Noah Sales, Perichoresis and the Great Dance in Perelandra

inclusionary housing programs. Then, California’s situation will be compared to those of other countries in an attempt to understand what others have done to conquer similar challenges. There is no question that the homeless population requires immediate attention, and in the face of a worldwide pandemic the situation is only exacerbated and brought to the forefront of the mind. Given the statistics about the number of homeless with serious mental illness, preventative measures to homelessness in the future will need to look like better mental health care statewide. This may include long term plans for increased homes or live-in care. More urgently though, is the need of the people currently on the streets. While the pandemic has panicked many without homes, the long term effects and surrounding circumstances of the shut-down may present a unique opportunity to get people into stable shelter. First, the health crisis has forced the government to move forward with assistance measures more quickly than usually seen, reportedly spending $800 million into serving the homeless population since the beginning of the outbreak.32 Second, the pandemic has placed strain on the tourism industry and threatened small tourist businesses such as hotels.33 Third, experts have long recognized permanent supportive housing as the most stable and longest term solution to housing, but the regulatory barriers to building permanent supportive housing make the venture difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and often unrealistic.34 These factors combine to create the unusual opportunity for failed hotels, unable to reopen or wait out the storm of the pandemic, to be transformed into cost-effective permanent supportive housing units. Additionally, improving the housing situation in the state will require regulation reform of some kind. Though debates continue of the extent of regulations as the cause of the housing shortage, there is no question that it is a contributing factor. In order for more housing to be built, particularly affordable housing for low income residents, regulatory measures such as the California Environmental Quality Act must be lessened or restructured so that environmental friendliness is no longer an excuse for anti-growth measures which drive housing prices out of reach for California residents.35 Similarly, the scope of influence of inclusionary housing will have to be deeply researched and taken into account. Past programs have to be updated to take into account the current reality, which is not enough housing and too many barriers to overcoming the shortage. One suggested plan to update would incorporate a three part strategy including zoning reform, land value tax, and more housing subsidies, each serving a purpose and working in tandem to set California on a path toward a redeemed housing market.36 Whether the aforementioned three part plan will be accepted by state leaders or not, one thing is clear: the public’s attention—and therefore the attention of leadership is far more focused on the obvious disaster of homeless people

living in tents on the streets and under freeways than on some of the root causes, such as mental health and the fundamentally broken housing market in the state. But looking to other countries with relatively solved or reduced homelessness, one sees immediately that getting at root causes has to be the overarching goal. For instance, in Finland, homelessness was solved by bypassing short term solutions such as shelters or requiring the individual to get a job first. Instead, people are placed in permanent housing first and foremost.37 Similar measures are taken in Medicine Hat, in Alberta Canada. There it is reported that no person goes more than 10 days before being provided permanent housing.38 Both measures make sense and prove that quality of life can be improved and money can be saved by getting residents into stable shelter. However, California is not able to take such measures unless the shortage of housing is first solved. The government cannot give the homeless apartments or homes that do not exist. In conclusion, though California is considered one of the strongest economies and most innovative governments in the world, the state leadership has fallen hopelessly short of keeping up with (much less solving) a crisis which strikes at the very core of their constituents ability to live freely and well. California has a long history of housing shortage, beginning with the subtle discrimination of early contract cities and developing into environmental and land-use regulations which slow housing projects down and decrease incentive. Inclusionary housing programs designed to ease the strain are controversial and may only worsen the lack of affordable housing. These factors lead to high rates of homelessness, increase the commonality of cost burdened residents, drain state resources, and demand that legislators spend more and more energy attempting to keep a homeless crisis at bay. If the state hopes to come back from the depths of these consuming challenges, major adjustments will have to be made to the structure of regulation and the government mandates to further provide incentive to developers and to best increase supply to meet demand.

Notes

1. Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, Alyssa Dykman, Rachel Lawler, Marisol Cuellar

Mejia, Vicki Hseih, “Californians and the Housing Crisis,” Public Policy Institute of California, December, December 2019, https://www.ppic.org/interactive/californians-and-the-housing-crisis/. 2. “The Lakewood Plan,” City of Lakewood, accessed April 21, 2020, https://www. lakewoodcity.org/about/history/lakewoodplan.asp. 3. Conor Dougherty, Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America (New York:

Penguin Press, 2020), 202. 4. Katrina Schwartz, “What Would San Francisco Have Looked Like Without the

‘Freeway Revolt’?,” KQED, August 2, 2013, https://www.kqed.org/news/105321/ what-would-san-francisco-have-looked-like-without-the-freeway-revolt. 5. Virginia Postrel, “California’s Housing Crisis Has Anti-Growth Roots,”

Bloomberg Opinion, May 20, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-20/california-s-housing-crisis-has-anti-growth-roots. 6. Erin Riches and Jean Ross, “Locked Out! California’s Affordable Housing Crisis,”

California Budget Project, May 2000, https://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/ uploads/0005lockedout.pdf. 7. Vanessa Brown Calder, “Zoning, Land-Use Planning, and Housing Affordability,”

Cato Institute, October 18, 2017, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/zoning-land-use-planning-housing-affordability. 8. John M Quigley and Steven Raphael, “Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California,” AEA Papers and Proceedings 95, no. 2 (May 2005). 9. Benjamin Schneider, “The Ultimate Primer on Inclusionary Zoning,” CityLab,

July 17, 2018, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/citylab-university-inclusionary-zoning/565181/. 10. Gary Binger, “California Inclusionary Housing Reader,” Institute for Local Self

Government, 2003, https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__California_Inclusionary_Housing_Reader.pdf. 11. Benjamin Schneider, “The Ultimate Primer on Inclusionary Zoning.” 12. Antonio Bento, Scott Lowe, Gerrit-Jan Knaap, and Arnab Chakraborty, “Housing

Market Effects of Inclusionary Zoning,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 11, no. 2 (2009). 13. Ann Hollingshead, “Do Inclusionary Housing Policies Promote Housing Affordability? Evidence from the Palmer Decision in California,” Lincoln Institute of

Land Policy, December 2015, https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/hollingshead-wp15ah1.pdf. 14. Thomas Fuller, “Why Does It Cost $750,000 to Build Affordable Housing in

San Francisco?” The New York Times, February 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes. com/2020/02/20/us/California-housing-costs.html. 15. “CEQA Frequently Asked Questions,” Planning and Conservation League, accessed April 26, 2020, https://www.pcl.org/campaigns/ceqa/ceqa-faqs/. 16. “California’s Housing and Homelessness Challenges in Context,” Legislative

Analyst’s Office, 2019. 17. “California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities,” California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2018. 18. “SB-50, Third Reading,” Senate Rules Committee - Senate Floor Analysis, 2020. 19. Jeff Collins and Nikie Johnson, “California Needs More Housing, but 97% of

Cities and Counties Are Failing to Issue Enough RHNA Permits,” Orange

County Register, last modified December 10, 2019, https://www.ocregister. com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-statehousing-goals/. 20. Sara Kimberlin, “Issue Brief: California’s Housing Affordability Crisis Hits Renters and Households With the Lowest Incomes the Hardest,” California Budget &

Policy Center, 2019. 21. Sean Veal and Jonathan Spader, “Nearly a Third of American Households Were

Cost-Burdened Last Year,” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, December 7, 2018, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/more-than-a-third-ofamerican-households-were-cost-burdened-last-year/. 22. “California Affordable Housing Needs Report,” California Housing Partnership, 2020. 23. “California’s Housing and Homelessness Challenges in Context,” Legislative

Analyst’s Office, 2019. 24. Bill Tarrant, “California Will Use State Properties as Homeless Shelters,” World

Economic Forum, February 19, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/ california-homeless-housing/. 25. “State Of Homelessness,” National Alliance To End Homelessness, last modified 2020, https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/. 26. Matt Levin and Jackie Botts, “California’s Homelessness Crisis—And Possible

Solutions—Explained”, CalMatters, last modified January 8, 2020, https://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-crisis-explained/. 27. David Wagner, “Thousands Of Californians Are Working While Homeless, And

Many Don’t Want Their Boss To Know,” KQED, last modified 2018, https://www. kqed.org/news/11690325/thousands-of-californians-are-working-while-homeless-and-many-dont-want-their-boss-to-know. 28. Housing element: emergency shelters, temporary housing, and supportive housing,

A.B. 3122, California Legislature, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billText-

Client.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3122. 29. “On the Heels of State of the State, Governor Newsom Highlights State-Owned

Properties Available for Emergency Homeless Housing, Calls on Cities and

Counties to Partner with the State,” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, State of

California, February 21, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/02/21/on-the-heelsof-state-of-the-state-governor-newsom-highlights-state-owned-properties-available-for-emergency-homeless-housing-calls-on-cities-and-counties-to-partnerwith-the-state/. 30. Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Streamlined Approval: Incentives,

S.B. 50, California Legislature, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50. 31. Planning and Zoning: General Plan: Housing Development, A.B. 3107, California Legislature, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3107. 32. Matt Levin, “Nearly 900 Placed into Hotels, Motels - a Fraction of California’s

Homeless,” CalMatters, April 4, 2020, https://calmatters.org/housing/2020/04/ california-coronavirus-newsom-homeless-hotels-motels/. 33. Kelsi Maree Borland, “California’s Tourism Industry Among Most Exposed in

Nation,” GlobeSt, April 17, 2020, https://www.globest.com/2020/04/17/californias-tourism-industry-among-most-exposed-in-nation/?slreturn=20200325200553.

34. Ehren Dohler, “Supportive Housing Helps Vulnerable People Live and Thrive in the Community,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 11, 2017, https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/supportive-housing-helps-vulnerable-people-live-and-thrive-in-the-community. 35. Thomas Fuller, “Why Does It Cost $750,000 to Build Affordable Housing in San

Francisco?” 36. Jenny Schuetz, “To Improve Housing Affordability, We Need Better Alignment of

Zoning, Taxes, and Subsidies,” Brookings, March 16, 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/. 37. Alex Gray, “Here’s How Finland Solved Its Homelessness Problem,” World

Economic Forum, accessed April 26, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness. 38. Justin Salhani, “Four Countries The United States Can Look To When Fighting

Homelessness,” ThinkProgress, June 29, 2016, https://archive.thinkprogress.org/ four-countries-the-united-states-can-look-to-when-fighting-homelessnessa2a43e2cc396/.

NOAH SALES

C. S. Lewis is a beloved writer by many for his fiction and Christian writings. I am enamored by his numerous works and tie-ins to his Christian faith within many of his writings. Perelandra portrays how Lewis melds his love of the imagination and faith through the journey of Ransom, which connects to the theological doctrine of perichoresis. Perichoresis, or the dance/movement of love, is a theological term that describes the Trinity and the dynamic movement of God within our reality. Is it a possibility that Lewis’ Perelandra was an attempt to reflect the nature of this doctrine? Perichoresis helps to explain the nature of man’s free will and God’s preordination, and is synonymous with Lewis’ Great Dance metaphor. Ransom’s extraterrestrial adventures are brought under the will of Maleldil and he is invited to act against or for it, yet Maleldil’s plan will always have been planned despite Ransom’s choice. The characters of Perelandra reflect the acceptance of God’s invitation into the Great Dance, or joining, with God’s movement. It is akin to how God is the Lead-dancer and his movements are preordained, yet he invites us of our own free will to submit to his movements. Therefore, it could be stated that Ransom, Weston, and the Green Lady are the agencies by which the reflection of man’s free will and God’s preordination are one and the same. In analyzing these characters and the Great Dance within Perelandra through perichoresis, one can see how Lewis reconciles free will and preordination through Ransom’s journey. Regarding Perelandra, many critics touch on the nature of man against the backdrop of God’s will and the Great Dance. However, perichoresis offers a theological perspective to what critics have already recognized, and it provides a further perspective on Lewis’s metaphors like the Great Dance. However, without stating it, some non-theologians were very close in emphasizing the importance of the nature of perichoresis within Lewis’ Perelandra and the unity of the two wills in the Great Dance. Therefore the theological discussion of perichoresis runs parallel to many of the issues that are revealed in the Great Dance in Perelandra. Numerous theologians have written articles on the understanding of the doctrine of perichoresis and man’s will. Jurgen Moltmann and Daniel Stramara are respected theologians who reflect many of Lewis’ sentiments about the Great Dance, despite no direct connection between them. Stramara helps to solidify and give weight to Lewis’s theological implications. In Stramara’s article, “Gregory of Nyssa’s Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis,” he remarks on the oneness of individual will and predetermined movement of God (Stramara 261). To him, perichoresis is an ever-moving dance of love that is inviting, submissive, and exalting. The concept of perichoresis does not “vitiate the respective individuality and incommunicability of each” of the persons (Stramara 259). Such is seen

in Lewis’ portrayal of Ransom and the Green Lady’s submission to Maleldil. Maleldil does not tread on their free will but invites them into his will. Moltmann’s article, “Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology,” acts as an explanation of God’s transcendent nature upon the world, which is also reflected in the nature of man and His invitation of grace (Moltmann 118). Perichoresis sits upon the dynamic, yet constant nature of God within the world. Moltmann emphasizes a need for man to experience the sensual richness of creation in order to understand the true nature of God, but it is not possible without the gift of grace (Moltmann 113). Such could be related back to Ransom’s sensual experiences upon his landing in Perelandra and Maleldil’s invitation. Moltmann continues to build the concept of perichoresis into the unity of time and space, body and spirit, and God and Man (Moltmann 125). God moves in a way that He wills but creates an open space through grace for all creatures to join in the movement, or in other words, free will. The open invitation to dwell in perichoretic harmony with God is predicated upon preordained grace and mediated by human free will. These theologians offer a deep-theological perspective that easily ties into Lewis’ Perelandra. The parallels between the concept and Lewis are compelling and reveal an unexplored conversation in the current criticism of Perelandra. Several articles touched on the submission of will and its theological weight that Lewis portrays in Perelandra. Though they are very close they seem to hit just shy of the mark and offer a look into Lewis’s familiarity with perichoresis. Richard Clarke’s article, “Paradise Retained: C.S. Lewis on the Nature of Knowledge, Reality, and Morality in Perelandra,” hits the closest in resolving the nature of free will and predestination with an emphasis on the Great Dance in Perelandra. He too argues that the two wills are inherently one and the same within reality. Lewis’ Space Trilogy, especially Perelandra, serves as a taste of the present reality for the Christian worldview (Clarke 64). The intricacies of the crafted worlds, characters, and ideologies contain truths of the present reality. Clarke’s reasoning reflects some aspects of the perichoretic nature of reality and asserts that creation is inherently good in its role, despite its corruption (Clarke 64). Clarke speaks much on the free will of humanity through Ransom and co. but little on the grace of God due to the corruption of the world. To be out of the movement of God is not good and without the invitation of grace, then there is no reconciliation or true liberation of creation. Clarke equates the perfection of Perelandra to our world’s inherent goodness, and it is within creation’s capacity to act freely without grace. In Christopher Scarf’s book, The Ideal of Kingship in the Writings of Charles Williams, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien: Divine Kingship Is Reflected in Middle-Earth, his chapter, “Lewis and the Hierarchy,” gives a great discussion on free will and obedience. Scarf’s main point hinges on the open space of love that calls for obedience in God’s order of creation (Scarf 92). His argument hits many perichoretic attributes without delving into greater depth,

but he gives context about an obedient and loving faith for God, which is dependent upon free will. Lewis’ Space Trilogy point towards what a paradise retained may look like, but our world is short of the goodness of God’s vision. However, the critics may be focusing more on the movement towards goodness, and he ties in brilliant points about Ransom’s revelation within Perelandra. On a similar note, Sarah Eddings in her article, “The Use of the Vertical Plane to Indicate Holiness in C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy,” gives a great overarching perspective from all three books within the trilogy. Her focus was unique in how she centered upon the actual spatial direction of objects to reflect a spiritual direction. Eddings’s emphasis was on the submission of man’s will within the physical realm which is indicative of their spiritual state or closeness to Maleldil’s will (Eddings 33). She argues that the physical imagery of spatial direction pertained to the holiness of Maleldil and whether one submits under Him. What she does not specify was the distinction of Maleldil’s will as preordination and the invitation of open space for creation to freely join in. With her analysis of the theological implications of Maleldil’s will and creation’s will, I thought that she would give a focus on the nature of the Great Dance, but she only offers a brief mention. Eddings references the theological brevity of the Great Dance rather than its expansive offering that could build upon her focus on Lewis’ imagery of spatial movement, or direction. However, Eddings does well in noting the importance of Lewis’s theological implications and in her focus on the spatial imagery that reflects submission under Maleldil through the Space Trilogy. Moreover, Monika Hilder’s article, “The Packed Reality of Heaven: C.S. Lewis’s Imaginative Re-Education of the Modern Pilgrim,” argues that Lewis’ Space Trilogy is his realignment of the Christian’s perspective of the human identity. Hilder focuses on Lewis’s practice of employing storytelling and biblical worldview as a way to portray the present reality of heaven for the Christian believer (Hilder 96). Ransom and the Space Trilogy is a representation of Lewis reimagining the view of the spiritual battle that Christians go through in their faith. Ransom’s experiences are said to represent the true reality of what was supposed to be without the present corruption of sin. She touches largely on the perspective of the believer in relation to Lewis’ development of the different worlds and Ransom. Notably, she does touch on the Great Dance’s fulfilling nature and the celestial love that encompasses all of creation, but stops there (Hilder 102). Her observation of the theological interdependence of creation upon heaven is an important thing to note. Her focus on the present reality of heaven and the metaphysical implications are done very well in extracting Lewis’ purpose of his Space Trilogy. However, it could have gone deeper into the nature of God that is portrayed in Maleldil and Deep Heaven. The interdependent essence of creation could be related back to the perichoretic relationship of the Trinity and its implications for the worlds that Lewis created.

Other critics speak on the ecological roles of creation, particularly the placing of humanity. Matthew Dickerson and David O’Hara co-authored Narnia and the Fields of Arbol: The Environmental Vision of C.S. Lewis, and their chapter, “Perelandra: Creation and Conscience,” offers a look into the ethical roles for creation. In their conversation, they state, “all rational beings participate in creation by affirming their place in creation, and all beings have natures that long to grow into perfection,” (Dickerson & O’Hara 184). Such is drawn from Ransom’s journey across the cosmos, but more could be discussed on how the Great Dance draws all of creation into perfection. Dickerson and O’Hara draw parallels to Moltmann’s perichoretic concepts when they state, “Their [Perelandran’s] encounters with the divine in nature will take place entirely at a tangible level” or sensual experiences (Dickerson & O’Hara 188). The two critics draw from the concept of perichoresis but do not emphasize its importance alongside the Great Dance. However, they do give an in-depth analysis of Weston’s existence and Ransom’s through an ecological perspective. Weston’s existence as the Un-Man seeks to equate all of creation into an equal playing field, thus rendering the hierarchy and God into a convoluted mess (Dickerson & O’Hara 194). To build upon their statements, the danger of Weston’s universal equality spurs danger for the Great Dance since it is based on a hierarchy of roles, not superiority. If creation is made equal with God then there is no movement or plan within the universe, which the two authors could have incorporated that into their ecological discussion of Perelandra. In contrast to Weston’s attempt to disrupt the natural order of creation and destroy the perception of God, Ransom serves as the salt to preserve its truth. However, in this plan for preservation, Ransom has a choice to preserve the ecological order of Perelandra. The co-authors state, “Lewis’s Ransom is an enacted answer to that belief: if we fail to care, God may set things right, but we will have acted with impiety,” (Dickerson & O’Hara 195). By this statement, the co-authors recognize the freedom of human choice and God’s preordination in an ecological manner. The co-authors offer an ecological perspective into perichoresis without directly addressing it. However, the displayed hierarchy in the Great Dance and the concept of perichoresis would help to further outline aspects of their ecological thinking. Alongside the same line, other critics highlighted the importance of analyzing Lewis’s concept of gender within the hierarchy of creation, particularly focusing on Eve. In Benita Muth’s article, “Paradise Retold: Lewis’s Reimagining of Milton, Eden, and Eve,” she states that, like Milton in Paradise Lost, “Lewis, too, displays a strong commitment to free will for all humanity, regardless of gender, and to the implication of the theoretical possibility of an unfallen creation…” (Muth 24). Lewis’s Perelandra purposes to demonstrate the agency of humanity in preserving paradise through the new Eve or The Green Lady. The