I continue to read Ilia Delio’s, The Unbearable Wholeness of Being. Her subtitle is also instructive: “God, Evolution and the Power of Love.” It has proven to be a remarkable book. I have never met Delio. I know about her. She is a Franciscan Sister who is both a scientist and theologian. That in itself is a rare combination. It takes some real smarts and some significant time to be able to learn all you need to do in both science and religion arenas. I know people who know her and they all talk about how sweet her spirit is.
Her book takes absolutely seriously all that science teaches. Of course, it is always possible to find particular scientists who disagree with the prevailing truths, but for example, the consensus that evolution is the way the world and we came to be seems pretty solidly true. Whatever I want to think about the Genesis creation accounts of the world and humanity, the truth of science has to be a factor in that interpretation.
And so I appreciate how Delio is able to help me be scientifically sound and see the theological implications. She helps me see that some of the ways God and our world have been viewed are probably outdated. It does not mean they are wrong; they simply don’t make as much sense in the new worldview. It is like saying the horse and buggy days are not wrong; they are also dated. Most of us prefer cars.
In the chapter I just read, Delio cites another theologian whom I find instructive. Mirolav Volk teaches theology at Yale Divinity School. He is a native of Croatia and his experience of that sometimes war-torn country gives his theology a power I find significant. Delio finds Volf’s 2002 book, Exclusion and Embrace, to help her talk about how God is love and how the world is an expression of God’s love. When I read Volf’s book, I was fascinated with how much he was able to do with the word, “embrace.”
This is where Delio picks up the theme. Let me cite a couple sentences from Delio to set the stage. She says, “Am embrace, Volf writes, begins with opening the arms. ‘Open arms are a gesture of the body reaching for the other. They are a sign of discontent with my own self-enclosed identity and a code of desire for the other…’ Open arms signify I have ‘created space in myself for the other to come in and that I have made a movement out of myself so as to enter the space created by the other.’” Let’s unpack this and explore the provocative themes.
Volf says an embrace commences with open arms. This is true, as all of us know. The more normal language I hear is “hug.” And embrace is a hug. We open our arms and invite in the other. As Volf rightly claims, the embrace is a gesture of the body reaching for the other. I love how he elaborates that the embrace is a code of desire. It says we don’t want to be alone---self-enclosed identities, as he puts it. And I am confident he thinks this is true not only for people, but it is true for God as well.
The embrace means I have created space in myself for the other person to come in. And reciprocally, they make a space for me to go into them. The symbolism of the two is powerful---unity out of diversity. It would be easy to develop this thought even further, but I want to add another thought from Volf, which Delio offers. She writes, “A genuine embrace entails the ability-not-to-understand but to accept the other as a question right in the midst of the embrace, and to let go, allowing the question of the other to remain mystery.”
I find it insightful that the embrace does not mean we necessarily understand the other. Understanding is not the pre-condition nor necessary result of embrace. Delio suggests, instead, we accept the other person as a question---a question right in the middle of the embrace. And furthermore, we let the question remain as mystery. I love this idea.
The other person is there---and there to embrace---not in order to understand and, surely, not to control. But they are mystery. And so it must be with the God who is also Other. God, too, we can embrace. And God can be taken into us and we taken into God. Mystery loves mystery. But it is not automatic.
Delio speaks to that when she notes, “Every effort to love---every embrace---has the possibility of refusal and resistance...” Here she explicitly links love and embrace. I like this; it makes a great deal of sense. It means all we say about embrace is really a declaration about love. Importantly, Delio recognizes all embraces and love can be refused or, at least, resisted. We all have experienced this with hugs.
This is important to me because it is a growth point. I know it is easy to embrace those I like. And to be honest, it is really difficult to imagine hugging someone I don’t like. When I see myself this way, I realize how far from God this feeling and thinking is. I don’t get down on myself. Rather, I see it as a growth point. It is the same feeling I get when I hear Jesus talking about loving our enemies. This is an easy theory to talk about. But it is incredibly difficult to imagine implementing.
Maybe it begins with seeing love as embrace. If I can’t hug, maybe I can at least shake hands! And maybe this can grow in love. Maybe love as embrace is the handshake growing into a hug.
Her book takes absolutely seriously all that science teaches. Of course, it is always possible to find particular scientists who disagree with the prevailing truths, but for example, the consensus that evolution is the way the world and we came to be seems pretty solidly true. Whatever I want to think about the Genesis creation accounts of the world and humanity, the truth of science has to be a factor in that interpretation.
And so I appreciate how Delio is able to help me be scientifically sound and see the theological implications. She helps me see that some of the ways God and our world have been viewed are probably outdated. It does not mean they are wrong; they simply don’t make as much sense in the new worldview. It is like saying the horse and buggy days are not wrong; they are also dated. Most of us prefer cars.
In the chapter I just read, Delio cites another theologian whom I find instructive. Mirolav Volk teaches theology at Yale Divinity School. He is a native of Croatia and his experience of that sometimes war-torn country gives his theology a power I find significant. Delio finds Volf’s 2002 book, Exclusion and Embrace, to help her talk about how God is love and how the world is an expression of God’s love. When I read Volf’s book, I was fascinated with how much he was able to do with the word, “embrace.”
This is where Delio picks up the theme. Let me cite a couple sentences from Delio to set the stage. She says, “Am embrace, Volf writes, begins with opening the arms. ‘Open arms are a gesture of the body reaching for the other. They are a sign of discontent with my own self-enclosed identity and a code of desire for the other…’ Open arms signify I have ‘created space in myself for the other to come in and that I have made a movement out of myself so as to enter the space created by the other.’” Let’s unpack this and explore the provocative themes.
Volf says an embrace commences with open arms. This is true, as all of us know. The more normal language I hear is “hug.” And embrace is a hug. We open our arms and invite in the other. As Volf rightly claims, the embrace is a gesture of the body reaching for the other. I love how he elaborates that the embrace is a code of desire. It says we don’t want to be alone---self-enclosed identities, as he puts it. And I am confident he thinks this is true not only for people, but it is true for God as well.
The embrace means I have created space in myself for the other person to come in. And reciprocally, they make a space for me to go into them. The symbolism of the two is powerful---unity out of diversity. It would be easy to develop this thought even further, but I want to add another thought from Volf, which Delio offers. She writes, “A genuine embrace entails the ability-not-to-understand but to accept the other as a question right in the midst of the embrace, and to let go, allowing the question of the other to remain mystery.”
I find it insightful that the embrace does not mean we necessarily understand the other. Understanding is not the pre-condition nor necessary result of embrace. Delio suggests, instead, we accept the other person as a question---a question right in the middle of the embrace. And furthermore, we let the question remain as mystery. I love this idea.
The other person is there---and there to embrace---not in order to understand and, surely, not to control. But they are mystery. And so it must be with the God who is also Other. God, too, we can embrace. And God can be taken into us and we taken into God. Mystery loves mystery. But it is not automatic.
Delio speaks to that when she notes, “Every effort to love---every embrace---has the possibility of refusal and resistance...” Here she explicitly links love and embrace. I like this; it makes a great deal of sense. It means all we say about embrace is really a declaration about love. Importantly, Delio recognizes all embraces and love can be refused or, at least, resisted. We all have experienced this with hugs.
This is important to me because it is a growth point. I know it is easy to embrace those I like. And to be honest, it is really difficult to imagine hugging someone I don’t like. When I see myself this way, I realize how far from God this feeling and thinking is. I don’t get down on myself. Rather, I see it as a growth point. It is the same feeling I get when I hear Jesus talking about loving our enemies. This is an easy theory to talk about. But it is incredibly difficult to imagine implementing.
Maybe it begins with seeing love as embrace. If I can’t hug, maybe I can at least shake hands! And maybe this can grow in love. Maybe love as embrace is the handshake growing into a hug.
I think the article is insightful. What I would add to that is that hugging brings two hearts closer together physically. Hearts have an energy field and communication system that operates beyond the mind… and physically bringing hearts close together helps stimulate that mystical exchange of loving energy.
ReplyDelete