44 Comments
Mar 15, 2023Liked by FFatalism

Your question to 'Wild Christians' is a good one, very searching. I arrived in Christianity fairly recently, after a long sojourn through paganism, and I am still hovering on its stranger fringes for the most part. My attempt at an answer might seem slippery, but I came by it honestly: whatever the world is, as we know it, we are part of it; without us, it would not be 'the world', it would be something else. And I think that matters. It puts me in mind of the end of The Hogfather by Terry Pratchett (a writer I thought I had outgrown but always end up coming back to): if the ceremonies are not observed, the sun will not rise. Instead, a ball of flaming gas will illuminate the globe. I am beginning to think that difference is more profound and less semantic than I initially assumed. If we live in a way which honours that difference, things might be better for all creation, and not just ourselves.

I used to believe that life would go on largely unaffected by the demise of humanity, and probably for the best. That belief is still in the process of shifting, and I lean heavily on the words and ideas of others to describe my thoughts while I am still finding my feet. I recently read Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta and it has helped me understand the concept - and reality - of humans as a custodial species, a role sustained by the practice of ceremony, which only we can fulfil. Of course, almost nobody believes this; of the few that do, almost nobody has the knowledge or memory of how to perform this role, how to live in this way. I certainly don't, but I am trying to learn what I can.

I am sure that someone better versed in theology than I am will find a way to express a more insightful and Christian version of these observations. All I can say is that the ritual framework of Christianity has been useful for me to navigate the spiritual reality of the experiences which have led me here.

Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023Liked by FFatalism

As to your question about Christianity and the fate of humanity, there is an interesting short essay by C. S. Lewis titled 'Dogma and the Universe'. It is not long and worthy of being read entirely, but let me quote the relevant lines:

'As far as I understand the latter, Christianity is not wedded to an anthropocentric view of the universe as a whole. [...]

'It is, of course, the essence of Christianity that God loves man and for his sake became man and died. But that does not prove that man is the sole end of nature. In the parable, it was the one lost sheep that the shepherd went in search of: it was not the only sheep in the flock, and we are not told that it was the most valuable — save in so far as the most desperately in need has, while the need lasts, a peculiar value in the eyes of Love. The doctrine of the Incarnation would conflict with what we know of this vast universe only if we knew also that there were other rational species in it who had, like us, fallen, and who needed redemption in the same mode, and that they had not been vouchsafed it. But we know none of these things. It may be full of life that needs no redemption. It may be full of life that has been redeemed. It may be full of things quite other than life which satisfy the Divine Wisdom in fashions one cannot conceive. We are in no position to draw up maps of God’s psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. [...]

The doctrines that God is love and that He delights in men, are positive doctrines, not limiting doctrines. He is not less than this. What more He may be, we do not know; we know only that He must be more than we can conceive. It is to be expected that His creation should be, in the main, unintelligible to us.

Christians themselves have been much to blame for the misunderstanding on these matters. They have a bad habit of talking as if revelation existed to gratify curiosity by illuminating all creation so that it becomes self-explanatory and all questions are answered. But revelation appears to me to be purely practical, to be addressed to the particular animal, Fallen Man, for the relief of his urgent necessities —- not to the spirit of inquiry in man for the gratification of his liberal curiosity.'

Expand full comment

“Must wild Christianity be millenarian?”

Christianity is millenarian. ‘Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’ means, in effect, a closing of the gap between realms of existence and a redemptive transformation. Maybe it sounds crazy, but so is the metaverse, reincarnation, or the fervent belief that everything is pure chance.

There is a temptation to think of the adjective “wild” as meaning free to interpret things any which way. Wild in the context of Christianity (in my view anyway) has a different connotation. Wild means approaching Reality without defenses; coming psychologically and spiritually naked before the Creator. It is not Jean-Jacques Rousseau religion.

“…is it possible for a Christian to interpret that as a merely ‘local’ event, like of rise and fall of empires…?”

Yes. I am not convinced we are in the end times, not because I don’t believe there will be an end times, but because any cursory reading of history will reveal innumerable periods when everything just sort of fell apart.

However, I have met a great many Christians who are convinced that we are in the end times. I’ve also met some Muslims who feel the same way. Perhaps a part of this tendency isn’t merely doctrinal, but an instinctive inclination to see one’s own historical period as the most significant, and the most climactic. The proliferation of dystopian and zombie-type movies suggest that even non-religious people have this inclination. The best part of every story is the climax; who wouldn’t want to live in the climax?

Expand full comment

thanks so much for the link and the kind words! i'm very glad to hear that you've found something to enjoy in my work: it feels more like a exorcism than an exercise when i sit down to write, so feedback from normal people is always deeply appreciated.

and if anybody ever wants to explore the gnosticism of Wild Christianity—i am enthusiastically available.

Expand full comment

My own 'apocalyptic imaginary' so to speak is greatly informed by A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller; by The Road, by Cormac McCarthy; and, more recently, by A Descent into the Maelstrom, by Edgar Allen Poe. All highly recommended reading, for what it is worth.

That said, I have no idea how this catastrophe unfolds. My intuition and my (dark) hope is that though it will be planetary in scope, it will be limited in time (though might last a long time). And that humans will survive it. But it will be excruciating, to say the least, to go through.

If so, it would be wise to begin fathoming how to start living on the other side of this catastrophe now. Not because any one of us--or group of us--will survive it. Most likely we won't. But so that perhaps what is the best of wisdom and practices of wisdom (to speak generically) might possibly and more likely survive what is coming and already upon us. So maybe those who do survive it, won't have to start over from scratch. This is what in The Road is called 'carrying the fire'.

Maybe that is utterly futile. But it is something that gives me hope and purpose.

Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023Liked by FFatalism

I'd just like to say that I am one of the (few? many?) non-Christians who came here via Paul Kingsnorth. If I had a larger/more stable income I do applaud your approach to this issue, which is refreshingly different from the popular view of blogging and its variants as some klnd of cash cow. I would certainly be pledging my support but cannot do so in all conscience right now. Maybe later this year, if things work out...

More power to your elbow.

Expand full comment

Interesting; I will try to check out some of those links.

I may be missing something, but I haven’t interpreted the “Wild Christianity” articles as millenarian. I am not anticipating that all society will collapse at once. I think it more likely that many “small” disasters will happen (are happening) at once, requiring an increasing number of “small” course corrections on the part of alert individuals and organizations. Of course, these “small” disasters may not feel at all small to those involved and the “small” changes may end up being quite significant over time.

Now I could be completely wrong, of course. But I live within the scope of what I can do to keep my corner of society functioning, and there’s still more than enough for me to do every day. My perception of the larger picture is also biased by my experience, obviously: I have witnessed and experienced disturbing things, but me and my family are still here living and working, and I like to think making a positive impact.

Are humans “special?” To ourselves we are anyway. It’s always seemed to me intuitively that human consciousness serves some purpose in the big picture. I can perceive beauty and have a need to create and speak truth. That has to mean something. Recently I’ve found that at least some strands of Christian thinking dig into this, and explain it in a rational manner. That is powerful to me: it’s like discovering the grammar and vocabulary of a language I’ve never been properly taught. Some people talk about religious belief as if one is forcing oneself to believe something stupid and implausible (which no one should ever do), but that is not what is happening with me. I am trying to understand something I have always experienced.

Anyway maybe that went off topic. And also I’m not Christian either, so can’t actually answer your question. And I may never be, but we live in strange times, so who knows. I think the most useful ideas are those that can be grasped but also adapt to many different situations, and this “wild Christianity” idea seems to be working for a few people. It has sort clicked for me too, but it wasn’t exactly Paul’s essay that clicked, but Peco’s at Pilgrims in the Machine:

https://pilgrimsinthemachine.substack.com/p/a-fire-that-purifies

This was my response:

https://torthuilexplores.blogspot.com/2023/03/calling-up-other-worlds.html?m=0

Maybe millenarian doesn’t have to be only large scale? Though it could be. Maybe the endings and beginnings could be happening within us.

Expand full comment

Of course it can be a local event! We have gone through civilisational cycles before, and although there are some signs that this could well be the final collapse (considering the emergence of planet-killing technologies), it seems more likely to me that with the decline in technological innovation, when 'the event' happens it will be catastrophic, but not apocalyptic. Perhaps in the next cycle we'll mess things up enough for Christ's return. I recommend GM Davis' book on Antichrist. He seems to be in the End Times camp, but he does caution that we can't predict when these things will happen, and it's better not to speculate on the chronology. What he does do is identify those trends which seem to fulfil prophecies and point to how the Kingdom of Antichrist will be constructed. As this would be a fulfilment of globalism, and as we are most likely now heading towards chaotic deglobalisation, it seems to me that a later cycle is a better candidate.

Expand full comment

This link, I feel, provides a better answer than I gave. The question of escatology, or the end times, requires an understanding of the power of God, which is either totally controlling, which removes free will, or of limited control.

https://thinkingpacifism.net/2023/03/28/is-love-weak-questioning-faith-16/

Expand full comment

After many decades of seeking the Way of Jesus, I find that the onrushing collapse of society is a very spiritual, very human, failing. I do not see it as a version of some Hollywood apocalyptic movie. I do not see a need to retreat into walled, fortified monastaries. We do need to rediscover our spiritual connection to Creation and the Creator.

Expand full comment

You made my day *and* brought several new sign-ups. Thank you for reading, writing and sharing what you do.

Expand full comment

There are two perils contemplated here. One is human extinction, the other is some sort of total technocracy that subjugates the human spirit.

I see both as spiritually perilous from a wild or esoteric Christian perspective. Humans have a particular role to play in terms of elevating consciousness. Anything that either wipes out humanity or welds large portions of humanity to technocratic / materialist forces is of spiritual peril in a much broader frame than merely personal spiritual peril.

This for me is fundamentally different to a materialist view, which might find it harder to go beyond that it is a real shame if the particles that make up this corner of the universe are no longer quite so full of life, due to human actions.

Expand full comment