Skip to main content

Immanence And Transcendence

 These two concepts are kind of opposite each other when thinking about God. Immanence is the nearness of God; the closeness of God to humanity, as we seek purpose and fulfillment. Transcendence is the idea that God is wholly Other, above what he made, and some would say, uninvolved with creatures and the world. The Greeks absolutely believed this. You’re going to hit a wall with Greek philosophy, strictly speaking, for this reason.

If the Church had not “baptized” Plato and Aristotle, it’s possible they get forgotten.

Joseph Ratzinger, AKA Pope Benedict XVI, essentially says that the Incarnation is this nearness of God. Mankind’s reason vainly reaches as high as it can go, but God in Christ came down. This is who the unknown, unseen God is. Or, as he put it and St. John recorded it, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

Our culture is quite messed up, but we’re so used to what Jesus actually did that we mock it in entertainment. The “Buddy Christ” statue from the film Dogma is quite trivial, but it does contain this truth: Jesus came down here in human flesh to be friends with us. Friendship doesn’t sound like much today, because we’re really into the romantic and the erotic. But all that is just a kind of friendship. It’s quite powerful to say, “I don’t need anything from you, but I want to be with you.” In this way, God is the Friend par excellence. This is kind of what people are after, when they talk about “chosen family.” Setting aside the times when it’s just selfishness or leaving obligations unmet, people want to know that they have someone somewhere who isn’t just going to use them up. There is absolutely no guarantee that two people who had coitus know anything about selfless love. Children are a beautiful gift, but children who aren’t taught about selfless love grow up to be adults who don’t know it, either.

Personally, I don’t think I’m overly fond of theocracy, integralism, or anything close. But I see the appeal. I begin to think if Jesus doesn’t save us all and teach us, we’ll be doomed. As a somewhat unfortunate Christian rock band put it when I was a teenager, “They don’t serve breakfast in Hell.”

This probably started out as another ill-tempered defense of “On Eagles’ Wings.” But it got me thinking: When I am grieving a loved one, I need the Jesus who wept over a death he reversed a few minutes later. I need some kind of song that even kinda sounds like that. There is time to remind people that God is serious business, that Hell is real, and that judgment is final. Not to mention that Purgatory, though it is surely a place of mercy by the nature of the case, doesn’t sound like a trip to Dave & Buster’s.

All that said, I have known enough people who think that compassion and humanity in even the smallest degree is weakness. Like they have something to prove to the wrathful God. We shouldn’t have ever wanted to pull the switch along with Lee J. Cobb’s Juror #3, but even less so should we want it to be done for eternity.

Others will go much further and say, “Why even believe in Hell?” and take an easier path of believing in universal salvation. But as the great actor Sir Patrick Stewart had it, playing his most famous character, “Wishing for a thing does not make it so.”

If I accept what the Father reveals literally in the compassionate Christ, I must also accept what he reveals as the consequence for absolute and final rejection of God and His mercy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...