“A mistake about Creation results in a mistake about God.” Thomas Aquinas.
So I’d like to complain: We have been short-changed! We have been served a false dichotomy, and feel forced to accept one of only two items on the Evolution menu: Darwin or Genesis.
What I hope to show here is how this dichotomy persists by and large due to post-enlightenment thought. And emerging from this hackneyed framework, how it is possible to re-engage the issues of our origins in a fresh way, enabling us to attain a far more robust worldview and a more mature faith as we do so.
But first, we need to take another word from the bin as well, and that word is “Eternity”.
To most contemporary believers, it appears self-evident that God’s Truth is perfect, absolute, and “Eternal”. This implies that it is everlasting, changeless and complete. This view underpins current orthodoxy, and forms the basis for most western or monotheist ideas of Divinity.
For the literalist, fundamentalist Creationist, anything even hinting at “relativism”, is a challenge to Absolutes, and taken to be a frontal attack on God and Truth. For them it is inconceivable that the Genesis account be replaced by the Darwinian one, because their reading of the Genesis myth leads to a cosmic origin which was sudden, fully formed, and recent.
Christian Creationism goes hand in hand with a few other ideas. The work of Creation is “Finished”; the dominant narrative is the redemption of a fallen world, and after the return of Christ, there will be a new Heavens and a new Earth.
The important subtext is that Creation is a fait accompli, and man’s role is now one of obedience to the Word of God. Significant participation in the divine process, “divinisation”, is viewed as an arrogant attempt to be “like God”. But upon a closer examination, the Creationist ideology may not necessarily be the best or most faithful to the underlying biblical tradition.
The problem with our post-enlightenment understanding of what constitutes Eternity, Eternal Life and Creation, is that it is largely built on a Greek model of thought, more than its original Hebraic one. The Greeks, and specifically Plato, created a dualism between an Ideal and a Real world. This dualism was Christianised by the likes of St Augustine, and forms the basis of our understandings of the dualities of Nature/Grace, Time/Eternity, Heaven/Earth, God/Satan, Flesh/Spirit and Sacred/Profane.
In Hebrew, the dominant word translated or understood as “eternal” is olam (translated ever, everlasting, or ancient). In Greek, it is aionios, eon – essentially meaning an age or period of time, albeit long. With this in mind, one comes to understand that the idea of timelessness (implying unchanging), is not what is meant, either in the Old Testament Hebrew or even the New Testament Greek texts.
In fact, most scholarship seems to clearly refute the Greek sense of the word:
- The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible states: “The bible hardly speaks of eternity in a philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end… Olam means … no more than an indefinitely long period.”
- The Interpreters dictionary of the Bible claims that “The N.T. and the O.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness.”
- Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament adds, “There is no word in either O.T. Hebrew or N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity.”
This same confusion between time and timelessness is evident in comparing the Greek doctrines of Immortality of the soul with Hebrew belief in Resurrection of the body. Many Christians simply accept that these are synonymous. Nowhere is the confusion greater than in understandings of “Eternal Punishment” (but that is a matter for another discussion).
A word of caution: what this thesis must NOT do is introduce a false Greek-Hebraic dichotomy. We must see that the Greeks had a well developed sense of journey – note the epic Homeric tale, The Odyssey, for example, and that the Hebrews had a strong sense of YHWH as the Unchanging. But what must be emphasised is how the static Greek notion holds sway for us Westerners, such that we cling to biased ideas of the absolute and immutability, at the expense of those involving journey, discovery, and adventure.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake argues that a more appropriate paradigm by which to read the Creation as well the Redemption Narratives – The Story of God – might in fact be in terms of evolution, rather than of eternity.
“When Newton combined [the] Platonic notion of eternal laws with the atomist notion of eternal bits of matter, he created a cosmic dualism upon which deterministic science has been based and is still based to this day … By contrast, the evolutionary paradigm comes not from the Greek part of our heritage but from the Jewish part. It is based on the metaphor of the journey, the prototype being the journey of the chosen people out of Egypt through the wilderness and to the Promised Land.”
Rupert Sheldrake (With Matthew Fox) “Natural Grace” pg. 163
Instead of Evolution being the mortal enemy of biblical truth, it may in fact hold a key to our being able to move forward from the impasse of modernism (truth as infallible, all-or-nothing, absolute proposition) in which the Church finds itself today.
If we start to view Gods dealings with the creation as an unfolding story rather than a text book or a closed, finalised and pre-determined canon of truth, it would give us a far greater sense of shared life in a continuing adventure. But we would also have to accept the responsibility of “divinisation”; becoming “co-creators”, and it is perhaps the terror of this exalted status that holds us back in servile religious frameworks.
Cosmologist Brian Swimme has pioneered this approach by combining western scientific knowledge with a new mysticism. He points out,
“We are the first generation to live with an empirical view of the origin of the universe. We are the first humans to look into the night sky and see the birth of stars, the birth of galaxies, the birth of the cosmos as a whole. Our future as a species will be forged within this new story of the world.” “The Universe is a Green Dragon”, p 29.
Swimme acknowledges Thomas Berry to be a primary influence. Berry articulates this new approach to scientific investigation when he says that the Universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects. Subjects tell stories, and objects are described by facts. Story is a worthy vessel for mystery, because it can contain ambiguity, and unlike objective truth, is not obliged to dissect, map, or reveal.
Rupert Sheldrake informs us that the Universe is now thought to be 90-99% “Dark Matter”. He also points out how visible light forms a small sliver on the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Most of what is out there or even in here, goes unperceived. Quantum mechanics has shown us how at a subatomic level (outside of the Newtonian horizon), sheer unpredictability reigns.
And building on Rene Descartes dictum “I think therefore I am”, Enlightenment knowledge was limited to consciousness. Who can quantify how small or large human consciousness is on the full scale of existence? Today, most at least accept the notion of the Unconscious, pioneered by Freud and Jung. But when it comes to modernist-tainted theology, we still struggle with the great unknowns of God, instead insisting on “clarity”, a static, systematic, absolute and objective “Eternal” view.
The Enlightenment optimism that “full” knowledge was within our grasp, has been shown to be misguided. Modernity occurs at the height of the Enlightenment project, and probably also marks its demise. In this time, we are being forced back to a far more humble, integrated appraisal of the World and its processes, but one in which we play an integral part.
What I enjoy about Emergent thinking is the fact that it has stepped beyond Modernity’s prescribed, clockwork universe into the unknown of God’s ongoing creation. It acknowledges the unfinished nature of life, as well as the ultimate unknowability of the Divine.
Emergent writer Phyllis Tickle has just written “The Great Emergence” which contains (together with Brian McLarens “A Generous Orthodoxy”) perhaps the grandest vision yet of the Emergent movement. Whereas most Emergents have been provisional, tentative, limiting their description to “conversation”, Tickle is suggesting that this age of Emergence is a once-in-five-centuries event, following The Great Reformation of 1517, the Great Schism of 1051, and the Council of Chalcedon and Gregory the Great in 451, and of course the Great Transformation – the life of Jesus and the birth of Christianity out of Judaism in the first century.
She suggests that 4 quadrants of the Church, Liturgicals, Social Justice (Liberal), Renewalists, and Conservatives, are interacting on a new scale to provide a broad, ecumenical backdrop for what is to come. Old categories are breaking apart, and newness is appearing in many forms.
Other postmodern prophetic voices, such as that of Matthew Fox and Creation Spirituality, have held a similarly grand (and arguably broader and more ecumenical) view for some years now. In his Book “A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the transformation of Christianity” (2006) he draws unabashed parallels with Luther, particularly in his (Fox’s) somewhat controversial 95 theses. Fox believes that “we can start anew … a new reformation for a new millennium is upon us.”
Much of the momentum required by Emergents will be found in the past. One such impetus will be the re-imagining of contemporary spirituality by appropriately reinterpreting many of our big themes, such as that of a transcendent yet imminent Lord, who though everlasting, is deeply involved with their people in the process of Creation.
The tasks ahead for Emergent Christianity include:
- Wresting questions of eternity away from its Greek “timeless” bias.
- Wresting evolution – the story of life – away from both Literal Creationism and Materialistic Darwinism.
- Wresting Orthodoxy back from Enlightenment modernity.
- Wresting Imminence (God in Creation) away from Pantheism (God is creation), as well as Deism (God is separate from creation) in a Panentheistic approach (God is in All and All is in God).
- Developing a new cosmology, a new universe story, based in what the “new” science is making known, and a postmodern view of creation, and discovering the Cosmic Christ within this story.
This means new opportunities to re-imagine faith, to steward the bounty of the created order, and to share in the privileged process of cosmogenesis, the ongoing, “eighth day” of creation. And, tantalisingly, the potential for the rediscovery of an integrated, creation centred, and truly awe-filled worship of a Worthy Creator, is becoming increasingly apparent.
Angie Van De Merwe said
Emergents by definition cannot be determined!
Nic Paton said
I might understand… are you meaning that emerging is a process, and is thus indeterminate?
Don Rogers said
I love this post! IMHO, add another book to your list of “to be read”. That would be “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”, by Marcus Borg. His discussion of “The Creation Stories as Myths” is very revealing and is slowly dissolving my entrenched views of Genesis. The Hebraic sense of journey rather than historical reading is stressed throughout his work and a characterization that I have found enlightening. His book presents an entirely new view of the purpose of the Torah/Pentatuch which I had never before contemplated.
I am slowly coming to the realization, which obviously you have already seen, that an enlightenment/modernity view of Biblical interpretation is a recent phenomena and needs a second, even third revisit. Borg, as you may know, seeks to imbue us with the imminent, transcendent view of God as a new perspective. I like the things you have to say here and must admit you have given me new things to think about when I see or hear Emergent Christianity presented as a meme. Nic, you have a way of constantly challenging me to think and see things in a way I have not done before. Thank you for that.
nic paton said
Hi Don
Via Andrew, the Borg book is very much on the cards, so thanks for the reinforcement.
Yes, I am beginning to see Immanence (Creation Centred Spirituality / New Science) as a part of the Emergent process, although this connection is not yet widely shared.
Don, I thank you for your participation.
BTW I don’t think I am going to get to the Tag thingy – sorry!
Andrew said
Nic,
A most well crafted post underlining the enormous importance of gaining a perspective of Godde/creator and the ongoing creative process unfolding.
Thanks
Andrew
Eternity, Evolution, and Emergence | Male Voice Over Artist, Marty Daniels 866-935-7539 said
[...] By Nic Paton, re-posted from Sound and Silence: [...]
timvictor said
Nic,
Well written. Though there are two extreme poles – literal 7 day creationists vs. hard ball evolutions – that shout a lot at each other make noise there are other positions.
The Hebrew “yom” first appears in the Gen. text before literal days begin and is used to refer to period of time, whether literal day, sunrise to sunset or sunrise to sunrise or period of time. But that would lay open a charge for relativism… where exactly was the day? In the mind of the writer who penned the text perhaps or the first section of a 7 day revelatory experience or …?
Later Godde says, “Let the land bring forth…” and “Let the water bring forth…”. The Gen. creation accounts deal with the “why’s” and “how comes”. The cookie trail science follows beginning with the senses and their technological extensions will find the water and the land responsible for most things. Surely there’s some grace when dealing with a pre-scientific summary statement. After all, how many volumes of texts are involved in exploring evolution versus a relatively small amount of text in Gen.
I reckon both sides need to lighten up, perhaps have a drink together.
nic paton said
Tim – thanks for that. What do you mean “the water and the land responsible for most things”? What does ‘Yom’ translate to?
Andrew said
Nic, The opening quotation from Thomas Aquinas says it in a nutshell. It’s the premise of all faith…. how we see creation in relationship to Godde will determine our viewpoint of Godde and the extent of his grace. I’m more convinced that this is a prophetic message to the church before we can take on the aetheist or materialist.
Tim, water was created for drinking especially the Scottish variety.
russ.... said
Tim, very true about the range of thought & ideas between these two poles. regarding extremists, i think it’s great the way Dawkins and the “new atheist” posse are militarizing & getting in people’s faces. the atheistic creationists are finally showing themselves for the faith-based dogmatists that they are. the lab coats are off and the handbags are flying….
Andrew said
Russ,
What do you mean by “atheistic creationists”, I’m confused, something that’s not difficult to achieve when it comes to science, or is it religion or is it a new form of both!!! … ..
What happened to “Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so….”
AAAHHH!!!!
liquidlight said
Andy.
i see the so-called “new atheists” – i’m not sure who coined that term but Dawkins & Christopher Hitchins are probably the most well known evangelists – as being “atheistic creationists” & “faith-based dogmatists”:
1. Atheistic, because they exclude the possibility of there being any kind of God.
2. Creationist, because of their belief in natural selection as the mode of creation.
3. Faith-based, because darwinianism is a theory &
4. Dogmatists, because the exhibit the same levels of dogma as the religious fundamentalists they do battle with.
Nic, i’m not sure what you mean by “literal creationism”? i suspect you’re referring to the holding to a 6 day creation & 6.5k year earth. also, “materialist darwinism” – i’m not sure what you mean by this. From what i understand, darwinism by definition holds a materialistic base to the cosmos as being primary.
Also, if we’re going to wrestle evolution away from various groups, we need to address it’s philosophical relationship to eugenics, theosophy & the new age movement that emerged out of it.
Darwin’s Origin of Species is also called “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. It is at least as much a socio-economic theory as a biological one & the foundation of the eugenics movement, which is clearly antithetical to the gospel.
Nazism was heavily influenced by and arguably emerged from evolutionary theory – specifically the twin streams of darwinism & theosophy. This historical fact needs to be taken into consideration, as we can know anything’s nature by it’s fruit.
The new scientific-esoteric paradigm is growing in leaps and bounds and I would put money on evolutionary theory one day being replaced by intelligent design, as the dominant paradigm. However, I think that the ruling elite will push the message that our origins are extra terrestrial in origin and not as the monotheistic faiths teach, at the hand of God.
nic paton said
Russ – fair questions.
I use the terms in question as 2 destinations in the discussion, being a materialistic view based on Darwin, and a Superstitious Creationalist view based on Literal reading of the Bible.
I subscribe to something less Literal (and therefore willingly blinded) than this creationalism and yet having a foundation of faith in a Creator.
It may have sounded like a tautology, but I’m just trying to be descriptive of Darwinism, augmenting that with “materialistic”. And it’s true that Creationism might be literal or something else (like metaphorical), so in the latter case it’s a specific type of Creationism.
I agree that if we reposition evolution, it will mean that we cannot drag its attendant outworkings into the new paradigm in which we use it, so as you say we will have to do some work to redefine its consequences based on the new suppositions.
However, when you say “the ruling elite will push the message that our origins are extra terrestrial in origin” and that “evolutionary theory one day being replaced by intelligent design, as the dominant paradigm” you seem to be stepping into the realm of prophecy and speculation.
I could equally speculate, perhaps more optimistically, that an emergent view might gain credance. Do you think it is necessary that the dominant paradigm be anti-christian?
liquidlight said
Nic.
i hear what you’re saying and regarding “redefining evolutions consequences based on the new suppositions”, and say go for it! i have no doubt your creative & inquisitive mind will uncover connection points, echoes etc.
i also feel that the emergent view will gain credence, moving forward – insofar as it holds to the sanctity of all life and all human beings – as created in the image of G-d – then this is what i hope for.
however – this will sound heavy – i also believe that the “elites” – scientific, luciferic* utopians – have long been working towards a new world order, as echoed in 1984 & Brave New World. in their own words – Huxley, Wells, Rothschilds, Kissinger, Albert Pike etc etc – the ruling elites want to usher in a one-world religion, which will be a replacement for monotheistic religions.
putting bible prophecy aside, the writings of the elites over several centuries have openly espoused the goals of a one world socialist government, a one world syncretic religion & one world currency, with the abolition of private property rights. i see the gospel – and any emergent church worth it’s salt – as being antithetical to such a structure.
Nic, i appreciate that what i have said here will sound to many, like the ranting of a conspiracy nut. unfortunately i believe that a measured reading of world events & the shifts that have been underway over the last century, support such a view.
as Philip K Dick often said, “the (roman) empire never ended”.
liquidlight said
*luciferic – when i refer to luciferians, i’m not limiting this too blood thirsty satanists cursing Christ under inverted crosses. i use the term to refer to theistic luciferians (Blavatsky, Crowley, high level masons etc) + agnostic luciferians (RAWilson, TH Huxley etc) +atheistic luciferians, such as Dawkins.
Gavin said
Russ – to be honest you do sound like you’re chasing after some conspiracy theory.. although I wouldn’t go so far as to call you a nut
I think that part of the problem is the dualism between creationism (including intelligent design) and the kind of blind watchmaker theorists that seem to miss the fact that they consider themselves (a product of evolution) to be highly intelligent.
One thing that cannot be denied is the emergence of intelligence out of all of this. The ability to look at it all and reflect on it. This is what I see emerging – not a one world government or religion, but a realisation that we are this – the Universe conscious of itself.
Perhaps it makes more sense when we look at it in reverse – that we (the universal community) are the intelligence behind all of this.
The other meme that seems to be sprouting is the understanding that evolution hasn’t stopped – that we are continuously becoming.
hmm – does that make me luciferian?
nic paton said
Russ, Gavin
The Roman Empire never died, that is true, in totality.
Like the Alien, it parasitically and massively hypocritically hijacked the church, using Augustine to cement its doctrinal dominance, followed by a millenium and a halfs worth of subterfuge, conniving, often downright evil methods to cling on to its power. Its primary tool has been fear in the name of faith.
However, through the ages, many catholics have accepted the Gospel’s demands inside the context of the Roman Church. Catholicism is not really the enemy, but Empire I believe is. And Empire, the realm of the King, transcends the Roman one, it is a cosmic force.
Starhawk, with her eco-feminist liberation psychology, suggests that Kingship uses “power-over” rather than “power from within” or “power with”, in 5 ways:
The Conquerer, The Orderer, The Censor, The Master, and The Judge.
We need to view the Kingdom of God as a different sort of Kingship, not power-over.
I’ve been through at least 2 period in my life where I believed in a imminant conspriracy. Firstly under the influence of 70’s evangelical literalism, and also during the dark days of apartheid. I have watched end time predictions come and go, even in my few years on earth. I remain open and alert, yet unconvinced that we should dwell for too long on these things. Take it from the Gnostics if you will, The Kingdom of God Is Within. It is emerging, and I give this fact my full attention.
Gavin, thanks for you take – I resonate strongly with the idea that what is emerging is “The Universe conscious of itself”. You know however that I am a panentheist, and hold to a personal God within Creation. But there IS NO OTHER WAY but to know the Creator via the Creation. Any other thinking is not biblical, and derivative of the Enlightenment and Platonism.
Thanks my friends for the lovely tapestry of your thoughts.
“Be still, and know that I am G-d.”
liquidlight said
Personally i believe the world is run by a cabal of 3 blind one-armed drummers, all schooled @ P.I.T between 82-85. Dave Weckl & Peter Erskine tried to infiltrate on behalf of scientology & buddhism respectively but refusing to sacrifice an arm, were rejected due to a lack of commitment.
Nic, i’d appreciate your elaborating on your statement that “there IS NO OTHER WAY but to know the Creator via the Creation”. For myself, I rejected the gnostic notion of the creation being something hellish & to be escaped, but you seem to be going much further than that.
Wat dink jy?
Razkal…
nic paton said
So their paradiddles are ENTIRELY COMMUNAL?
What I am cautioning is against the idea that G-d relates to us primarily via the “other”: the future, the spirit realm, the “sacred”, the extraordinary. While I hold the possibility for such otherworldly, transcendant inbreakings, 99.9 % of my experience of God is by faith, and that enacted in the THIS time-space continuum,THIS creation.
My assertion is no doubt riddled with paradox and ambiguity, I am finding it hard enough to grasp myself, so if you don’t get it that’s OK.
Gavin said
I sometimes wonder – if a personal God exists, when did he/she become aware of him/herself existing..
But perhaps that’s the question we face, and that’s why we find it so necessary to come up with stories as to why we are here – evolution, creation and so on. They’re essentially metaphors for something that is so deep and mysterious that we will never be able to wrap it in words or numbers.
Someone (I think it was Jung) said something to the tune of ‘religion is the antidote to an authentic spiritual experience’. I think the same can be said of science – whenever we take the conceptual as it, instead of using whichever myth/metaphor that fits us best (science, religion, philosophy etc.) as a tool to point us in a direction where we are authentically engaging in this: this Awe-ful experience of being here, of being alive, the mystery of Being.
Eugene Roberts said
Nic, I stumbled onto your site via Emergent Village. Thank you for a well writen post. There is sooo much to chew on.
Net ‘n vragie (eerste van baie):
How do suggest we become “co-creators”?
Here are two other posts dealing with the subject of creation:
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2008/11/14/in-the-beginning-views-of-creation/
http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/in-the-beginning-2/
Eugene Roberts said
The “you” fell out of “How do you suggest we become “co-creators”?”
liquidlight said
Nic, LOL – communal parradiddles – love it!! i think i get what you’re saying about experiencing the Creator thru creation & regarding it being riddled with paradox & ambiguity, that seems to be intrinsic to this realm. i look forward to exploring this more, offline.
Gavin, regarding God becoming self-aware, i suspect awareness equals self-awareness at that level of being. I put this question in the philosophy section, right next to “where did God come from?”.
For gnosis, I recommend Taylors Italian Blend.
.r
nic paton said
Eugene
And here I was thinking the “Eu” fell right out of “Careful with that Ax Eugene”?
(Eugene, please explain your question)
Gavin – on the “line of mystery”, I think I get out one stop before you do. And I think this is because I am more “incarnatory” than you. By which I mean historicity (timeboundness), specifically that of Jesus of Nazareth, is a significant factor in my contemplations of the divine. We both grasp mystery, and the iconic as a means of accessing the ineffable, but you seem to feel that the rabbit hole MUST be never ending, it must never find concrete expression. I experience a tenion between “knowing Christ” and “not knowing”.
Russ – I think you nail it there – paradox is intrinsic to this realm. In fact, where pradox is not intrinsic, I think unreality has been created. More offline…
Gavin said
Nic – I think what I’m getting at is that there is a difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’. Understanding involves concepts – definitions, words and so on. Knowing is more experiential and it goes beyond definition. So with regard to the ‘rabbit hole’ being never ending – perhaps one can look at it from the perspective of experiencing the eternal. From the point of view of christianity – the letter to the Collosians and Ephesians has some great language for this, especially the use of the word ‘fulness’ – pleroma – that you may know this, experience it (but it will ultimately always go beyond concept or definition)..
liquidlight said
the gnostics really expounded on the pleroma & i’d recommend reading “the hymn of the pearl”, otherwise known as “the robe of glory” – for me, it really captures the feeling of homesickness & alienation that spiritual seekers experience at times in this realm.
Eugene Roberts said
(WordPress had me signed in as Gavin
)
Nic, it seems that my first comment disappeared which put that question into context… (perhaps because I had more than 1 link it, it ended up in spam?)
You said in the OP:
So how do you propose we become “co-creators”? Is it in context of declaring the Kingdom of God is at hand? Participating in the restoration of creation? Will you please explain?
I read this in a comment from Rob on The scandal of Bishop Carlton Pearson thread which kind of got me excited with my question in mind:
I found your site through Emergent Village and immediately added to my favourites! I have been thinking about eternity, hell, heaven, creation and atonement a lot and finally found people who have been on this journey for some time… Your blog and the ideas you discuss here is just… WOW! I feel I have a lot of catching up to do (on things like Universal Restoration) before I can join the conversation. I might ask a lot of dumb questions so just be patient with me (and my spelling and grammar – Arfikaanse oukie ekke)
Nic Paton said
Eugene – At last it is starting to make sense! I freed your original comment into the thread – thank you so much for taking the time.
Aah – so you want to know about “divinisation”. I confess to knowing not much but having some inklings. I’ll try be brief, to keep the conversation going.
Simply put, I believe that the biblical view reveals that we are already co-creators.
Why we don’t see this is becuase of the role of Culture and Inherited Theology, which I am doing a lot of deconstructive work on, getting beyond the post-enlightenment view, beyond the Middle Ages even, to something arguably closer to the Hebraic mindset. You might ask, is that not an arbitrary reference point, but I think its important, especially for the Christian… to get a little closer to the context of the Incarnation.
We MUST move beyond (before) Augustine and Neoplatonism (350 CE), for starters, and even then we need to be careful about the Cultures around the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE. Jesus had this problem too – his encounters with Phariseism were not just with his own Judaism, but with other influences too – Babylonian for one, which the Pharisees were infected by, especially in their views of Hell.
But to get back to being co-creators… Most of us who have ben affected by the Church and its teachings are conditioned to approach God as servile creatures. Now Servants we may opt to become, and Creatures we indeed are, but I think we conclude, based on the subtext of fear, that this means we cannot really partake in any meaningful way in God’s ongoing work, the eighth day of creation.
I’m going to stop there, to give you a chance ot continue and corrupt the story…
Nic Paton said
Gavin – We all I guess are over attached to words, and do not live in awe enough. I see your trajectory as being a conscious effort to embrace that which is beyond understanding. I admire it, but at this moment find myself in a very fertile place that is brimming with words, and a desire to clarify, and so I give myself to it, even thought there are parts of me that just want the mystery. But I hope before too long to revisit a more silent, knowing mode.
Nic Paton said
Liguidlight
Thanks for the recommendations. I’m moved by your observation about the “homesickness & alienation that spiritual seekers experience at times in this realm.” There is a sense of creation yearning and travailing for the revelation of the people of God. For me its not a case of waiting about self righteously for the final spectacle with the packaged answer dropping in from another realm, but a deep yearning for all – us, animals, the Earth, the Cosmos, all matter – to be reconciled in “apokatastasis”, by our very involvement in its process. Teilhard is most eloquent in this.
It also makes me think about the differences between longing and craving. They might feel the same, but point to to very different goals. More on http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/longing-and-craving/
Eugene Roberts said
Concerning being affected by tradition and past teaching, I find it extremely difficult to grasp and work through ideas outside my frame of reference (well some more than others). What may contribute to this might be the lack of people I can converse with apart from blogging. I find it difficult to express myself in writing…
Partaking in a meaningful way in God’s ongoing work… Mmm… What would you describe as God’s ongoing work? Reconciling creation with Himself? Or are you suggesting that God is still creating? In a sense God is still creating through the processes He started (eg. the expanding universe)…
The eighth day… I always thought (can’t think where I got the idea from) that we are living in the age of the seventh day – God resting from His work. Now that I think about it, it doesn’t really make sense for God has been quite busy since creation…
nic paton said
Eugene – you are a trekker, already quite far from “home”.
I like your suggestion that Gods ongoing work is reconcilling the creation with himself. I wholeheartedly resonate with that. Have you considered the thinking around Universal Redemption at all?
I think you pick up the paradox well – God is both resting and at work. But that work is via the creation – us. So in some ways I guess he might be sipping cosmic latte, while we all groan in travail. Because God is postmodern, after all. [wink]
Eugene Roberts said
Cosmic latte… I want some of that!
I have been thinking and reading quite a bit on Universal Redemption. I am reading your post about Universal Restoration now and have been reading tentmaker.org as well. I am definitely on a journey and I have a similar feeling to what I had when my pre-millennial/mid-tribulation view got challenged and I became a semi-Preterist (only found out that I am one recently). Growing up in the Pentecostal church I know the fire and brimstone preaching very well but the more I read the Bible the more I come across the idea that God is restoring/will restore everything and everyone to himself. I still have a LOT of questions but all in due time… The most important thing I have learned during the change of my eschatological views was not to hold on too tightly onto my views as if that will save me.
Back to your OP…
Redemption evolving? Kind of like the rock in Daniel that crushed the statue and grew to fill the whole earth?
Would this mean that when the Bible says that people (the unsaved) will spend an eternity in hell it may mean it is for an indefinite period of time and not necessarily forever as in with no end, timeless eternity?
BTW. Do you know of any emergent conversation going on in the Port Elizabeth area?
Eugene Roberts said
I see you and others that comment here often write G-d in stead of God. What’s up with that? Is it the same idea as the Jewish idea of YHWH?
Nic Paton said
Hi Eugene – yes it is a small attempt to remember that the name cannot contain the reality, as in the Hebrew tetragrammaton – see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
You asked about PE – I think David Lock, pastor of Gonubie Baptist might be willing to engage you on this. See http://gonubiebaptist.co.za/index.htm. He is not happy however that Joy Magazine labelled him publically as Emergent without his permission. See http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/08/06/joy-magazine-ec
Eugene Roberts said
Uhm… Thanks but Gunobie is like 300km from here…
Nic Paton said
O.K. is that East London? Sorry – Western Cape ignorence…
Eugene Roberts said
Yep, that’s East London. I know it is the perception of Stormer supporters that nothing outside the Western Cape really matters… Well with Table Mountain on your front lawn and the Boland in your back yard I don’t blame you. Hey, would you be up for a conversation over a good red wine next time we are in the Great Western Cape?
Chad said
Nic-
Just wanted to say hello and introduce myself. My friend Eugene left me a comment at my blog and said I should find you – I am glad he did (Thanks Eugene!).
Wonderful post and conversation. I see I have entered it quite late (turkey hangover) but will dig around and see what else I can find here.
grace and peace,
Chad
http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
Nic Paton said
Chad – the thing about blogversations is its never too late. Thanks for your intro – I will check out your blog soon.
Chad said
What I enjoy about Emergent thinking is the fact that it has stepped beyond Modernity’s prescribed, clockwork universe into the unknown of God’s ongoing creation. It acknowledges the unfinished nature of life, as well as the ultimate unknowability of the Divine.
Nic,
This statement by you captures my own attraction to the emergent conversation. The Church, IMO, has become far too static. We have walked in lock-step with the project of Modernity to reduce everything down to the basics in hopes of finding ulitimate meaning and truth. As such, we have deified the past and cemented the church within it.
When Jesus spoke of “Another” who would come to us to be his spiritual presence in the absence of his physical reality, he said that this One would walk alongside us (paraclete) and “lead us into truth.” I have long wondered why we assume the 3rd person of the Trinity has ceased to lead or has nothing of import to say to the Church today? Why has this God ceased to move once the 1st century turned or the canon was closed? This has never added up to me. And yet, today, like Phyllis Tickle so wisely observes, there is something new underfoot. Those who have ears let them hear. Praise God.
Nic Paton said
Chad
I share your perplexity in how the church at large seems so static. Their/Our view of God seems at odds with the view of God I have envisioned and whose fuller revelation is now emerging. Our vital task is now to define and deconstruct this stasis, and the extent to which we have swallowed its myth without critique or prophetic awareness.
The problem is multifaceted, however. We need to understand more than just a view of the world we label “modernism”. Crucially, it involves the Enlightenment, or age of reason, the Industrial revolution, Scientific determinsim, and also very importantly, the older problem of Augustine, especially in his view of God and Eternal Punishment. This last one has political, theological and philosophical dimensions.
I am busy working on Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” which is a tour de force, giving us tools to understand the inconsistancy, unease and perplexity that underlies modern, or even post-early church christianity.
Chad, thanks again for you interest.
Chad said
Nic,
I agree with your assesement of the problem and how far back it reaches. But I think there is something that each of those problems (or eras of time) are attempting to address – a problem that transcends even those – and one that has certainly taken hold in more concrete ways since the Enlightenment. That is to say, the problem with modern theology is that it has become a discourse in which we tend to talk to ourselves and in so doing we talk away from the world. For centuries now theology has been a discourse that gets deployed into a way of creating a social reality (space) into which some are dominated and others do the dominating. The world we occupy today is a world wounded in the realities of colonialization and raciality. The problem is that these have become a Christian reality – today, we do theology without reckoning with this reality.
So yes, many of the problems can be traced even back to Augustine, but I think that unless we understand the above problem (which in my mind, captures all these problems in its net) than we will only be recapitulating the same moves whenever we try to move forward.
thoughts?
Nic Paton said
Chad, we are in search of the meta-problem…
Are you saying that the “problem behind the problem” is essentially about politics, and what Nietzche (sp?) called the “will to power”? We might label this “empire”, or what Jesus talks of as “The world”… the human realm of domination. (Walter Brueggemann explores this effectively from an Old Testament perspective.)
In your comment about theology as discourse (to ourselves / away from the world) you seem to elude to a dualism. I would say that all dualisms are in fact aspects of the meta-problem. By separating the individual from their cosmic community (a result, amongst other things of Descartes assertion that it is individual thought that defines reality) we lay the ground for domination and control.
When you warn about recapitulating, are you saying that unless our analysis goes far enough we may not get enough of a handle on it, and might not actually solve it? And are you suggesting that my list of factors (as a start) might be insufficient; I think it’s a start, but What would you add in order not to “recapitulate”?
Chad said
Nic,
Awesome questions.
Yes, it is primarily about politics and not just as our “will to power” but in our modes of intimacy (or rather, in the case of religion, our modes of segregation). I agree totaly that the discourse I described as problematic is dualistic and certainly does lay the groundwork for domination and control. Theology has ceased to be “embodied” and has rather taken the form of one standing on the outside looking in. The Church has long followed the lead of those who have seen themselves as the saviors of others by dropping their cultural Jesus into the mix of a “problem” (the Negro Problem, the Female Problem, and any and all between) and converting what is viewed as problematic into a civilized “white male.” Being a Christian has become synonomous with being a good citizen and who or what defined what a good citizen is? (hint: It wasn’t the Jewish Messiah born of a lowly virgin in a stable who deconstructed every politic the world has feasted upon).
I think you are right to highlight the problems you have eluded to. They are indeed problems. But they are perhaps subsets to a meta-problem (I like your terminology). At the risk of taking too much space here, allow me to post some notes from a theology class I just concluded with Dr. J. Kameron Carter here at Duke. I have found him to be brilliant and his approach to the theological task is fresh, emerging and Spirit-led, IMO. I’ll post some of the lecture notes here and perhaps it will springboard some other questions? I admit I am only now working through all this and the conversation may help…
Politics and Mission have long been bound together. To talk about mission is to talk about politics and to talk about politics is to talk about mission. They are glued together by the enterprise of Christian theology and its practitioners. Since the dawning of the modern era christian theology has been bound to a certain understanding and relation to the world. This vision of the world, this way of relating to the world has been colonial. Under a colonial vision the world has been seen as that which needs to be possessed. Of course, for the kingdom of God’s sake. But here is the fateful thing: While christianity is NOT about colonialism it came to function inside of it. Such that the gestures of colonialism came to be christian gestures and vice versa. They became so woven together that severing them would require a feat of massive theological surgery that we long have been loath to perform.
How did xianity morph so as to aid colonialism and provide theological justification for world possession? Theologians became “the midwives of the modern world.” (See Pharoah and Moses birth).
Chrisitan theology ceased to witness ot the truth of a christian identity that is tied to God’s self disclosure (revelation) as that self disclosure reaches its apex in Jesus the Messiah of Israel.
The deepest mistake of xian theology is that christianity began to imagine itself outside of God’s own witness of the election of Israel. Xian’s began to interpret themselves as something locked away from God’s self witness as linked to the election of Israel.
Having understood Jesus now as Christian’s cultural possession we have become synonomous with “The West.” Having understood Jesus as the cultural possessoin of the West and as the legitamator as what the West chooses to be, Christians have begun to refuse intimacy with other folk of other cultures. By refusing intimacy with Israel a negative result followed. The refusal of intimacy with Israel through Jesus meant the refusal of intimacy with other people too. The world was no longer a place of profound intimacy. Rather, it became a place of separation. The world was no longer a meeting place of communion of the many through the communion of the One, where the Many is the economy of the creation and the One is the econonmy of the Triune God. Rather, it became a place of masogenation. The world was instead envisioned as a place of alienation. Jesus became a tool to alienate. Savagry and civility are anthropological categories that have emerged to overcome alienation. This alienation was then read onto and through bodies, where the first alien was the Jewish alien. They were the first unwanted immigrant who was conceived as the internal parasite within the western order of things (and west = christian order). The Jew became the internal alien who was the analogy for constructing every external alien.
From this the modern nation is born. The modern world is a missionary reality but we must ask: what kind of missionary reality?
In short, we see that the xian refusal of intimacy is tied to a vision of xianity as cultural possession. The result of this new form was that certain people were deemed alien and savage and others were deemed Christian and thus civil and not savage. On the other side of this is the wilderness – the untamed world. And thus the world was conceived as a structure of alienation and the alien. The non xian world could only be envisioned as that which must be overcome and tamed and pacified. We must do it through a certain technology. This technology is a politics. A politics of mission.
In this politics of mission xian’s approach the world to pacifiy it, to overcome its savagery, to bring peace to it and to not only appropriate it but to reappropriate its resources – to possess and own it.
1 – What happened to theology? We stoped thinking of Christian identity as inside God’s goodness (and God’s good creation – the world is no longer seen as inside this God, the goodness granted to it because God made it, thus it is savage), justice, and ethics or inside of God’s self-disclosure (Jesus and Israel) but, rather, Jesus’ materiality fell to the Church itself. It did not have its own materiality linked to Israel and YWHW. Now Jesus is the possession of the west. Refusing this, theology began to think through the West in an effort to absorb all into itself. The West has become Universal. It becomes that into which everthing else must return.
Moreover, theology championed a vision of rationality inside of this stuff. A vision of reason as tied to self-sufficiency – the magnanimous man. Vespucci standing before the woman – self-sufficient man into which all else must enter (this is a famous painting in colonial era where the missionary (Columbus) is depicted standing before the uncivilized woman. Columbus is holding in one hand a symbol that means “education” and in the other hand a symbol that means “Christianity”). Out of this a hierarchy of the human emerged, and it was primarily based on color.
2- Theolgy became an intellectual practice, about thinking right. Theology began to perform itself as a thing of ideas. Ideas that were shielded from the colonial realities those ideas were legitimating. In short, while bound to colonial practice, theology and their thinkers hid themselves from that pain THROUGH their theological discourse.
They would relish in their theology but hid themselves from the world in pain. The world in pain was in pain because of the ideas theologians had. A cycle developed…and continues to be recapitulated as long as we think of theology as a set of ideas to be dropped into some other sector to pacify or bring order.
3- How the theology of missions has functioned as pastoral practice. Baptism became about lodging people into the realities of the colonial state – became about making good citizens. This is why the first thing colonialists did was plant the flag then set up a church so we can start baptizing savages. The sacraments became a tool of the state to make citizens and draw the world into the reality that is West.
Orthodoxy and liberalism – liberalism is a movement INSIDE of orthodoxy. They both agree fundamentally with this structure but disagree with how we cross our t’s and i’s.
Nic Paton said
Chad – you are HARDCORE!
I really like your politic, your intensity, and your working it all out.
I like your intuition regarding intimacy. It’s unusual to bring together this and a political view, and I think this is at the heart of it.
Alas, I cannot continue at present; but note that all thoughts are appreciated.
Chad said
I’ll take that as a compliment
Well, as I see it, all politics is about intimacy and relationship. The question is: what sort of intimacy?
Keep in touch. I am grateful to Eugene for putting me in touch with you.
grace and peace,
Chad