Alan Jacobs is high on my list of living heroes, and his book Breaking Bread with the Dead: A Reader’s Guide to a More Tranquil Mind was one of my favorite reads in the past five years.
Now this reviewer has the right idea: “David Bentley Hart has published a gigantic, compendious, exasperating, bombastic masterpiece of a book that every serious person should consider reading. It’s the most thorough and rigorous account of the nature of reality to be published in a century. With All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life (Yale, 528 pp.), Hart completes his long engagement with the arguments (if they can be called that) of the New Atheists.”
Setting aside Jacobs's decision to make passing reference to a book he obviously hasn't read, by what possible measure can "enchantment" be said to be having a moment within American Christianity, which is Jacobs's milieu? A study by Barna found that American Christians are significantly more enamored with AI than the general population, and they're also planning to vote for Silicon Valley's chosen ticket (Trump/Vance) in November en masse. Most of the evangelicals I know are metaphysical materialists, though they probably don't realize it, and they definitely don't expect their pastors to preach about fairies in their next sermon. They may claim to believe in human souls (or even evil spirits), but how those entities would fit into their worldview is a mystery to me. So, seriously, what is Jacobs talking about? Who out there actually gives a crap about idealism or pantheism or monism or any other "enchanted" metaphysics? What parallel universe does he live in?
Also, what an improverished view of Christianity, reducing it to "acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord." I know this is a popular take among American Christianity's online intelligensia, drawing mainly on the scholarship of NT Wright, but seems like it's based on absolutizing one of the baseline conditions for Christianity (Christ's overcoming of the cosmos) and making that an end in itself. It's just another riff on basic Reformation theology, repackaged in unfamiliar language to make it sound more radical and edgy. Calvin's "God the feudal baron" is still lurking behind the whole project.
Mechanistic materialism is the water in which we swim nowadays. This makes it exponentially difficult, IMO, for Christians to be able to grasp the ramifications of the Incarnation; I believe Protestants have the most difficulty with this, but we're all hampered. Which geronda was it who said (paraphrase) that there would come a day when simply remaining faithful would be a greater accomplishment than all the works of wonder done through the saints in past years? It's hard to stay focused on hope. I turn to the Mother of God more often than ever - thanks for the reminder of her station at the Cross.
I’m reminded, by your argument, of this quote that I recorded from somewhere:
“Take delight in all things that surround us. All things teach us and lead us to God. All thing around us are droplets of the love of God — both things animate and inanimate, the plants the animals, the birds and mountains, the sea the sunset, the starry sky…For a person to become a Christian he must first have a poetic soul…Poetic hearts embrace love and sense it deeply."
—St. Porphyrios, "Wounded by Love: The Life and the Wisdom of Saint Porphyrios," (218)
I don't have a lot to offer in the way of erudite observations, but what this post did remind me of is that fact that I, in the past during moments of fundamentalism, have been entirely too specific and closed-minded. I still believe that Jesus is the best example we have of the Father, but I'm more open to seeing that Jesus encompasses far more than the box I used to put him in.
"Jesus Christ responded that all of his listeners were “gods” according to the sacred scriptures."
I do believe that DBH addresses this somewhere, and so, too, I'm guessing you'll have a way of handling it: but doesn't this imply either that Jesus didn't know what Psalm 82 is about, and who those gods were to whom the Word of God came, or that Jesus was repurposing Psalm 82, but without explaining why his contemporary hearers should regard the Word of God that came to the judged and condemned gods of nations as having come, in the self-same instance, to men. The psalmist represents God as telling the gods that they will die like men and not at all that they are men.
How, if we assume that Jesus understood Psalm 82 and was deploying it in accordance with its plain meaning, do we make sense of what he said to his contemporaries about these figures to whom God said, "you are gods"--in relation, that is, to him calling out his hearers for taking issue with him saying that he was himself the Son of God? And how, if Jesus was repurposing Psalm 82 to say that his hearers--or other men relevantly like them--were themselves gods, do we identify that repurposing? And how, too, do we make sense of the implicit distinction that holds between "you are gods" and "I am the Son of God." (Not to mention this: is "Son of God" to be understood in a double-register, here, that is, as a title that would have had strictly messianic significance to Jesus' contemporaries, but would come to be filled with the significance that *we* know it to have in light of the Nicene synthesis? How would this inflect our reading of what Jesus is saying in respect of the Psalm 82 gods?)
Lots of different substantial points in your comment. Thank you. To note just a couple of things briefly (and obviously), Jesus clearly was not primarily concerned with grammatico-historical exegesis. Also, I see no tension at all between the claim that we are all gods and that Jesus was also the only God. This is the good news of the incarnation.
"I see no tension at all between the claim that we are all gods and that Jesus was also the only God. This is the good news of the incarnation."
Agreed. And I agree, too, that Jesus was not primarily concerned with grammatico-historical exegesis.
However, it'd take some showing to argue that Jesus' primary point (here specifically) was that his hearers were gods, rather than that there ARE a multitude of gods, and that the Judaean authorities know this (from Psalm 82 and many other texts) and that this has some basic implications.
One of those would be that a god or, indeed, the son of a god (also a well-attested phenomenon and appellation, scripturally speaking), might walk among men and identify himself as the son of this or that god. I'm wondering if Jesus isn't calling them out for being naturalistic and narrow-minded about the gods and the god's capacity to sire (at least) demi-divine sons, on the one hand (in essence, denying that there are such things as gods and sons of god, in blatant contradiction of scripture), and--on the other hand--relating to God as though he is a mere god, albeit the only one (thus, imminent and petty, rather than being, as God is, the absolutely transcendent maker of the gods).
Perhaps, if Jesus' hearers had been open to a conversation about all this, they might have found their eyes opened to an unspeakably vaster vista. For, quite apart from the countless gods that there are, and quite apart from the circumstance that some of them (those perverts now consigned to Tartarus) sired sons (the "bastard spirits" who, after the Father of Lies, are Jesus' primary enemies), human beings are on a path to divinity, themselves, and will end by "ruling angels" (alongside the Mother of God). And, too, Jesus' hearers, had they been willing to seriously affirm the existence of the gods and the divine paternity of the demi-divine "unclean spirits," would have been initiated into this mystery: that God himself is Father, that Jesus is God's uniquely, eternally begotten Son, and that it is a condition of the possibility of *anything* being pneumatic (as opposed to merely psychic and/or somatic), including even the wickedest, that God himself *be* Spirit.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that Gospel passage, but I think that the other reading (DBH's for instance) *presupposes* that Jesus is telling his hearers that *they* are gods, instead of showing that this is what Jesus is saying. I don't think that to affirm that Jesus was reminding his hearers that their own scriptures teach the existence of diverse gods and sons of gods is to ascribe an interest in grammatico-historical exegesis to Jesus. It's just to affirm that Jesus took Psalm 82 to be saying what it plainly (?) says.
I should be clearer. I loved this review and wholly resonate with your position, "bluntly and boldly" put: "with Jesus Christ comes all of His divinely enchanted creation, and if you are not seeing this in some sense, you should question the integrity of your sacramental and liturgical means of focusing on Jesus Christ."
Thanks again! Good thoughts, and I'd not claim that any of this is "plain" per say. It's not a simple passage to exegete by any means. My own hunch is the Christ is throwing back at his accusers an "accusation" in return of being divine and in the "image of God" themselves (in rather intense and table-turning terms). However, more than one other reading is reasonable for sure.
To borrow from you, borrowing from C.S. Lewis...if the latter writes, "[t]he Christian and the Pagan have much more in common with one another than either has with the writers of the New Statesman," it may be, perhaps, that Jesus is saying something like, "the Psalmist and the Gentile--not to mention the theologically 'suspect' northerner, the Samaritan and the Galilean--have much more in common with one another than either has with you Judaeans; they get that there are gods and that some gods have sons! That's why I can talk to them and they listen, while you just want to shut me up."
Now this reviewer has the right idea: “David Bentley Hart has published a gigantic, compendious, exasperating, bombastic masterpiece of a book that every serious person should consider reading. It’s the most thorough and rigorous account of the nature of reality to be published in a century. With All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life (Yale, 528 pp.), Hart completes his long engagement with the arguments (if they can be called that) of the New Atheists.”
https://wng.org/articles/the-mysteries-of-mind-1725418637
Setting aside Jacobs's decision to make passing reference to a book he obviously hasn't read, by what possible measure can "enchantment" be said to be having a moment within American Christianity, which is Jacobs's milieu? A study by Barna found that American Christians are significantly more enamored with AI than the general population, and they're also planning to vote for Silicon Valley's chosen ticket (Trump/Vance) in November en masse. Most of the evangelicals I know are metaphysical materialists, though they probably don't realize it, and they definitely don't expect their pastors to preach about fairies in their next sermon. They may claim to believe in human souls (or even evil spirits), but how those entities would fit into their worldview is a mystery to me. So, seriously, what is Jacobs talking about? Who out there actually gives a crap about idealism or pantheism or monism or any other "enchanted" metaphysics? What parallel universe does he live in?
Also, what an improverished view of Christianity, reducing it to "acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord." I know this is a popular take among American Christianity's online intelligensia, drawing mainly on the scholarship of NT Wright, but seems like it's based on absolutizing one of the baseline conditions for Christianity (Christ's overcoming of the cosmos) and making that an end in itself. It's just another riff on basic Reformation theology, repackaged in unfamiliar language to make it sound more radical and edgy. Calvin's "God the feudal baron" is still lurking behind the whole project.
You’re a little more strident or direct than me, but fair points indeed.
Yeah, I should probably work on that.
Ha! Not my point at any rate…
Mechanistic materialism is the water in which we swim nowadays. This makes it exponentially difficult, IMO, for Christians to be able to grasp the ramifications of the Incarnation; I believe Protestants have the most difficulty with this, but we're all hampered. Which geronda was it who said (paraphrase) that there would come a day when simply remaining faithful would be a greater accomplishment than all the works of wonder done through the saints in past years? It's hard to stay focused on hope. I turn to the Mother of God more often than ever - thanks for the reminder of her station at the Cross.
Dana
So well said. Thank you.
I’m reminded, by your argument, of this quote that I recorded from somewhere:
“Take delight in all things that surround us. All things teach us and lead us to God. All thing around us are droplets of the love of God — both things animate and inanimate, the plants the animals, the birds and mountains, the sea the sunset, the starry sky…For a person to become a Christian he must first have a poetic soul…Poetic hearts embrace love and sense it deeply."
—St. Porphyrios, "Wounded by Love: The Life and the Wisdom of Saint Porphyrios," (218)
Beautiful! Thank you for reading and for sharing this quote back!
I don't have a lot to offer in the way of erudite observations, but what this post did remind me of is that fact that I, in the past during moments of fundamentalism, have been entirely too specific and closed-minded. I still believe that Jesus is the best example we have of the Father, but I'm more open to seeing that Jesus encompasses far more than the box I used to put him in.
Thank you for reading and reflecting along with me here!
"Jesus Christ responded that all of his listeners were “gods” according to the sacred scriptures."
I do believe that DBH addresses this somewhere, and so, too, I'm guessing you'll have a way of handling it: but doesn't this imply either that Jesus didn't know what Psalm 82 is about, and who those gods were to whom the Word of God came, or that Jesus was repurposing Psalm 82, but without explaining why his contemporary hearers should regard the Word of God that came to the judged and condemned gods of nations as having come, in the self-same instance, to men. The psalmist represents God as telling the gods that they will die like men and not at all that they are men.
How, if we assume that Jesus understood Psalm 82 and was deploying it in accordance with its plain meaning, do we make sense of what he said to his contemporaries about these figures to whom God said, "you are gods"--in relation, that is, to him calling out his hearers for taking issue with him saying that he was himself the Son of God? And how, if Jesus was repurposing Psalm 82 to say that his hearers--or other men relevantly like them--were themselves gods, do we identify that repurposing? And how, too, do we make sense of the implicit distinction that holds between "you are gods" and "I am the Son of God." (Not to mention this: is "Son of God" to be understood in a double-register, here, that is, as a title that would have had strictly messianic significance to Jesus' contemporaries, but would come to be filled with the significance that *we* know it to have in light of the Nicene synthesis? How would this inflect our reading of what Jesus is saying in respect of the Psalm 82 gods?)
Lots of different substantial points in your comment. Thank you. To note just a couple of things briefly (and obviously), Jesus clearly was not primarily concerned with grammatico-historical exegesis. Also, I see no tension at all between the claim that we are all gods and that Jesus was also the only God. This is the good news of the incarnation.
"I see no tension at all between the claim that we are all gods and that Jesus was also the only God. This is the good news of the incarnation."
Agreed. And I agree, too, that Jesus was not primarily concerned with grammatico-historical exegesis.
However, it'd take some showing to argue that Jesus' primary point (here specifically) was that his hearers were gods, rather than that there ARE a multitude of gods, and that the Judaean authorities know this (from Psalm 82 and many other texts) and that this has some basic implications.
One of those would be that a god or, indeed, the son of a god (also a well-attested phenomenon and appellation, scripturally speaking), might walk among men and identify himself as the son of this or that god. I'm wondering if Jesus isn't calling them out for being naturalistic and narrow-minded about the gods and the god's capacity to sire (at least) demi-divine sons, on the one hand (in essence, denying that there are such things as gods and sons of god, in blatant contradiction of scripture), and--on the other hand--relating to God as though he is a mere god, albeit the only one (thus, imminent and petty, rather than being, as God is, the absolutely transcendent maker of the gods).
Perhaps, if Jesus' hearers had been open to a conversation about all this, they might have found their eyes opened to an unspeakably vaster vista. For, quite apart from the countless gods that there are, and quite apart from the circumstance that some of them (those perverts now consigned to Tartarus) sired sons (the "bastard spirits" who, after the Father of Lies, are Jesus' primary enemies), human beings are on a path to divinity, themselves, and will end by "ruling angels" (alongside the Mother of God). And, too, Jesus' hearers, had they been willing to seriously affirm the existence of the gods and the divine paternity of the demi-divine "unclean spirits," would have been initiated into this mystery: that God himself is Father, that Jesus is God's uniquely, eternally begotten Son, and that it is a condition of the possibility of *anything* being pneumatic (as opposed to merely psychic and/or somatic), including even the wickedest, that God himself *be* Spirit.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that Gospel passage, but I think that the other reading (DBH's for instance) *presupposes* that Jesus is telling his hearers that *they* are gods, instead of showing that this is what Jesus is saying. I don't think that to affirm that Jesus was reminding his hearers that their own scriptures teach the existence of diverse gods and sons of gods is to ascribe an interest in grammatico-historical exegesis to Jesus. It's just to affirm that Jesus took Psalm 82 to be saying what it plainly (?) says.
I should be clearer. I loved this review and wholly resonate with your position, "bluntly and boldly" put: "with Jesus Christ comes all of His divinely enchanted creation, and if you are not seeing this in some sense, you should question the integrity of your sacramental and liturgical means of focusing on Jesus Christ."
Thanks again! Good thoughts, and I'd not claim that any of this is "plain" per say. It's not a simple passage to exegete by any means. My own hunch is the Christ is throwing back at his accusers an "accusation" in return of being divine and in the "image of God" themselves (in rather intense and table-turning terms). However, more than one other reading is reasonable for sure.
To borrow from you, borrowing from C.S. Lewis...if the latter writes, "[t]he Christian and the Pagan have much more in common with one another than either has with the writers of the New Statesman," it may be, perhaps, that Jesus is saying something like, "the Psalmist and the Gentile--not to mention the theologically 'suspect' northerner, the Samaritan and the Galilean--have much more in common with one another than either has with you Judaeans; they get that there are gods and that some gods have sons! That's why I can talk to them and they listen, while you just want to shut me up."