My good friend "Roland," over at the Two Natures blog, posted a fascinating essay entitled, you guessed it, "The Fall of Man and the Neolithic Revolution." It is a very good piece, and I encourage you to read it before you read my own thoughts on the subject.
I was particularly interested to read this post, as I have been thinking along similar lines myself, for many years. Since at least my college days, in fact.
I actually had posited the (pre-)historical Fall to have occured earlier, when hominids first came down from the trees and began to walk upright, use tools, etc. -- when they first began to exhibit reflective thinking, in other words, rather than relying on instinct. But some non-human primates (chimps, for instance) and even some birds (crows, parrots) seem able to do some of those things. Does that mean that they, too, have the prospect of being "fallen"? That seems unlikely. And Roland makes a good case that it was when we stepped out of our proper "place" in nature, our natural role in the overall scheme of things, that we ran into trouble.
In any case, I have come to believe that creatures living in a state of nature -- that is, living in accordance with their natures, which is inherently also living in accordance with God's intention/will/plan -- are also living in a state of grace. And that included hominids/humans until, as Roland writes, we "left the garden," e.g., gave up living in "our place" in the natural scheme of things and began seriously manipulating Creation (and each other) for our own ends. That was clearly a "fall from grace," and "expulsion from the garden," as we began using/manipulating/destroying the garden (the earth/nature, or as some would have it, Gaia) to suit ourselves.
I think that is a major reason that earth/nature-based religions have never lost their appeal, although they have periodically been driven underground, and why (want to talk controversial!) I believe that Christianity, important as it is, does not and perhaps cannot serve as a complete answer to the spiritual longings of many (most?) humans. Although it contains within itself (mostly from the Old Testament, but there are also hints in certain of Paul's writings) the seeds of a viable theology of Creation, care for Creation, and dynamic, even ecstatic, union with the rest of (non-human) Creation, those seeds have never germinated in any meaningful way.
Christianity's importance, as I see it, is in addressing a) the problem of mortality, an issue in much (though not all) of the ancient world, and b) the problem of sin, also an issue for a number of the ancients, but especially for the Jewish people. And it accomplishes both through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well and good, so far. But one of the reasons I think Christianity is losing ground in the contemporary world (aside from televangelists and others who present it as a caricature or parody of itself) is that neither of those issues -- for better or for worse -- is a major concern for most contemporary Americans, or Westerners in general, for that matter.
Many, if not most, of those in our generation, and those immediately preceding and following us, tend to accept some sort of continuation of life following the death of the physical body as a given. That may be "cultural capital" from Christianity, or it may be an intuited sense of "the way things are, or must be." In either case, immortality is not a major concern for most folks these days, and people who have been exposed to a plethora of cultures and religions since childhood also tend to look askance at the limited/limiting criteria for entering into that afterlife, according to Christianity.
Things which classical Christianity has viewed as sins -- especially sexual and other personal sins, such as individual greed ("whoever dies with the most toys, wins") -- are very clearly not viewed as sins by most people today (again, for better or for worse), and my own opinion is that Christians can talk about them till we're blue in the face, and we're not gonna convince anybody who's not already predisposed to be convinced.
[That doesn't mean they're irrelevant, by a long shot. Christianity is at its best when it is addressing the many ways we fall short, as individuals, of being the kind of person most of us, in our heart-of hearts, know we could and should be. As author Thomas Cahill cogently pointed out, in his book How the Irish Saved Civiliation, "Saint Paul trumps Plato." In other words, whereas Plato idealistically insisted that those who truly know the Good will seek to act accordingly, Paul more realistically lamented that "the good which I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do" (Romans 7:19, KJV).]
On the other hand, people are looking at things like global warming, pollution of the air and water on a massive scale, widespread species extinction, wars and the oppression of various peoples, corporate greed, and governmental corruption, and seeing that Christianity has little to say -- or little that it's been willing or able to say -- on those kinds of pressing issues, and are becoming understandably disillusioned. Christianity seems to be standing by and acquiescing -- and in some quarters (particularly evangelical protestant/fundamentalist quarters, although I know there are exceptions here), contributing moral support -- to the degradation and destruction of Creation.
I will never forget how appalled I was, and still am, at seeing a poster in my former church picturing the classic view of the Earth from space, with the legend, "Without Christ, it's just a vicious circle." That is, quite frankly, horse hockey -- it's simply not true, on several levels -- but it does an excellent job of encapsulating what is wrong with Christianity, in the minds of many Americans and other Westerners. I think there is an acute and growing sense that, in the words of the old song (was it by Crosby, Stills, and Nash?), "we've got to get ourselves back to the Garden." Otherwise, the human experiment itself might be doomed, and we're almost certain to take a lot of innocent species with us.
So, yes, I agree with Roland that the neolithic revolution -- for all its fascination, benefits, and promise -- undoubtedly was "'the event' that, more than any other, set mankind on a new trajectory that has led to alienation from God, our fellow creatures, and our own nature." The trick is figuring out how to overcome that alienation without a complete cultural, technological and societal collapse that returns a surviving remnant of humans, willy-nilly, to a hunter-gatherer mode of living! Christianity may be able to help in this process, but so far I have not seen a great deal of evidence that it is either willing or able to do so.
Insofar as the "job" of a religion or spiritual path is to give meaning, purpose, and direction to life, and to both express a proper relationship between God, humans, and their physical environment and to encourage/enable people to live into that relationship -- a not-unreasonable set of criteria, I would think -- Christianity has not failed to accomplish this end for contemporary humanity, but it is by-and-large failing, and will fail ever more catastrophically as environmental problems worsen, unless or until it is able to overcome its historical (and rather Gnostic) tendency to define humans as being both over and against the rest of Creation.
We may not want or be able to return to a hunter-gatherer mode of being (although that undoubtedly is the ideal, for humans -- the way of life which is most in keeping with our true natures), but unless we find some way to get "back to the Garden," in the sense of finding ways to live sustainably on this Earth, in communion with Nature and not in competition with her, and unless our spiritual paths assist and promote this transformation, we are probably more-or-less doomed.
As they say on the internet, "imho -- ymmv." *
* "in my humble opinion," "your mileage may vary."
----------
And as I added to another friend of mine, to whom I forwarded both pieces, Roland's and my own:
As far as attaining/maintaining our fullest humanness, I tend to believe that our "original," hunter-gatherer way of life was (and, where still possible, remains) the ideal. Agriculture is next in line, at least agriculture which is human-scaled and sustainable. Cities are pretty much on the other end of the spectrum. It's possible to be human in a city, it may even be possible to be fully human in a city (although I'm not totally convinced of that), but it requires an immense amount of effort, more often than not. Is it possible to reconstruct cities in more human/humane modes? Probably... but again, it's difficult, because you're fighting the very nature of the urban entity itself (see Dunbar's Number, a.k.a., the "Monkeysphere").As the ol' rocker once said, "what a long, strange trip it's been..."
4 comments:
Tom - Just a few comments.
One of the advantages I find in Eastern over Western Christianity is a much greater respect for God's creation and a humbler opinion of man's place in it. While the fall was initiated by man, the resulting cycle of sin affects all of creation. Consciousness of our responsibility for the fall demands of us mercy towards our fellow creatures and responsibility for working with and for God to sanctify all of creation. Patriarch Bartholomew has been especially outspoken on environmental matters, to the extent that he is know as the Green Patriarch!
I think this recent post by Fr. Stephen, entitled "Signposts," might interest you:
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/signposts/
I don't think we can get ourselves back to the garden. I think the purpose of religion is overcome the fall, reconciling us to God, our fellow creatures, and our own nature. But we can only move forward, not backward, in the hope that our redeemed state will be at least as good as our pre-fallen state, and perhaps even better. But it will never be as if the fall had not occurred.
I think Judaism would idealize herding over agriculture. God accepted Abel's sacrifice, but not Cain's. The patriarchs were nomadic shepherds. Moses was looking after his father-in-law's herds when he encountered the burning bush. David was watching the sheep when Samuel came to annoint him. They saw herding - caring for God's creatures as God cared for them - as more natural and humble than imposing their will on the land through agriculture.
Meanwhile, Christianity has always idealized urban life (see, for example, Aidan Kavanagh's Liturgical Theology). Early Christians dismissed rural folks as "pagans," which meant, essentially, "hicks." Christianity took hold in the cities long before it penetrated the countryside - probably because Jews of the diaspora lived in the cities. Christian theology quickly came to embrace city life, culminating in St. Augustine's City of God. Bishops took up residence in the cities and ruled the surrounding countryside from there. Of course there were exceptions - most obviously the Desert Fathers, who fled from civilization, and the Celtic Church, which prevailed in a rural culture.
Yes, it was Crosby, Still and Nash. Also, and perhaps first, Joni Mitchell.
We are stardust, we are golden
We are ten billion year old carbon
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden
Thanks, anonymous! I didn't mean to leave Joni Mitchell out, either.
Roland, I completely agree with you that we can't get ourselves back to the garden in a literal or absolute sense. For several reasons: six billion people can't sustain themselves, and would destroy the earth, by foraging for their food -- even if we could get them all to decide it was a good idea, which is impossible.
And you're quite right that we need to move forward, not back... sort of. Although as I'm sure you recall, C.S. Lewis famously noted that "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." I believe -- strongly -- that our current techno-industrial civilization is on the wrong road, and that we had better turn back sooner rather than later. Is it possible that we may need to move back, before we can move forward properly?
At any rate, what I'm trying to say is that we need to "get ourselves back to the garden" in the sense of learning how to live more lightly/sustainably on the earth, or we will suffer the consequences of our... sin? foolishness? both? In that case I fear the future will be very bleak, for humanity and the rest of creation alike. As Hildegard of Bingen put it, "God's justice permits creation to punish humanity." Put another way, we will be forced to lie in the bed we have ourselves made.
Religion can be either a help or a hindrance to this process of getting back (or foward, if you prefer) to the garden. My hope is that Christianity will take an active role in this, rather than continuing to provide excuse, if not encouragement, to those who are willing to damage, degrade, and destroy creation for their own ends. The example of Bartholomew, the "Green Patriarch," is encouraging in this regard. But so far he is an exception, not the rule -- and I suspect that even in the Greek Orthodox Church, care for creation is probably pretty far down the list of priorities of the average priest or parishioner.
I should probably have been more specific when speaking of "agriculture." When I speak of sustainable agriculture, I am including those practices which, to use the definition proposed by a good friend of mine, "nourish rather than deplete the health and resources of people and planet." Pastoralism -- herding -- conducted mindfully, is certainly among those practices. So is permaculture. So can be, I believe, some forms of tillage agriculture -- if, again, conducted mindfully and with care and respect. Industrial agriculture, whether confinement animal feeding operations or high-chemical-input monocropping, is nothing more or less than rape of creation.
And, as you say,
"Christianity has always idealized urban life (see, for example, Aidan Kavanagh's Liturgical Theology). Early Christians dismissed rural folks as "pagans," which meant, essentially, "hicks." Christianity took hold in the cities long before it penetrated the countryside -- probably because Jews of the diaspora lived in the cities. Christian theology quickly came to embrace city life, culminating in St. Augustine's City of God. Bishops took up residence in the cities and ruled the surrounding countryside from there. Of course there were exceptions - most obviously the Desert Fathers, who fled from civilization, and the Celtic Church, which prevailed in a rural culture."
That is one of the chief reasons I have always been strongly interested in, and attuned to, the Celtic expression of Christianity. Mainstream Christianity, while I don't want to be too hard on it -- much good has been done and continues to be done in its name, over the centuries of the Christian era -- was and has continued to be heavily influenced by two powerful forces in late Hellenistic antiquity (and today): urbanism and Gnostic dualism. Both must be overcome, if it is to be of assistance in helping us return to "the garden" of sustainable Earth-human interaction... whether one views that process as movement "forward" or "back."
I agree that Neolithic revolution equates to Genesis 2 story of early mankind mistakenly leaving Eden.
Roland popsted a latest link to "J. Raymond Zimmer lays out the parallels between Genesis 1-2 and the record of cosmology, evolution, and neolithic prehistory in "The Creation of Man and the Evolutionary Record.""
I found this one interesting as it muses on Genesis 1 explaining the history of the universe up until post- Neolithic revolution, but takes out any reference to the Neolithic revolution as being negative. It is the chapter with refereences to dominion over nature but would suggets if interpreted as J. Raymond Zimmer hypothesises that the neolithic revolution was the last part of the ordained creation days. ther is then the link to Sabbath rest from specialised labour of post neolithic lifestyle as the last part of God's ordained 7 days creation (Gen 2:1-3.)
I then read myself, referring to your topic that I concur with, Gen2:3 - Gen 3:24 the 'parable' of Adam and Eve which to me presents a completely contrasting view (as identified by scholars from a different source)where the Neolithic revolution is presented as intirnsically a mistake by mankind, in flagrant disobedience to what God had ordained.
Thaks heaps Roland for the reference to the article outlining Gen 1 metaphor, it led me to smile on pondering what to me had been a previously unconcieved idea. I only read this about an hour ago and now muse about two conflicting tales in the Genesis verses, 1 asserting the development of post-neolithic revolution society in the 7 days of creation was Gods plan, and the second view reorded in Gen 2:3-3:24 taking a contrasting stance that the happenings on the sixth day, the neolithic revolution was a complete mistake.
I side with the learnigns of tthe Adam and Eve parable, basically because seeing post-neolithic people have a cultural clash with pre-neolithic aboriginal people in Australia convinced me that the removal of an advanced paleolithic society to replace with the evolved industrialised offspring of post-neolithic society is a complete abomination.
I live in Australia and currently work as a Child Welfare officer in an Aboriginal community that was founded as a missionary station over a hundred years ago when Aborigianl people were being forcibly resettled to a delineated 'reserve.' In Australia there is a majority (although politically uncorrect) view that Aboriginal people of Austarlia, who essentially were still living in Paleolithic Eden 220 years ago on this continent,(the last bastion of Eden on this now forsaken planet) should be 'thankful' for what modern society brang them (the fruits of the tree of knowledge - medicine, cities, schools,.)
Even without ascribing to the racists here, who believe society rescued Aboriginal people from there savagery, the fnality of the loss of innocence is such that it is almost universally asserted, even amongst Indigenous people, that the only feasible and necesary way forward is to now utilise the advantages of modern society, breaking down disadvantage. I do not detract in any way from the need and positive pragmatic result in improving indigenous child health tthrough access to health services, but I do believe that this is just the road to becoming a health y membner of post-neolithic societies.
What hits me hardest is seeing the photos of the 1800's and early 1900's, black and white photos are all that is left now, of the old aboriginal people in Australia, on the frontier of cultural clash, whose hearts and minds could only ever live according to the traditional ways of their ancestors. It is a painful tragedy visible in their eyes, that the price paid for being so deep rooted in the paleolithic way of life, for being able only to live the ways of Eden was that every one of these martyrs died deaths of abject sorrow, firm in their faith that their way of life was right, but watching the stampede of European invaders (Adam and Eve's offspring) irrevocably destroy Eden and erect Babylon.
I say abject sorrow, if I look at their life on earth, but then I go offon a tangent - my response to your words Tom, and say that just as the traditional Christian martyrs died with a life of sorrow but a hope of more, I muse that Indigenous people have at times previously died with the hope of heaven - but not as the Christian concieves of it.
This might sound real child- like, but then faith can be a simple thing: So rather than caring one bit Tom about whehter 6 billion peolpe in 2008 will turn the abomination of Babylon in to an environmentally sustainable project, or Plato's republic, or a brotherhood of Man or whatever. I firmly and directly hold on to a comlpletely intangible (except through instinct, and joy it brings me in face of abomination) that Heaven is there for any who want to go there, Heaven is as accesible as realising that every aspect of modern trapping is completely fucked up and an abomination of God's creation - (Eden, advanced paleolithic society.)
Some times I picture God looking at Man's shaping and reshaping of Babylon, and think how he would not care what shape we make it, casue it is all moulded by man from the smashed pieces of Paleolithic Eden, which was God's creation.
Paleolithic society was not just a flash in the pan, a step on a progression. People in Australia maintained this way of life from it's earliest devlopment right up to 10,000 years ago when neolithic revolution ocurred, for the entire 10 milenia of all the civilisations that folowed, and would theoretically still be living the same sustainable way they were 220 years ago today, with no reason to change.
Completely sustainable way of life, practiced for the last 10,000 years, minus the last 220 of suffering.
SO here's the real childlike part.
Heaven to me is living in paleolithic society.
How many of 6 billion people today would actually want to live that way - (the narrow side road, where everyone else wants the broad road.)
I affiliate myself with the Indigenous paleolithic person who holds the memory in their heart, hopes for God to return them to their 'happy hunting ground' in the sky on death. Aboriginal people also ubiquitously believed in re-incarnation, so those who want to keep being reborn here can have it, I will be fixing my mind on moving to a realm where paleolithic people can live as they chersih when I am on my deathbed.
In term of organisation, rather than Heaven being just a mishmash of cultrues, I am mindful that at one point, I, as did every person on this planet had an INdigenous ancestor myself. I reckon people will probably head back to small communities of hunter gatherer people in Heaven (you cant have amanageable hunter gatherer grouping of a hundred thousand.
Because I am a whitefella in Australia, my ancestors are from over your Way somewhere Tom! SO if we both make it to Heaven how I imagine it, we might be lumped back inthe same neighbourhod.
Looking forward to having a chat over a campfire and a leg of venison over on the otherside of the river!
Michael
Post a Comment