Why I asked about Pentecost, Continued...

Professor Kearney,
You are right about my interpretation of Babel. [See posting of April 2nd]. I suppose I have been influenced by Richard Clifford (at the STM) and his reading of the passage (beyond the etiological one, that of language diversity) that in fact the city is more important than the tower itself [Clifford argues that human activity at Babel is not just a repetition of the Fall in Gen. 3 (humans trying to be like gods/God), but a rejection of the previous command in Genesis to “fill the earth and subdue it” (in 11:4, the citizens of Babel say, “otherwise we’ll be scattered all over the earth;” in other words, they know God’s will and refuse to do it), hence the line in v. 8: “Thus the Lord scattered them from there all over the earth”]. Human beings are to inherit the earth (for their sustenance, their promise-laden future); the land is life. And, as you note, this scattering will be reversed in the eschatological recollection and redemption.
I am fascinated by your question about the kingdom speaking with one Logos or many. I appreciate the allusion to Perichoresis and the image of the Trinity in an endless dance, a resistance against a totalizing force to one voice/being/church/Logos. I suppose I would respond, with Augustine, with an image of the Trinity as being fundamentally relational and, at bottom, communicative. What is the one thing we can know about God? That God speaks; God communicates with us (Augustine follows this claim to assert that human beings exist by communicating, that is, expressing ourselves). God speaks with one Logos in terms of content; but stylistically, this takes different shapes in different socio-cultural contexts. Will these differences be maintained or overcome in the Kingdom? We learn that the blind shall see and the lame will walk (Isaiah 26:19; 29:18); does this mean that the many tongues and translations will be reduced to one? My short answer would likely be: in style, no; in content, yes. So the polyvocal tongues and translations will persist, but they will speak the same message.
[It’d be interesting to follow this line of thought to make connections to what we’ve been recently discussing, especially in light of “being and time.” Communication is rooted in time; we can’t even say the word ‘present’ in the present (by the time we say the word, the ‘present’ is already gone; it barely exists). Augustine says we are able to transcend the limits of being and time through communication (being: we step out of ourselves into another’s world; time: memory re-presents the past, we can anticipate the future and speak of tomorrow). Of course, within the limits of time, perfect self-expression is impossible (in part, because we are constantly becoming); the only perfect self-communication is beyond-time (which God alone can do). Thus God is the perfect communicator, and our goal is to do what God does: communicate our essence to others. A project now, a promise to be fulfilled in the eschaton.]
Does the Pentecost event indicate that the kingdom speaks with more than Logos? I cannot pretend to know, except to reconnect this back to the church (the sacrament of the Kingdom on earth). At Pentecost, we see the Spirit initiating and sustaining communication and communion for the church. Within the image of the church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), we are reminded that unity does not mean an undifferentiated whole, but that unity differentiates (as in marriage!) and that this is in fact the generative work of the Spirit. Of course this raises the question of reception: how do we receive the Spirit as an ongoing, communal, communicative act? Hans Küng would suggest an image of “common return” (reconciliation one to another as our central reality and ultimate destiny). This is not a totalizing force; catholicity demands differences; in this way, the church grows into the pleroma (fullness) of Christ. Instead of thinking in terms of reconciling our differences, perhaps we can consider reconciliation amid difference.
So I agree that we cannot have real peace unless we account for the differences (and tensions) between multiple tongues and translations. These differences are not insignificant reflections of how the Logos is inculturated in specific time(s) and place(s). These differences, at least in my view, reflect the richness and fullness of the church catholic. But the first mark of the church is that it is one. This reflects our common origin and destiny and the Logos (Jn 1:1, 14) that inspires and sustains us along the journey as a pilgrim people.
peace,
marc