More on “Cosmonut”
On a previous post from December 3 I mentioned the conception of “god” or “God” in the Chinese tradition. The emperor could be seen as a god of sorts. I have visited all too briefly with my Chinese academic friends about this, but one comment resonates with my growing understanding of the ages-old “secularity” of Chinese society and belief: even without the modern, naturalistic, atheistic world view of most educated Chinese today, to have “God” is something very difficult. In traditional China, the emperor–Son of Heaven or tianzi–dominated over the people, and together they constituted the main reality of the world. There has been no “emperor” since at least 1912, but there has been no lack of authoritarian government. Beyond mundane boundaries, though, and subordinate to the world itself, is the traditional Chinese conception of a god or God, and it is well-nigh inconsequential: “It’s hard to be a god in China,” said one friend. And I must say it can be hard to accept the idea of a loving, redeeming God and along with that idea, the concept that a Chinese person would need such a god.
I am inquiring whether the god-concept is not just so much like western, Greek daimoniae, or aeons, or the anthropomorphized Olympic gods. I expect to find parallels, but I assume some key differences. For one, the inhabitants of heaven or tian, seem mostly to be the departed-yet-somehow-present ancestors. Buddhist developments have strengthened and shaped that belief. And heaven has other entities, including gods, but they seem inferior in the scheme of it.
I find that my contemporary Chinese friends don’t worry themselves too much about these things, whether out of lack of interest or the lack of concern with it in their modern, secular social experiences. I’m sure if I could speak Chinese fluently it would be easier for them to speak about it. Thankfully they are gracious enough, and quite competent enough in English to share what they understand. Yes, I am grateful for that.
I am also beginning to understand the depth of the Christian influence on any modern Chinese who decides to follow Jesus. Perhaps there is no exceptional radicality to it–no more so than in any other social and cultural context–but it does seem no less remarkable because of the basic secularity of traditional China, to which also is added the post-socialist, authoritarian, aggressively capitalist secularism of 21st-century China. I hear and read that apart from the secularism, and the paradoxical presence of traditional folk religion blended with Daoism and Buddhism, there is a gaping, hungry emptiness specifically shaped for filling by the eternal, Creator God in Jesus Christ. Wherever in the world one finds such great need, there one finds divine activity beyond mere human understanding or expectation.
This line of thought links to another set of comments elsewhere on these pages (link: Doc Summers–Believing in Past and Present), but it also achieves a parallel with–and supersedes–ancient Chinese virtues relating to the responsibility of the emperor/king or Son of Heaven to create and maintain the conditions for peace and prosperity among the people who depend on him. Even in Zhou times, before the first emperor, an ideal ruler was to assure peace, justice, prosperity, and harmony on the earth.
This is not a foreign concept. It is rather universal. Here is a quotation from Eberhard Arnold’s Inner Land:
On the basis of justice that can serve nothing else, God creates peace. The Lord of Peace consecrates every aspect of man and human lilfe to His perfect purity and unity. He demands the surrender of all the goods of this life and of life itself. His new justice gives the poor and the wretched the land they never had; great peace shall be their joy. Without justice there is no peace. If the land of this stolen earth is not given back to the poor, justice will remain lost. For the poor who have been robbed of land, justice demands that everything amassed in self-will and opposition to God’s will is handed back again. God’s justice overcomes self-will and private property. What men own hinders God’s unity. With the doing of good deeds, the peace of God supplants the evil of discord and unpeace. (241)
I need to say that Arnold wrote from two important contexts: the first was his position of leadership among a Hutterite group living by biblical and communal principles; the second is that he lived and wrote in Germany during the early twentieth century, particularly the 1920s and 1930s. It is no surprise that he had “difficulties” with the authorities of the Third Reich, and they with him. His comment comes from a chapter focused on “The Peace of God,” a topic of great importance for him and his community. His words have much to commend to believers around the world in places where peace and justice do not exist, or where, sooner or later, they will be challenged.
Now I get back to a point ill-made earlier: I recall the imagery of Juliana of Norwich in her Revelations or “Shewings” — the poignant image of the hazelnut that she held in her hand, much as the Creator God holds all Creation in his own hand. I see there a truth starkly realized in contrast to the extent of human graspings, especially the graspings of those who think themselves powerful but are not (as Boethius once remarked in his Consolation of Philosophy). In such hands there is far too little grace, or providence, or assurance.
Boundaries / Bondage
Boundary living–bondage to limits, those things I have adored and pursued, straining after far beyond all right.
Boundary living–bondage, in restraints, to imaginings and dreams built up yet so far short of grander vision.
Boundary living–bondage to inadequacies of my own striving, selfish grasping, trusting foolishly my own powers.
Boundary living–boundless should be, free from bondage, If I have, trusting, committed all pursuits to the Righteous Giver, all dreams to the Provider, all weakness to the Only One Strong.