Paragraph 3 and 4
Our next section reads:
“Whether or not this biological theory is factually true makes no difference to our thesis. Our interest is in the “principle of recapitulation” from which biology provides an analogous theory.
From the beginning of human history God has revealed Himself to man. Although the fullness of God is present in every revelation, the nature of this fullness is only progressively revealed until man is prepared to understand its all-encompassing reality. This progressive revelation is not only the history of man’s various religions, but this same progressive revelation can be found in the spiritual journey of each human being. In this way the process of each one’s spiritual development is a recapitulation of God’s progressive revelation to all men.”
Let’s begin with a digression. When I reflect on the word recapitulation it makes me think of finding real-world examples to help explain difficult concepts, even the unexplainable. Like Roberts who may hear “that theory is not true (anymore)” I sometimes encounter resistance when using a real-world tactic to explain spiritual matters. What the resistor misses is that, as Roberts says, it’s just an example. Roberts is not making a case for a biological theory, but instead points to something behind her example; just a conveyance of a deeper truth. Her technique and words embolden me to use whatever examples I wish to use. I’m beginning to understand that the resistor is the one with the issue. This is a very hard truth for an adaptation junkie like myself.
Let’s now return to the text. At first blush what Robert’s words engender is how the name “God” has significantly shifted for me over the past decade. I’ve learned that if you listen deeply to people you understand they are referencing God in ways they are not even aware of. For instance, in recently watching a documentary on Infinity you would think the scientists were speaking of God in the way they honored the Mystery of what they contemplated. I don’t think God minds what we call it, God is the one that said “I am what I am.” Now talk about a no-name situation. On the flip side, talk about a wide open canvas to call everything by the name of God. Additionally, I now relate to the idea that God reveals itself to me, and by extension to everyone, everywhere, and in diverse ways.
As to her reference regarding “the nature of this fullness” being progressive, I understand this to mean that while I may receive a revelation it may not be the fullness of God. I realize the deficiency lies on my side with a limited capacity to bear the revelation. Thus we understand our journey to be a slow process of realizing and experiencing God. Someone who has compassionately articulated this truth about the nature of the journey is Jim Finley in his podcast Turning to the Mystics. If you want to hear, even experience, this journey in the language of poetry you should try it out.
A question that arises for me is will humanity ever be “prepared to understand its all-encompassing reality?” The more frightening question is will I? In writing this I feel the answer is yes, perhaps upon death, but what I believe Roberts points to is the capacity to bear this all-encompassing reality now, in the world, as a living being. That subject is outside the scope of what we are doing here, but nevertheless it is an interesting pondering.
This text invites me to pay more attention to what is unfolding in the moment and to be less concerned about where the journey is going. All I need do is pay attention to the process happening in the moment. The question becomes what is this moment either teaching me or revealing to me? As for a real-world example that comes to mind, I am like an unfolding plant. It may initially be consumed with its moment-to-moment unfurling, but as time goes on the plant will learn that the sun is its source. Its desire, like mine, is to become attuned to Source. Each passing day is an invitation to become more attuned to the SUN and source of my life.
