8 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 6 Peering into Metaphysics: Surprises of Incarnation In the previous sections I have focused on reality perceived by the human consciousness. Now let me make a small humble step into metaphysics. What is the nature of the relation between the mind and the divine? What is the particular relationship between the transformed consciousness (mystics) and the divine reality? There is still the untouched question posed by Julian: why did God not prevent the “fall”? After the previous experiential analyzes we perhaps better understand how sin is given as inevitable and under what conditions. But let us also askwhy sin is inevitable. Let me shortly sketch certain direction of a possible philosophical and theological comprehension of this issue. At some places, Julian surprises her reader with her own daring interpretations of the visions. I focus now on Julian’s important remark about innocence of the fall. There is no one to blame for the fall – nor the servant, nor the good lord. The terrain was originally unbalanced, somehow rough, contained “pits”, what dramatically effected the life of the good servant, but also incited the deep compassion of the lord over the beloved servant. We could say, the ontological and metaphysical conditions were (or are) originally imperfect. Let me get back to Julian’s teaching of “God’s simple loving” (Julian of Norwich 2011, 13). She mystically observes how everything that exists is perfectly soaked and fully submerged in the divine being experienced as goodness (Julian of Norwich 2011, 13). Divinity is inseparable from the whole of creation – creation seen as “a little thing, the size of a hazel nut… round as a ball” in the palm of Julian’s hand (Julian of Norwich 2011, 13). She learns that everything has its being by the love of God (Julian of Norwich 2011, 23). The whole Revelations are led by the mystic’s perspective: “He is in all things” (Julian of Norwich 2011, 31). If this is so, what do the innocent imperfections of the finite being mean? How can the imperfections exist? What do they signify? Another aspect we have to consider is Julian’s stress on mysterious (and scandalous) identification, even equation of the servant withAdam, Christ, humankind and an individual person. In several places inRevelations, these roles are somehow heretically interchangeable. Why does the servant –Adam, Christ, humankind, a human person – incomprehensibly falls into the vicious state of the isolated sinful consciousness, unable to turn sight from pains and imperfections? Julian writes that in the servant “is included the Second Person in the Trinity, and also in the servant is included Adam, that is to say, all men. (And therefore, when I say ‘the Son’ it means Godhead, which is equal with the Father, and when I say ‘the servant,’ it means Christ’s manhood, which is true Adam)” (Julian of Norwich 2011, 129). And in few lines below she writes: “When Adam fell, God’s Son fell – because of the true union that was made in heaven, God’s Son could not be separated from Adam (for by ‘Adam’ I understand ‘all men’).” With the fall of the Son she means incarnation into the Mary’s womb. She also believes that the meaning of this vision is to show that Christ and Adam, in the eyes of God, are “as but one man” (Julian of Norwich 2011, 129). At another place, interpreting the symbolism of the parable, she notes “there was absolutely nothing separating the Godhead and manhood” (Julian of Norwich 2011, 130). And at other place, again, she refers to incarnation as to an injury (Julian of Norwich 2011, 132). Elsewhere she hints on the holy “knot”, the holy unity between Christ and humankind, which originally dwells in God (Julian of Norwich 2011, 142). Christ, Adam, you, and me – it is still the same servant from the parable. Julian writes that divinity is our perfect bliss, ever present to us. But she also writes that humanity is God’s great pleasure. He rejoices in receiving the human body, to be expressed as Body and in Body, manifesting His glory through human flesh. In Julian’s Revelations, the seeming extremities deity-humanity remain in the permanent tension within the incomprehensible divine unity. In other words, God is essentially and passionately involved in the affair of the continuous creation realized in the concrete incarnate self-manifestations. Julian also speaks of Christ’s Body as God’s Desire, which was with Him from the beginning and has accompanied the whole creation (Julian of Norwich 2011, 71). She herself speaks of Incarnation as the essential part of God (Julian of Norwich 2011, 154–155). At this point, if we were consistent, we would have to radically rethink the Christian theological notion of incarnation. In Julian’s Trinitarian perspective, divinity of Christ and of the Father is absolutely equal. But there seems to be the equality also between man and Christ – in the fall, incarnation, resurrection (transformation). These insights are not theoretical but based on contemplative and mystical experiences. But if Christ is incarnate, the very “aspect” of Godhead is incarnate. A Trinitarian divine life itself is somehow dramatically involved in the happening of the sin and creation. Essentially involved. Christ is the enterprise of the “creation”. The notion of incarnation serves us as a metaphysical leading clue to the problem of sin and antinomies of reality. If we further followed the thoughts above, we would need to open and broaden the notion of incarnation, and consider its possible ontological, metaphysical and theological consequences. The rethought notion would lead us from a single
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=