Evolution and the Third Nature of Christ

A Study of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Cosmic Christ

Course: THEO 761

Spirituality and Religion in a Scientific Era

Submitted to

Rev. J. Wiseman, OSB

Department of Theology

By

Chiu Bit-Shing, Abraham ofm

Washington D.C.

December, 1999

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE: THE TERM “COSMIC CHRIST”

  1. The background of the terminology
  2. The contemporary development of the term “cosmic”
  3. Summary

CHAPTER TWO: TEILHARD DE CHARDIN’ S “COSMIC CHRIST”

  1. Evolution and “Cosmic”
  2. A briefing on C. Darwin’s theory of evolution
  3. The cosmic theology of Teilhard
  4. The third nature of Christ
  5. Ideas from cons and pros
  6. Cons
  7. W. Pannenberg
  8. T. S. Gregory
  9. Pros
  10. F. Bravo
  11. T. M. King
  12. T. Peters
  13. I. Barbour
  14. R. J. Russell
  15. P Hefner
  16. Summary

CHAPTER THREE: THE PROLOGUE AND 17:5 IN JOHN

  1. Introduction
  2. The 
  3. in the Prologue of John
  4. The glory before the creation of the world in John 17:5
  5. Summary

GENERAL CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

In The Divine Milieu, P. Teilhard de Chardin says that the Son of God is the “total Christ”. What “total” means for Teilhard is a “universal Christ.”[1] He insists that “the mystical body of Christ” must be conceived as a physical “Reality,” without any attenuation. Jesus is the center towards whom all moves.[2] In this dynamic motion, all creatures move towards the center of the universe, Jesus Christ.

The scientific thought of Teilhard leads him towards the Son of God whom he calls the “universal Christ.”[3] The cosmic function of the universal Christ is “not only moral, but physical.”[4] If Christ is to remain without diminution, at the center of our faith, and if the world is indeed evolutionary, then this cosmic Christ, the beginning, the bond, and the terminus of all creation must now offer himself for our adoration as the “evolutive” Christ.[5] Creation, incarnation, and redemption together constitute one movement, viz., pleromization. The movement goes towards “pleroma.” This is the oneness of the universe, through the center of the cosmos, the cosmic Christ. Christology, for Teilhard, becomes a living bond between prayer and action. Since Christ is the center of his life, Teilhard cries, “O Christ, ever greater!”[6]

As a matter of fact, the oneness of the Father and the Son is the foundation of the oneness of the universe. The evangelist of the Gospel of John elaborates this intimacy between the Father and the Son underneath the simple words in the Prologue and in 17:5.

What light does John 1:3 offer as the evangelist states that the universe is created through Christ? How does the Son regain the glory that he had before the world was made? These verses, along with the Pauline letters contribute an important part to Teilhard de Chardin’s works.

Teilhard’s idea receives both pros and cons from different scholars. In this paper, we will analyze Teilhard de Chardin’s interpretation of the third nature of Christ, viz., “cosmic.” Then the Prologue of John 1:3; 17:5 will be examined to discuss what is meant when Christ is referred to as the “Omega” of universal creation - the return of the Son to the Father. Christ manifests his authority over the universe in regaining the glory that he had before the creation of the world.

CHAPTER ONE: THE TERM “COSMIC CHRIST”

  1. The background of the terminology

The term “cosmic Christ” is rooted in the teachings of the NT.[7] The patristic writers, medieval, and other pre-nineteenth-century theologians follow the line and define the relation between Christ and the cosmos.[8]

The significance of the “cosmic Christ” sheds light on the second person in the Trinity that it is different from the traditional Western teachings on the Trinity.[9] The term “cosmic Christ” developed in the early twentieth century. The significance of seeing Christ as a cosmic principle can be traced back to 1830s. The epithet “cosmic” is used of Christ; the Son of God is said to be the instrument in God’s creative activity.[10] The term “cosmic” also points out the involvement of Christ in the universe.[11] In other words, the term “cosmic” denotes the “economic” self-communication of the Trinity.[12] Thus, the universe is christocentric. Christ is the source and goal of all things.

Christ is also the bond and sustaining power of the whole of creation. Hence, he is called the head and ruler of the universe. The name “cosmic Christ” defines his redemptive influence and his body is thought to extend to the limits of the created order.[13]

Looking at Christ as “cosmic” suggests that he possesses a greater significance than God – that he becomes humankind in order to reveal himself in a salvific act. However, this “wider significance” does not mean “wider” in quality. For God is perfect and the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal and equal. Whenever we talk about the width, it already includes space and time.

Therefore, the incarnation of Christ is the main issue in discussing the “cosmic Christ” because he becomes incarnate in the universe as one of the creatures. The participation of God in the universe is dependent on both Christ’s relation to the cosmos and the kind of cosmos to which he is related.[14]

Contemporary Christology inquires about the possibility of a plurality of incarnations within the human race; on the contrary, the cosmic Christ looks to a possibility beyond humanity.[15] In other words, the cosmic Christ goes beyond the limitation of human race to the entire universe. Thus, as Teilhard defines, Christ is not solely divine and human, but also cosmic.

2. The contemporary development of the term “cosmic”

“Cosmic Christ” terminology starts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The term makes its appearance in theological German during the 1830s and 1840s. In 1857, it enters into English world. French theologians begin to use it in 1910.[16]

In German, the adjective “kosmisch” seems first to have been recorded in 1804, with the meanings “worldly” and “pertaining to the world.”[17] In 1817 it was used in the sense of “allweltlich” (universal).[18]

In French, the understanding of the adjective “cosmique” connotes “pertaining to the cosmos or universe considered in its totality.”[19] The term has existed since the end of the fourteenth century. The word was further nuanced in 1863 to point to interstellar space. Towards the end of the century it acquired the further meaning, “immeasurable or vertiginous like the universe.”[20]

The English appearance of the adjective “cosmical” can be traced back to 1583. It meant “geographical” or “belonging to the earth.”[21] In the sense of “pertaining to the universe as an ordered system or relating to the sum totality of thing,” “cosmical” is recorded as having been used first in 1685 but not again until 1850.[22]

The meaning of “cosmical” acquires further meanings: “relating to the cosmos,” “belonging to the material universe as distinguished from the earth,” “extraterrestrial,” and “characteristic of the vast scale of the universe.” Recently, there are additional meanings of the adjective “cosmic”, viz., “universal,” “infinite,” and “immense.”

Concerning immensity, the modern usage tends specifically to convey the immensity of the universe disclosed by the natural sciences. To the extent that the modern and the ancient usages coincide, cosmic-Christ terminology reflects the usage of “cosmos” in Greek.[23] This convention relates Christ to the sum totality of the created order and concludes that this relationship extends beyond the compass of earthly affairs.[24]

Cosmic-Christ terminology, therefore, sheds light beyond the confines of human history. It seems that the development of the understanding Christ goes beyond the traditional interpretation and definitions that humankind nowadays knows the Son of God with universal perspective.

  1. Summary

The term “cosmic Christ” is controversial since Teilhard defines that the “cosmic” is the third nature of Christ. Such thinking supposes there is an additional nature besides the two normally discussed, divine and human. The term “cosmic Christ” signifies the wider dimension of Christ inasmuch as it points out the involvement of Christ in the universe. In a trinitarian sense, it denotes the “economic” self-communication of the Trinity.

“Cosmic Christ” terminology starts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Either in German, French, or English understandings of the phrase, it acquires further meaning rather than that of the “world,” i.e., relating to the universal. Christ has a relationship with the universe as well as being the center of it.

CHAPTER TWO: TEILHARD DE CHARDIN’S “COSMIC CHRIST”

Does C. Darwin’s theory of evolution sufficiently explain the existence of the universe? Does the evolution theory correctly define that the universe is determined solely by a blind and mindless set of mathematical rules? Does the impersonal notion of “natural selection” provide us with a sufficient explanation of life’s creativity? Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory explain the reasons for our moral and religious behaviors? Is evolution inconsistent with the sense of cosmic purpose posited by many religions? These questions bring us to the parts, which follow.

  1. Evolution and “Cosmic”

1.1A briefing on C. Darwin’s theory of evolution

The two most common questions that the evolutionists would ask the theists are the following: First, “how could a lovingly concerned God tolerate the struggle, pain, cruelty, brutality, and death that lie beneath the relatively stable and serene surface of nature’s present order?” Second, “could an almighty God of love have designed, foreseen, planned, and created a system whose law is a ruthless struggle for existence in an overcrowded world?”

By their observation of phenomena of the universe, the evolutionists define the theory of evolution. There are apparently three main issues for evolution theory, viz., contingency, law, and time. Contingency means accidental, random, or contingent occurrences. The second issue, namely, is the law of natural selection. In natural selection, lawfulness includes randomness, placing it within limits, and contributing order and consistency to life. Finally, biological evolution requires a stupendous span of time, a vast amount of temporal duration. In the absence of an intelligent designer, the universe finds its evolution within these three features.[25]

In the process of evolution, it is the nature of genes to maximize opportunities for survival and reproduction. The capacity of some organisms to survive and reproduce in any given environment can be explained more exactly if we take into account the changes in gene frequencies within a given population.[26] However, Darwin knows nothing about DNA or genes. Therefore, he develops his theory only on the basis of evolutionary selection, i.e., organisms and populations. The proposal of evolutionary selection thus excludes God as accounting for the obvious design of organisms. To understand life there is no need ever again to fall back on regressive religious explanations. Evolution alone suffices.

Evolutionary science contradicts all the traditional religious intuitions that our universe is guided by divine wisdom and that a glorious destiny awaits it.[27] The evolutionists claim that there is no need to have an “intelligent designer” to supervise the process. The cosmos as a whole has no explanation. It is only “just is.” Therefore, Darwin’s theory of evolution at once shatters the Christian faith which is based on an almighty God who is the designer of the universe.

In its conversation with evolution, theology should deal with the untidiness of the Darwinian picture of life, since the Darwinians point out the untidiness of life of the universe in order to develop their theory of evolution.

Nevertheless, Darwin inspires the theists to think about God in a meaningful way. Teilhard, an evolutionary theologian willingly accepts the facts of evolution and harmonizes these facts with the creation of God. Hence, we see God’s allowance of “become itself” for the created world.

1.2The cosmic theology of Teilhard

A theology of evolution claims that the story of life provides essential concepts for thinking about God and God’s relationship to nature and humanity. Those contemporary theological reflections on biological evolution are situated in a more expanive context of “cosmic evolution.” The evolutionary theologians focus on the entire evolution of the cosmic; for Teilhard, it is inclusive of the “cosmic” Christ.

Teilhard, like other evolutionary theologians, seeks to show how our new awareness of cosmic and biological evolution can enhance and enrich traditional teachings about God and God’s way of acting in the world.[28] Teilhard does not solely introduce “God” simply to fill up a “gap” in scientific exploration. He also suggests that a metaphysically adequate explanation of any universe in which evolution occurs requires a transcendent force to explain the tendency of matter to evolve toward life, mind, and spirit.

Teilhard says that evolution requires that we think of God not as driving or determining events from behind or from the past, but as drawing the world from up ahead (ab ante) toward the future.[29] The ultimate goal of evolution is what Teilhard calls “Omega.”

According to Teilhard, God cannot create without involving himself in his world through incarnation, nor can he become incarnate without engaging in the redemptive labor of raising the world up to him. Thus, creation, incarnation, and redemption constitute the one movement, which Teilhard calls “pleromization.” What “pleroma” means is a movement towards the fullness of being, in which God and his completed world exist united together.[30] In other words, in an evolving universe, “matter” is not the equivalent of mindlessness. This “mindness” of “matter,” according to Teilhard, is the attraction to the center of the universe, the cosmic Christ.

Christ’s body is not only mystical, according to Teilhard, but also cosmic. His body extends throughout the universe.[31] In the process of transforming from cosmogenesis to Christogenesis, Teilhard proposes a purpose (telos) of the universe. Teilhard interprets this telos as the “end” of evolution, as scientific theory knows it to be. Teilhard, inspired by Aristotle, says, “God chose the love of his incarnate Son as the First mover of the restored Universe.”[32]

In shaping the teleological view of evolution, Teilhard develops his Christian eschatology. Particularly, the idea of Christ as Omega is the focus of his study. Christ as Omega means that he is omnipresent in all creation and is the point to which all things created proceed to their completion.[33] Christ is related to all things in the universe. Every creature lives and proceeds towards this telos, the Omega.

2The third nature of Christ

One of the controversial features of Teilhard’s cosmic Christology is the third nature of Christ. Besides the divine and human natures, Teilhard proposes the “cosmic.” He offers a solution in terms of Christ’s threefold nature:

… he [Christ] dominates and assimilates it [the universe] by imposing on it the three characteristics of his traditional truth: the personal nature of the Divine; the manifestation of that supreme Personality in the Christ of history; the supraterrestrial nature of the world consummated in God.[34]

The description of Teilhard concerning the third nature is that between the Word on the one side and the Man-Jesus on the other, so that a kind of “third Christic nature” emerges. The concept of “universal Christ” identifies with “total Christ,” which comes from the “totus Christus” of Augustine. Teilhard calls this nature the total and totalizing Christ.[35]

Teilhard locates the precise link between Christ’s human and cosmic natures in the resurrection of Christ. Christ assumes his cosmic role through the resurrection.[36]

Thus, Teilhard thinks of Christ’s cosmic nature as a conjunction of the human and the divine. The cosmic Christ is said to be hominizing; i.e., he raises up creation, through the evolutionary process to a state in which it is able to form a personal union with the divine.[37]

In 1933 Teilhard speaks of the need for Christ to be reincarnated in our present world. Christ reveals to our minds a new and triumphant aspect of his former countenance; i.e., the universal Christ, the Christ of evolution.[38]

Thus, Christ’s body is not merely mystical but also cosmic.[39] The humanity of Christ is the empirical precondition of his cosmic nature.[40]

In using the term “cosmic,” Teilhard highlights the relationship between the human and the cosmic Christ and the cosmic function of Christ. The cosmic nature of Christ denotes the relationship of God and creation in an evolutionary sense. In addition, the creation of God goes towards its goal (Omega) in evolution. Therefore, Christ in his third nature is the prime mover of the evolving universe.[41] His cosmic face as the Omega is this cosmic “nature.” The cosmic nature of Christ is an extension or transformation of his human nature.

As we see that Teilhard defines Christ in creation as the mediator between the Creator and creatures, God and the world, Christ’s mediatorial function is bound up with the nature of creation. In Christ’s operation as the Omega, we evolve towards the Christ, and encounter his cosmic nature in that movement. Referring to the Omega as God, Teilhard calls him the “Mover, Gatherer, and Consolidator, lying ahead of Evolution.”[42]