{"id":34898,"date":"2016-03-18T12:27:27","date_gmt":"2016-03-18T17:27:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=34898"},"modified":"2016-04-22T10:17:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T15:17:06","slug":"transformation-and-flourishing-charles-taylors-a-secular-age-round-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2016\/03\/transformation-and-flourishing-charles-taylors-a-secular-age-round-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Transformation and Flourishing: A Secular Age, Round 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"sec(<\/em><\/a>Link to\u00a0<\/em>Round<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>1<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

This post revisits the theme of fullness from\u00a0Taylor\u2019s introduction that I mentioned briefly in the last post<\/a>. In the universal quest for the \u201cgood life\u201d\u2014the telos that determines what makes life valuable and what is the normative way to live\u2014 Taylor distinguishes the believer and the unbeliever by where they locate this fullness (the transcendent or the immanent frame), and what fullness entails (transformation or flourishing).<\/p>\n

What does Taylor mean by \u201ctransformation\u201d and \u201cflourishing\u201d? In short, flourishing is the perfection or fulfillment of our \u201chuman material\u201d (i.e. sexual fulfillment, security and success, health and prosperity, etc.), while transformation entails a \u201cradical change in identity\u201d that \u201ctakes us beyond merely human perfection\u201d\u2014or requires its very renunciation– in the name of a higher good. More specifically, “the believer or devout person is called on to make a profound inner break with the goals of flourishing in their own case\u2026to the point of the extinction of self in one case [Buddhism], or to that of renunciation of human fulfillment to serve God in the other [Christianity].\u201d<\/p>\n

But what does \u201cserving God\u201d mean? Doesn’t the Judeo-Christian God desire our flourishing? (Yes, Taylor affirms). Might not its renunciation simply be instrumental to greater flourishing, some kind of \u201cunnecessary ballast on the journey of life\u201d? Taylor argues this negates the sacrificial power of the \u201crenunciation\u201d; the transformative power stems from this very act of affirming and surrendering the \u201cunsubstitutable good\u201d of our own flourishing. Cynthia Bourgeault, a contemplative writer and priest, puts it even more strongly:\u00a0\u201cIt is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that one dies to the lesser in order to \u2018gain\u2019 the greater. But the great spiritual teachers (of which Jesus was clearly among the greatest-of-the great) do not say that.\u00a0You do not die on a cross in order<\/em> to \u2018set up\u2019 the resurrection; you die on a cross because the willingness to give it all away is itself the original and ultimate creative act from which all being flows\u2026. And so the last attachment must be broken: the attachment to\u00a0having<\/em>\u00a0itself\u201d [1]. Here, the transformative process is clear: the egoic attachment to \u201chaving\u201d that rests at the heart of flourishing \u2014 having \u201cmore\u201d of x<\/em> human good– must be completely transformed into a different way of being.<\/p>\n

Here\u00a0I think Taylor muddies the waters a bit. For example, he uses \u201cflourishing\u201d in two ways: i.e. God\u2019s desiring of \u201cordinary human flourishing\u201d (such as the physical healings Christ performs in the New Testament) and \u201cfuller flourishing\u201d (what he characterizes later on in the book as agape\u2014universal participation in God\u2019s love). This slippage makes Taylor sound contradictory (we must surrender the goals of our own flourishing to serve a God who desires our flourishing). This is also blurred by his shifts between a \u201cGod\u2019s eye view\u201d and the \u201cbeliever\u2019s view.\u201d From God\u2019s point of view, it is<\/em> about [\u201cfuller\u201d] flourishing, though on a universal<\/em> scale; but carrying this out may entail the sacrifice of individual flourishing. He explains, \u201cThe fruit of this forgoing is that it becomes on one level the source of flourishing to others, and on another level, a collaboration with the restoration of a fuller flourishing by God. It is a mode of healing wounds and ‘repairing the world’ (18). \u00a0So while God\u2019s \u201ctelos\u201d may entail our flourishing, from the position of our own individual experience (and that perspective is supposed to anchor the book), our telos–devotion to God\u2019s will\u2014may ultimately require its renunciation.[2]<\/p>\n

This, at least, is Taylor\u2019s (broadly painted) version of the Judeo-Christian believer. Where does Mormonism fit into this? Not comfortably, I think, though we are not the only ones [3]. Mormonism complicates this dichotomy of transcendence\/transformation and immanence\/flourishing not only through the embrace of innate human goodness and rejection of original sin, but the more radical doctrine that man and God are not ontologically distinct; that as man now is, God once was. If that is the case, how much \u201ctransformation\u201d do we believe is really necessary in the path to fullness? Is our \u201cfullness\u201d simply an amplified and immortalized version of human flourishing, rather than radical change or self-transcendence?<\/p>\n

On the one hand, some passages in LDS scripture do emphasize a kind of fullness continuous with the flourishing of ordinary human desires [4]. Furthermore, Book of Mormon descriptions of dramatic transformations describe the change\u00a0from sin to righteousness\u2014 not a renunciation of actual, legitimate human flourishing [5]. Explanations of the afterlife rest on continuity rather than transformation: we are \u201crestored\u201d to the works and desires of our mortal tabernacle, for good or ill [6]. Or take a much-loved passage by Parley Pratt on the effects of the Holy Ghost: the language bespeaks more of the expansion, perfection, cultivation of human nature than its transformation: \u201cThe gift of the Holy Ghost quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands, and purifies all the natural passions and affections, and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings, and affections of our nature…\u201d [7]. If I can get away with being really broad [8], I\u2019d say many pulpit and scriptural discussions of the Atonement depict Christ\u2019s grace as more of a stain-remover than an identity-changer (see Alma 5, for example); the basic \u201cfabric\u201d of our nature doesn\u2019t really seem to change. Perhaps as a consequence, we often treat Christ\u2019s crucifixion less as an example to follow and more as an instrument to our freedom from sin and death\u2014despite Christ\u2019s call (warning?) that \u201cIf any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.\u201d The full-scale transformation and self-denial implied in this scripture doesn\u2019t find much correlation that I can see in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n

So if we look at Mormonism through Taylor\u2019s dichotomy, is Mormonism\u2019s idea of fullness (salvation) more about flourishing than transformation? [9] This could be\u00a0challenged several ways. One is to point to the overall \u201cprosperity cycle\u201d of the Book of Mormon as a message that man\u2019s tendency towards treating the temporal and spiritual gains of keeping the commandments as “goods” or flourishing shorn\u00a0of God\u2019s greater \u201ctelos\u201d (\u201cfuller [universal] flourishing,” i.e. to love and care for others, alleviate poverty and suffering, etc.), ends in spiritual and social catastrophe.<\/p>\n

Or we could look at explicit examples of prophets calling for transformation over flourishing\u2014but this takes us in a tricky direction. The primary example I see of this is the case of polygamy, where Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders ask members to surrender the goals of human flourishing (marital love and intimacy) for a radical \u201cidentity [or values] change,\u201d culminating in a heaven populated by dynastic networks and polygamous offspring. Ironically, this is an issue in which the Church has made the most profound reversal, not simply away from polygamy and its radical implications [10], but towards an enshrinement of the nuclear family (something Taylor associates as a source of \u201cordinary human flourishing\u201d) as the very essence of salvation and exaltation.<\/p>\n

In summary, I think Mormonism\u2019s claim that God and man are not ontologically distinct has the potential to reconcile Taylor\u2019s dichotomy\u2014a hugely important feat, in Taylor\u2019s eyes (as we\u2019ll discuss in later posts, though in a nutshell, Taylor asserts it was the tension between the two that fractured Christianity in the first place, and hopes that modern Christianity can ultimately achieve their reconciliation and thus speak to our fundamental human longings and potential). However, before we triumphantly call it a day, I think Mormonism\u2019s position between those two poles can be contradictory and incomplete, and thinking along the lines of flourishing and transformation may allow us to ask fruitful questions. For example, does Mormonism\u2019s ontological collapse diminish the spiritual depth and transformative power that renouncing \u2013or at least questioning\u2014our human \u201cflourishing\u201d could produce? Do we overemphasize the divinity of ordinary human flourishing at the cost of much-needed personal and collective transformation? Is a religion that measures our spiritual worth by our flourishing [i.e. Mosiah 2:41] a bit too egoically satisfying and convenient? Can we find a middle ground in affirming our innate goodness and divine likeness while recognizing the extent of our brokenness, without slipping towards antithetical ideas of total human depravity? What are your thoughts?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

———————————————————————–<\/p>\n

[1] Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening, <\/em>49.<\/p>\n

[2] There\u2019s also some slippage in speaking about locating our telos (\u201ctranscendent transformation\u201d or immanent flourishing) and the sources<\/em> for achieving that telos (in a force beyond ourselves [grace] or within ourselves [will, reason, etc.]); the dichotomy breaks down in something like Buddhism, where the transformational resource is \u201cimmanent,\u201d or self-contained]). I think that discussions in Mormonism about the emphasis on our own agency and responsibility [immanent resources] at the expense of grace [transcendent resource] speak to that issue.<\/p>\n

I also find Eugene England\u2019s essay \u201cJoseph Smith and the Tragic Quest\u201d an interesting perspective on the tension produced by individual agency and collective values or needs, and the inevitable tragedy that produces. This seems related to Taylor\u2019s implicit collective vs. individual tension at the heart of God\u2019s desired universal flourishing.<\/p>\n

[3] Nor is it the only one; in his book on Secular Age,<\/em> philosopher\u00a0James Smith takes issue with Taylor\u2019s distinction between transformation and flourishing as a \u201changover of\u2026 scholastic Thomism,\u201d a discontinuity between grace and nature that Reformed traditions, for example, do not share See How to (Not) be Secular<\/em>, p 48 FN 1, and pg 32 FN 2. Others have also pointed out that Judaism and Islam do not fit well into these dichotomies for various theological reasons.<\/p>\n

[4] Mosiah 2:41 seems like a classic example: God\u2019s commandments ensure \u201cblessed and happy state,\u201d both temporally and spiritually. Consider also Mosiah 3:19\u2019s call to become \u201cput off the natural man and become as a child” [an originary, rather than transformative, state]).<\/p>\n

[5] Mosiah 5, Alma 22, Alma 5<\/p>\n

[6] Alma 41<\/p>\n

[7] Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, Deseret Book, 1978, p. 61<\/p>\n

[8] I know, I know. This whole thing is ridiculously broad. But if you’re talking about Taylor, what else can ya do?<\/p>\n

[9]Taylor might think so by locating Mormonism in the context of the modern \u201canthropocentric shift\u201d (17th<\/sup>-19th<\/sup> centuries), where the goals of religion became wedded to the goals of modern civilization, and God\u2019s purposes and mysteries are reduced exclusively to human flourishing. I think there is a lot to say about this, but it will wait for a later post (once we hit chapter 6).<\/p>\n

[10] I think teachings on polygamy threaten to undo much of the theological radicalness of Mormonism\u2019s claims that we and God are ontologically the same: see Joseph Smith\u2019s letter to Nancy Rigdon [Mormon Enigma<\/em> 112-113], for example, where the famous \u201chappiness is the object and design of our existence (through keeping all the commandments, etc.)\u201d quote is followed by his explanation that sometimes those commandments might upend our entire moral compass. Instead of ontological similitude, Joseph\u2019s letter emphasizes God\u2019s alterity and unknowability, for \u201cThat which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another”\u2014but \u201cwhatever God requires is right, no matter what it is.\u201d This Euthyphroian answer (it is \u201cgood\u201d because <\/em>God commands it) reverses the powerful Mormon teaching that God commands because it is good<\/em>\u2014i.e., the Good exists independently of God. I think this warrants a separate discussion,\u00a0perhaps.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Link to\u00a0Round\u00a01) This post revisits the theme of fullness from\u00a0Taylor\u2019s introduction that I mentioned briefly in the last post. In the universal quest for the \u201cgood life\u201d\u2014the telos that determines what makes life valuable and what is the normative way to live\u2014 Taylor distinguishes the believer and the unbeliever by where they locate this fullness (the transcendent or the immanent frame), and what fullness entails (transformation or flourishing). What does Taylor mean by \u201ctransformation\u201d and \u201cflourishing\u201d? In short, flourishing is the perfection or fulfillment of our \u201chuman material\u201d (i.e. sexual fulfillment, security and success, health and prosperity, etc.), while transformation entails a \u201cradical change in identity\u201d that \u201ctakes us beyond merely human perfection\u201d\u2014or requires its very renunciation– in the name of a higher good. More specifically, “the believer or devout person is called on to make a profound inner break with the goals of flourishing in their own case\u2026to the point of the extinction of self in one case [Buddhism], or to that of renunciation of human fulfillment to serve God in the other [Christianity].\u201d But what does \u201cserving God\u201d mean? Doesn’t the Judeo-Christian God desire our flourishing? (Yes, Taylor affirms). Might not its renunciation simply be instrumental to greater […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10389,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-book-reviews"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34898","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10389"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34898"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34898\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35149,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34898\/revisions\/35149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}