Friday, November 29, 2019

Barfield Keeps Evolutionary Spirituality On Track

I just finished a better than expected book, Romantic Religion by R.J. Reilly, which explores the way imagination was evoked in works of the four major Inklings: Owen Barfield, Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien. Surprisingly, the book gives more emphasis to Barfield, primarily because of the four Inklings he was the one that constructed a newer theory of knowledge that, similar to his counterparts, was still grounded in Christian worldview.  

Barfield took up a topic that was not necessarily undiscovered, but coherent and consistent enough with tradition that it did not require man to create another religion. His main thesis is that the evolution of nature is inseparable from the evolution of consciousness. And that Christianity could be seen in a fresh light from this current milieu as God reveals “His word to man in the way that man at that particular stage of civilization is best fitted to receive it.”

But how is this different from other espousers of evolutionary spirituality (or process theology)? First, Barfield did not see God as evolving; it is only our relationship to Him that evolves. Barfield disagreed with Teilhard de Chardin's mystical evolution to the Omega Point, because “it begins with the old Darwinian assumption that matter preceded mind, that, over aeons, matter evolved into ever more complex organisms, and that eventually the increasing complexity of structure in matter produced consciousness.” Barfield did not stray from God as Creator, and with his study of language he found that the ancients participated with phenomena less distinctly and more intuitively. The “Fall” has been a process of making finer distinctions of phenomena, thereby granting objective existence to our collective representations. If we were to evolve from here, it would require us regain our conscious participation and continue upward toward Eternal Spirit. Reilly notes, “From the purely temporal point of view, then, we may say that God is manifesting Himself in man; but He is not thereby diminishing Himself, nor is He evolving.”

Also, Barfield differed from other theories of evolutionary spirituality in his importance of maintaining the distinction between God and person. His view was “that evolution is a descent from unindividualized spirit into individualized spirit and matter—man and phenomena—and then a continuing upward movement back toward spirit—a return to the One, but not a submerging of the individual spirits in the One, rather a convergence of the fully individuated and fully conscious Many in the One” (emphasis mine). God remains a mystery above and beyond man, but coinheres in the individuated personhood of man. C.S. Lewis appreciated this perspective, and sided with his colleague and friend Barfield that “among Pantheists we must emphasize our independence of God, while among Deists we must stress his Divine presence.”

Lastly, Barfield saw that true evolution was not necessarily always moving in the way man may see it; and that history was a “series of conflicts between the impulse toward true evolution and the impulse toward substitution.” Since man is condemned to religion, he will find false substitutes if the demands of tradition do not suit the times nor his temperament. Such as we can see through history with the trends of marxism, socialism, materialism, scientism, environmentalism, and new ageism. Reilly adds, “We may choose a further evolution toward an even greater idolatry, choosing to cut ourselves off even more from the world outside us.” Barfield's fear is that this would eliminate all meaning and coherence from the cosmos, because our participation would not be primarily with God.

On a final matter, Barfield did not dismiss the Incarnation as symbolic gesture, but a true myth that aligned with his temporal theory: “At a certain point in time—the time of the historical Incarnation of Christ and His subsequent death—the process became one of ascent, or re-ascent. Diagrammatically, Barfield says, the process of evolution appears not as a straight line sloping always upward but more as a capital U.” The flight from God requires us, as Barfield said, to “find our way back to her again.”


*

I particularly recommend this short film on Barfield. I find this gives one a good sensibility of the man, and his transmission of ideas. I've also noticed a recent uptick of people recognizing his work again.