Michael,
With the Lord's graces and help, I shall finally get to write on this topic which of late has been near to my thoughts. The discussion itself can be quite broad, and so must be limited in scope to a brief explanation. I hope sometime to write something more on the topic when I have the time, energy and grace. I initiated the discussion out of my own personal interest and got your main argument against the existence of "aliens." First I think we need to define what we are discussing: as you have stated, it is not a debate of the existence of non-rational life on other planets: it is the debate of "non-human" rational life on other planets; however, the argument itself can also include, hypothetically, rational life on earth outside of "man." When I use the term life, I mean anything that has a soul-- hence, for example, an angel which is pure spirit is without a soul, and thus does not have life and would not be within the limits of our discussion. Also, when I say "man" or "human" it must be stated we are talking about homo sapiens as a species, and not the philosophical genus of "rational animal." Within this framework then, it would be said that you would deny the possibility of such life (rational life), while I have said I accept that it is a possibility, and believe it is a probability. First, I would like bring forth your argument itself. It is a very standard "Christian" argument used against the existence of non-human rational beings. I believe it has several flaws, but first let us look at what you said:
Okay... here it is briefly: It is my firm conviction that only what is assumed by God can be redeemed (the idea runs all through classical theology, you will agree). We are redeemed because of the Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity as a man. The material universe (including vegetative and animal life) will be taken up as they relate to man's redemption and not for anything intrinsic in them ('new heaven and new earth'). It seems to me that for there to be intelligent, moral life elsewhere in this fallen universe (it's not possible that those beings somehow avoided the effects of the Fall), there would have to be other Incarnations as well... say, as a Klingon. That is very doubtful to me...
I think in your statement there are several things which must be examined. Some of them are clearly stated principles in what you have said above, and some of them are merely implied. To fully understand the argument, I think I need to break down what is being said. If there is some way I am breaking it down incorrectly, or simplifying it in any way, do let me know. However, I think you will accept my break down of the argument below. In this breakdown, at each step I will also examine what it means, implies, and whether or not I accept what is being stated.
1) Let us assume "alien life" existed. If it existed, it would be fallen like man. The universe itself seems to demonstrate effects of the fall in its own existence, and these creatures would be part of the fallen universe.
This in principle I accept. I believe that it is most likely, if there are other forms of rational life, they would somehow partake of the fall found in creation. There have been some who speculated that such life does not need to be fallen (C. S. Lewis is an example of this line of thought, in his Space Trilogy and some of his non-fiction essays on the subject). Though I find their arguments interesting, I also think it fails to look at other factors: we can see creation itself, in the evolutionary standpoint, having a demonstration of a fallen universe before the fall of Adam. This does not deny that Adam's fall had cosmic significance (as I believe it did), but nonetheless there appears to be some sort of fall within the nature of the universe-- before Adam.
2) That which is fallen, needs to be fixed, i.e., redeemed. Fallen rational creatures will not be left without a means of being redeemed by God, for God is good.
Once again, I find this to be an accurate statement. Fallen man, being fallen, needed Christ to restore him to his original purity. However if the universe is itself fallen, I think we already can see some problem with your own hypothesis (i.e. that there is no salvation to other species other than man) to some extent. The fallen universe would itself need to be redeemed. Your argument, however, on this point is not that it will be redeemed. Indeed, you say that it has no intrinsic value of itself and will be thrown aside for a "new one" will be made. It is true there will be, as Scriptures indicate, a "new heaven and a new earth", but it will be a "new heaven and a new earth" in exactly the same way we are a "new man" in Christ: it is not the obliteration of the old, but it is the restoration and its continued sharing in the energy of God that will make it "new." The material universe itself must be seen to have some intrinsic value to it: God saw it and said it was good. Its existence is intrinsically good. A denial of this is of course dualistic in notion, and contrary to the understanding of the Church. This will be discussed in more detail later.
3) For something to be saved, it will need to be assumed by God, and that is the only way it can be saved.
This can be easily accepted without any difficulty or comment. I think it might be a bit simplistic in understanding the Incarnation, but that can be easily forgiven for the fact that the discussion of the argument has been mostly focused on the need for God to offer a means of salvation for rational creatures.
4) Man was assumed by God in the person of the Logos (God the Son), and hence man is able to be saved.
This too, is correct. God became man, and a reason for the Incarnation would be the restoration of fallen man.
5) God did not assume the nature of any other rational species, and thus, they can not be saved.
Here I think we shall see there is indeed a major error and the point where you argument fails. To be able to understand the flaw, we must go back and consider and ponder the question, "What is man"? This question, I think, will begin to give insight and answer the question.
First, man is by the classical definition a "rational animal." His nature is thus two-fold, rational and animal. That animal nature, however, is a broader nature than his rational nature. By saying God became man we must understand God not only became man-- but He also became animal. In saying this, we can substitute "animal" for man, and say, "God became an animal, so that animals can be saved."
Let us pause a bit at this examination of man and look also at the Incarnation itself. The West looks at the Incarnation, and sees with it, the means by which God restored man from the state of sin to the state of original grace. With this observation, the central point of reflection and meditation on the Incarnation is that of the passion of Christ, where the means for the restoration of man is given by the sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross. This understanding of the Incarnation is correct, but it is not complete. The Eastern conception of the Incarnation is far more expansive: God not only became Incarnate for the restoration of man, but also for something far greater and deeper: God became man so that we can participate within the divine life of the Trinity itself. To quote St. Athanasius, "God became man so that man can become God" (On the Incarnation, 54:3). To go further, this would imply (as many great theologians in the Church have also understood), that the Incarnation itself was within the plans of God in the creation of the universe: even if there was no fall, the Incarnation would still occur for this great "deification" of man. The Cross, though very important to our faith as the means of restoration, apokatastasis, was dependent upon the fall, and is thus accidental; the Incarnation was necessary for the complete plan of God's creation to be observed.
Having made a brief examination of the Incarnation itself, I will now return to the discussion of man. As man is an animal, the quotation of St. Athanasius can itself substitute "animal" for "man" (since we contain that nature which is known as animal), and can thus say, "God became an animal, so animals can become God."
We can continue an examination this way and find, since we are animals, we also contain within ourselves that kind of nature which is universal to all kinds of life, which would then include all orders of life: fungi, plants, and all others. Though this is itself sufficient for the discussion of aliens, I want to go further in this analysis, to reach down to the final conclusion which can be made. We are as man a part of creation and share with all of creation that one distinction which separates it from God: that of a created nature. God is uncreated, we are created, and thus there is this one large gulf between the two. However, in the Incarnation something happened: God became created, so that which is created can become God. Here we see that the whole of creation, "the heaven and the earth" is thus affected by the Incarnation, and is being deified through the deification of man. Man is thus the pivotal point of creation by the fact of God becoming one of us.
Thus with this discussion we can see that God has assumed the status of "creature", and in doing so, affects all creatures. Non-human rational species would be within the bounds of the Incarnation, and so there would not be the need for multiple Incarnations. In reality, the way to understand the answer is that it supposes a "pan-unity" of creation, instead of seeing creation itself as composed of little bits and pieces which are not at all connected to each other. To deny that pan-unity of creation would create disastrous results on Christian thought, for it would destroy any chance of the Incarnation for affecting any human: Christ would have been one particular in the multitude of creation, separated from all other elements of creation, and thus, unable to be of any benefit to us.
Though the argument itself is now complete in that there is now an outline for how one Incarnation could affect all of creation, I think there is now the need to demonstrate that this idea is grounded within Christian theology and Christological understanding. To do a comprehensive study of this would itself require an extensive work, and so I shall only some brief comments on this important topic. In doing so, I will refer to three authors: Primarily, St. Maximos the Confessor; secondarily, to Pseudo-Dionysius, and as a tertiary and modern example, Sergius Bulgakov.
A) St. Maximos the Confessor
[The text for this discussion will be taken from Andrew Louth's book, _Maximus the Confessor_ published by Routledge in 1996]
St. Maximos's thought is for all its depth primarily Christological in concern. His ideas focus upon Christ as the center for his theology, and that is especially true in the piece which I have chosen to represent his thought on this subject. St. Maximos's insight into the anthropology of man is a deep treasure which has often been neglected, and yet is the key to my understanding of how all of creation is affected through the Incarnation.
The key text for this discussion is St. Maximos's "Difficulty 41" (from his discussion of difficult texts of St. Gregory the Theologian and Pseudo-Dionysius). The text opens with a quote from St. Gregory the Theologian's Sermon 39.13, "And natures are instituted afresh, and God becomes man." This quote is illuminating, because it points out that there is more than one "nature" being instituted afresh in the Incarnation, and not just one nature-- "man."
"The saints have received the many divine mysteries from those who became attendants and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2), and were immediately initiated into knowledge of reality in accordance with the tradition passed down to them from those before them. They say that the substance of everything that has come into being is divided into five divisions" [1304D].
St. Maximos begins his exposition by stating that there are five divisions of being. These divisions are quite important in his understanding of being and of man.
The first of these divides from the uncreated nature the universal created nature..." [ibid.] "The second division is that in accordance with which the whole of nature that receives being from creation is divided by God into that which is perceived by mind and that perceived by the senses. The third is in accordance with which the nature perceived by the senses is divided into heaven and earth. The fourth is that in accordance with which the earth is divided into paradise and the inhabited world [the oikoumene], and the fifth, which is the laboratory in which everything is concentrated and in itself naturally mediates between the extremities of each division, having been drawn into everything in a good and fitting way through becoming, is divided into male and female [1305A-B].
St. Maximos sees five areas of division in being: 1) God and creation 2) intellectual and sensible 3) heaven and earth 4) paradise and the inhabited world and lastly, 5) male and female. By looking at his description, one can see he begins by the most universal of divisions, and can be seen as becoming more and more specific until he finalizes his analysis as a division within mankind. Thus he can be seen as discussing all the gulfs which mankind itself experiences, and he sees there is an important relationship of man with the rest of these gulfs. "For humanity clearly has the power of naturally uniting at the mean point of each division since it is related to the extremities of each division in its own parts. Through that capacity it can come to the way of fulfillment of what is divided and be openly instituted in itself as the great mystery of the divine purpose" [ibid.].
St. Maximos sees within man the role of mediation between all these natures. It is part of the "divine purpose" that we would be the means of mediation of all levels of being. Man is seen as both a microcosm of creation, containing within his being all levels of division of being; but he is also their mediator. Man "proceeds harmoniously to each of the extremities in things that are, from what is close at hand to what is remote, from what is worse to what is better, lifting up to God and fully accomplishing union" [ibid.] All that is, from that which is "close at hand" and that which is "remote" are to be lifted up in union with us to God. But how does St. Maximos understand this is to be done? He understands that the process first of union must begin with that which lies closest with us: the differentiation of male and female, and work up the chain of being to the highest level, of the union of uncreated and created being.
Of course, the highest level of union was unable to be achieved in man outside of the Incarnation, theoretically the union of all other natures as one could have found some unity in man if man had remained unfallen. Because we are fallen we must look to Christ, the perfect man, for this union and restoration to be primarily achieved.
Since then the human person is not moved naturally, as it was fashioned to do, that is its own beginning (I mean God), but contrary to nature is voluntarily moved in ignorance around those things that are beneath it, to which it has been divinely subjected, and since it has abused the natural power of uniting what is divided, that was given to it at its generation, so as to separate what is united, therefore 'natures have been instituted afresh,' and in a paradoxical way beyond nature that which is completely unmoved by nature is moved immovably around that which is by nature moved, and God became a human being in order to restore lost humanity. Through himself he has, in accordance with nature, united the fragments of the universal nature of the all, manifesting the universal logoi that have come forth for the particulars, by which the union of the divided nature comes about, and thus he fulfills the great purpose of God the Father, to recapitulate everything both in heaven and earth in himself (Eph. 1: 10), in whom everything has been created (Col. 1: 16) [1308C-D].
To make sure that we understand that Christ's Incarnation has created a universal bond between creation and the creator, St. Maximos states in very explicit terms:
With us and through us he encompasses the whole of creation through its intermediaries and the extremities through their own parts. He binds about himself each with the other, tightly and indissolubley, paradise and the inhabited world, heaven and earth, things sensible and things intelligible, since he possesses like us sense and soul and mind, by which, as parts, he assimilates himself by each of the extremities to what is universally akin to each in the previous mentioned manner. Thus he divinely recapitulates the universe in himself, that the whole creation exists as one, like another human being, completed by the gathering together of its parts one with another in itself, and inclined towards itself by the whole of its existence... [1312A-B].
St. Maximos's final analysis is that of there is a unity of all creation where it can be seen as one, and it is through Christ by becoming man, that Christ restores and recapitulates the universe and brings it together in a unity with the uncreated nature of God. Since Christ became man, man is the vehicle for this unity of creation with its creator; man thus has the central role in creation, the central destiny of the universe. It is a developed understanding of Christology which possibly has not been well remembered but it has not been rejected.
B) Pseudo-Dionysius
[Quotes taken from the Classics of Western Spirituality edition of the complete works of Pseudo-Dionysius].
The works of Pseudo-Dionysius are of central importance and influence on Christian theology. Despite the fact that we do not know who he is, his writings have been used by theologians in the East and West with the assurance that they have some authoritative value. Thus, if his writings have any elements which can shed light on this topic they are of a value which can not be denied.
First, we must realize Pseudo-Dionysius' conception of the universe is very hierarchical. God is on top of the hierarchical chain of being. Each level of the hierarchy touches that which is above it (except God), and that which is below it (except, of course, that which is on the bottom of the hierarchy). All participate in The Good, but those which participate more with the Good, are higher on the chain of being than those which participate less. "The more a thing participates in the one infinitely generous God, the closer one is to him and the more divine one is with respect to others" [Divine Names 817C]. On the hierarchy itself, it is the work of the "more divine" beings to help those which are lower on the chain of being. They are to specifically provide help to those who they are in immediate contact with, but they will also influence all those underneath it through the mediation of the level of being they are in contact with.
In relation to Pseudo-Dionysius' chain of being, there is another major element of his thought which relevant to this discussion. This idea, which is quite central to the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius, is that God intends to provide the grace of deification on all beings. "Source of perfection for those being made perfect, source of divinity for those being deified, principle of simplicity for those turning towards simplicity, point of unity for those being made on..." [Divine Names 589C]. This is of course mediated within the hierarchies in the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius: with the grace slowly lifting one up the chain of being. "This Godhead is granted as a gift to all things. It flows over in shares of goodness to all" [Divine Names 649B]. "The benefits of this inexhaustible Power reaches out to human, to animals, and indeed to all of nature." [Divine Names 892D].
To Pseudo-Dionysius, Christ is seen as the Light of the Father, and the Light shines over all of creation. "Let us, then, call upon Jesus, the Light of the Father..." [Celestial Hierarchy, 121A]. The Light of Christ is a light filled with grace which energizes all of creation. "Of course this ray never abandons its own proper nature, or its own interior unity. Even though it works itself outward to multiplicity and proceeds outside of itself as befits its generosity, doing so to lift upward and to unify those being for which it has a providential responsibility [...] And it grants to creatures the power to rise up, as far as they may, toward itself and unifies them by way of its own single unity" [Celestial Hierarchy 121B]. It is, as has already been stated, through hierarchies that this is accomplished. "The common goal of every hierarchy consists of the continuos love of God and things divine, a love which is sacredly worked out in an inspired and unique way, and , before this, the complete and unswerving avoidance of everything contrary to it." [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 376A]. The hierarchy is able to provide more grace to those who are higher than on those which are lower, and thus he can say that God "has bestowed hierarchy as a gift to ensure the salvation and divinization of every being endowed with reason and intelligence" [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 376B]. This is not a denial of the affects of the hierarchy on things without rationality, but it is through those which are rational that the irrational will gain their benefits from God. Thus, he said, "Formed of light, initiates in God's work, we shall be perfected and bring about perfection" [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 327B].
I have tried to provided a quick, brief summary of the hierarchical system of Pseudo-Dionysius without going into the details which Pseudo-Dionysius put within his works. Nonetheless, his hierarchical system is one which looks upon the cosmos as one unified chain of being which has many level or rungs where different levels of being exist and each level of being has its share in the divine plan. Our God is a deifying God, and he brings about the deification of all nature through his grace and this is achieved through the "Light" which is Christ. Man is said to be perfected in Christ, but also to be the means of perfection for others. We must include all that is found on earth to be included in those others, but we do not need to be limited to the Earth in this connection. Thus, within one of the central theological works of the Patristic era, we have a systematic understanding of the universe which would not dismiss other rational entities to exist, and would allow for them a place on the hierarchy which leads to perfection and union with God.
C) Father Sergius Bulgakov
[The text being used in this work is from the work, The Holy Grail and the Eucharist published by Lindisfarne, translated by Boris Jakim].
Fr. Bulgakov is an interesting theologian of the twentieth century. His ideas have often received harsh criticism without the person criticizing offering any real solid discussion of what Bulgakov said. Instead, the general way Fr. Bulgakov's writings have been treated was not what one should expect: someone trying to understand what he wrote, and offer insightive criticism to his works, but instead his works achieved an instantaneous denial from his critics because what he wrote was unusual and imaginative. Not all of his thoughts and speculations are necessarily correct, but instead of just merely denying them because of their imaginative element, it is rather better to examine what he says, his reasons for saying what he says, and to find if there is anything in what he says which can be put into service of philosophy and theology. I say this as a warning: I don't necessarily agree with everything he states in his works, but there is a large element of what he meditates upon where I think he found a kernel of long neglected truth. I bring him out on this topic, for not only does he also confirm the idea of pan-unity in his writings, but because he also offers some observations on the death of Christ which contains some thoughts on the matter of how Christ's death has provided deification, not only to man, but to nature as well.
The work which I plan to use of Fr. Bulgakov is a small essay he wrote, translated with the title of "The Holy Grail." The essay is itself an exegesis on John 19:34. The verse states, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out" [NRSV]. "The flowing out of the blood and water is a sign (semeion) in the sense of John's Gospel..." [Holy Grail p. 23-4]. What sign is being specified here? Of course, Scripture itself indicates that this was so prophecies could be fulfilled (cf. John 19:36). But Fr. Bulgakov feels there is much more going on in here, much more depth to the sign itself. 'In the first place, we must point out that the very fact of the flowing out of blood together with water from Christ's side has been virtually ignored in dogmatic exegesis. To the extent that fact has been noticed, it has been understood eucharistically" [Holy Grail p. 30]. Fr. Bulgakov points out that the only real discussion of the passage appears within the legends of the Holy Grail. In this mythology, St. Joseph of Arimathea collected the blood in the chalice known as the Holy Grail. This chalice then became the object of story and mystery. In the legends Bulgakov notes there are two important observations: the Holy Grail is seen only by those who are considered worthy of such a vision, and it is a source of great miracles.
Of the blood and water which flowed from Christ's side, Fr. Bulgakov points out that this is last stage of the act of atonement by Christ. "The spear wound, not the breaking of His bones, is the conclusion of Christ's salvific sacrifice for the redemption of humankind. This blood and water wash human sin and create the New Testament Church, with its grace-bestowing mysterious gifts: baptismal water and eucharistic blood" [Holy Grail p. 33]. If this act is seen as the final aspect of Christ's redemption of mankind, the end of His suffering, this blood which flows out from His side would indeed have some sort of special modal aspect to it-- for indeed, though Christ's blood is always the same, the actual blood which flowed from His side would seem to have some sort of special significance, for it is what puts the myth of the atonement into the realm of activation. However, we can then ask, what happened to that blood? Where did it go? It would seem likely that Fr. Bulgakov's answer to this question will have some element of truth: it flowed into the earth itself, and became a part of the earth. Thus Fr. Bulgakov states, "The blood and water that flowed into the world abide in the world. They sanctify this world as the pledge of its future transfiguration. Through the precious streams of Christ's blood and water that flowed out of His side, all creation was sanctified-- heaven and earth, our earthly world and all the stellar worlds" [Holy Grail p. 33]. The world is seen by Fr. Bulgakov to represent the Holy Grail for which the blood and water entered, and by which the world is itself transfigured. He points out in its modal distinction, the blood and water which flowed out of Christ's side is not later consumed-- it rather has its own special significance. "If the Holy Grail is (according to legend) the Eucharistic chalice, the blood contained in it is nevertheless not the Eucharist, for the Holy Grail is not given for the communion of the faithful but for the sanctification and transfiguration of the world" [Holy Grail p. 34].
Examining this further, Fr. Bulgakov returns to the discussion of what the Grail legends state about the Holy Grail. The legends indicate the graces of Christ given to all of nature, able to heal even the land from famine and pestilence. As Adam was redeemed by the blood of Christ, so "all the blood and water of Christ that flowed forth into the world sanctified the world" [Holy Grail p. 44]. The final outcome of this is not only the sanctification of the earth, but its transfiguration into something greater. "This supernatural power in nature imparts the quality of divine-humanity to nature, making all of it the body of Christ. [...] Thus, one can say that the world has received Christ into itself, that has received Christ's body and carries Him within itself, has also retained within itself His corporeality after His Death and Resurrection with Ascension. And this humanity of Christ's invisibly lives in the world and is inwardly transfiguring the world to a new heaven and a new earth" [Holy Grail p. 44-5].
While this discussion of the earth as being the Holy Grail might somewhat be beside the point, the overall discussion of how the blood of Christ inhabits the world and transforms it, as it transforms man in the Eucharist, is quite important. It gives us a deeper understanding of the passion of Christ. We are not limited at looking at the event as solely for man: we can see through the sign of the blood and water, a sign that God is indeed at work, transforming and transfiguring all of nature. The implications of the earth being the Holy Grail in a cosmic sense might require more study, pursuit and discussion before all its implications can be known, but its central implication is that Christ's passion has indeed enhanced nature and is continuing its transformation. This is important in the implications of any discussion of the ability of Christ to transform anything in the universe. It provides the first steps in understanding what is being offered to the universe as a whole by Christ.
I hope the above helps you understand that Christ could sanctify any fallen species which might exist in the cosmos. If it answers the main argument which one could provide within a "Christian" framework against the existence of any non-human rational species, I think it will have done its job. Before one can proceed to the possibility of alien life, we must first proceed past the denial of any possibility of their existence. I think that is indeed the most important task which is at hand: the possibility of their existence not excluded, an encounter with alien life will not create a theological crisis for Christianity. If we are only at the stage of denying their possibility, and also at the stage of not allowing for Christ to have any effect for alien life, we would indeed be in dire circumstances if we ever encounter alien life.
I hope, in a future e-mail, to provide for some of the reasons why I think alien life is more than a possibility, but a probability. However, this is itself an exercise of philosophical thought and exegesis which will have to wait. It is not as critical an issue as I have stated. If I never get around to providing the reasons for why I think they exist, before we have contact with alien life, it will show itself a work which will be unnecessary. However, if we are talking on the level of philosophical possibilities before such an encounter, there is much which can be had with such a discussion; it will be a matter of philosophical speculation using the height of what knowledge I have on the topic. With it, it is true, I think there is more to be learned than just on the possibility of alien life, which will make such a work have some element of value, after any possible alien contact, but it will nonetheless not be as timeless of importance as a discussion on the possibility of alien's salvation. There is of course much more which needs to be explored on this topic, but I think a bare minimum has been provided to help provide for any future discussion on the issue.
In Christ,
Henry