Memory,” CTSA PROCEEDINGS 64 (2009), p. 38.
[7] Ibid, p. 41.
[8] Romans 5:5
[9] John 16:13.