I’m not sure on assuming that there was no death or decay at creation. I know this is a common assumption based I suppose on the curses God describes upon the Fall, including the “ground”. That’s possible, but I’m not sure it has to be that way, because even before the Fall, does not “a kernel of wheat drops to the ground and dies”?
I _think_ that Beck's direction here is that he does not imagine a moment of creation where the Fall has "not yet happened", from a consequential point of view. (See "At the very moment of creation it fell away", https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/a-theology-of-everything-b71 ). Perhaps in a similar way to how Christians are used to thinking of Jesus' sacrifice redeeming us and saving us from sins that we had not yet committed, the fact of humanity's fall stretches both forward and back in time.
That's my attempt to predict _Beck's_ response. I think I share with you some questions about whether it fits into a satisfying whole. So much of the beauty of the world seems to be caught up with its contingency; brilliant orange leaves, red sunsets, pink seashells, none would exist in a world where nothing ends. So to see finitude as an enemy to be defeated leaves questions.
Thank you, David. Yes, that is where my thought is tending. To be sure, in the final post (there are 13 total) I do raise the point about how an evolutionary account of our biological world would "fit" with the very metaphysical approach I'm taking in this series. But in borrowing Maximus' notion that creation fell "at the instant" of its creation I am suggesting / pondering / wondering / experimenting about if / how this move addresses Dan's question. That is to say, from a historical perspective contingency was "always there" at "the first instant." Contingency wasn't God's plan, but contingency arrives with the first tick of history.
To your point about the "beauty" of finitude, I'd simply point to the prior posts for my take. As I said in Part 3, we are "tov." We are pleasing to God in our creaturely finitude. And you described this eloquently. As I've described it in Part 3, creaturely existence is a dance between sunlight (being) and shadows (non-being). So finitude, as being, is good. But the fading of being into nothingness is also experienced by the creature as "evil," as movement away from God. Thus, there is a beauty and poignancy in death from the perspective of being, the sunlight of created being shining through in life and death. At the same time, we also name death as a darkness that haunts created being as decay, erosion, and loss. Thus, death from the view of non-being is named as "evil."
As to the question if being is worth having if not haunted by non-being, that, I think, is a speculative eschatological debate which I don't know how to resolve. All I'd say is that, if a person thinks that their death (the final victory of non-being over their being) is the end of their biography, then that vision doesn't fit with the Christian worldview. Which is fine. I think there are other philosophies that work with that view, like Stoicism, but my work here is very Christian in its commitment to the victory of Being over non-being.
Does that mean there won't be autumn leaves in heaven? I don't know, but I hope so. Though I have no idea how that works. If I had to guess, I'd pull a C.S. Lewis "The Last Battle" move with a "Further up, and further in!" imagination, where the autumn leaves fall but they do not die but are transfigured in something better, better, and better. We move deeper into Being than into non-being for eternity. The afterlife is dynamic with endless novelty and change, but the direction of existence--God or nothing--has been reversed.
first, I'm wondering if you are conceptualizing Adam as both historical figure and/or representative for this.
And if we think of it for instance as (whether true in history or not) as the story for which we understand how humans fall short of goodness. Is it not so much about the fate of humanity, but instead, what each of us will indeed pick, in the same way, no exceptions?
Wondering also is it true that to love without some variety of subjugation at work, there must be a kind of severing at some point and then following by a rejoining? (I'm spitballing here, because I sense that to fully know LOVE is to also know disconnection)
-----
Oh, and this!
"Thus, when humanity rebels against God, primordially and continuously, the logoi of creation as a whole remains "dropped" into ontological contingency and thereby drifts into non-being. Creation will remain stuck in this "dropped" condition until humanity, as a whole, says "Yes" to God. All particular logoi must return to the Logos, the many converging back upon the One. In the language of Romans 8, "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God."
Really interesting picture and association here. thank you! I'm thinking on this deeply. AND Wondering how fully and what it looks like this embrace of "yes!"
I would also imagine (friendly pushback just a tiny bit as we dialogue) that perhaps "mind" is not really enough. Mind is a priori and that works but it stays so conceptional and in that way static. I sense more of a verb [!] when it comes to humans. .. the animation, as it were. the in-spirited-ness, the breathed-into—not the mind, or the mind only. This also makes more sense in this sub-human i.e. "dropped" spot you mention.
I’m not sure on assuming that there was no death or decay at creation. I know this is a common assumption based I suppose on the curses God describes upon the Fall, including the “ground”. That’s possible, but I’m not sure it has to be that way, because even before the Fall, does not “a kernel of wheat drops to the ground and dies”?
I _think_ that Beck's direction here is that he does not imagine a moment of creation where the Fall has "not yet happened", from a consequential point of view. (See "At the very moment of creation it fell away", https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/a-theology-of-everything-b71 ). Perhaps in a similar way to how Christians are used to thinking of Jesus' sacrifice redeeming us and saving us from sins that we had not yet committed, the fact of humanity's fall stretches both forward and back in time.
That's my attempt to predict _Beck's_ response. I think I share with you some questions about whether it fits into a satisfying whole. So much of the beauty of the world seems to be caught up with its contingency; brilliant orange leaves, red sunsets, pink seashells, none would exist in a world where nothing ends. So to see finitude as an enemy to be defeated leaves questions.
Thank you, David. Yes, that is where my thought is tending. To be sure, in the final post (there are 13 total) I do raise the point about how an evolutionary account of our biological world would "fit" with the very metaphysical approach I'm taking in this series. But in borrowing Maximus' notion that creation fell "at the instant" of its creation I am suggesting / pondering / wondering / experimenting about if / how this move addresses Dan's question. That is to say, from a historical perspective contingency was "always there" at "the first instant." Contingency wasn't God's plan, but contingency arrives with the first tick of history.
To your point about the "beauty" of finitude, I'd simply point to the prior posts for my take. As I said in Part 3, we are "tov." We are pleasing to God in our creaturely finitude. And you described this eloquently. As I've described it in Part 3, creaturely existence is a dance between sunlight (being) and shadows (non-being). So finitude, as being, is good. But the fading of being into nothingness is also experienced by the creature as "evil," as movement away from God. Thus, there is a beauty and poignancy in death from the perspective of being, the sunlight of created being shining through in life and death. At the same time, we also name death as a darkness that haunts created being as decay, erosion, and loss. Thus, death from the view of non-being is named as "evil."
As to the question if being is worth having if not haunted by non-being, that, I think, is a speculative eschatological debate which I don't know how to resolve. All I'd say is that, if a person thinks that their death (the final victory of non-being over their being) is the end of their biography, then that vision doesn't fit with the Christian worldview. Which is fine. I think there are other philosophies that work with that view, like Stoicism, but my work here is very Christian in its commitment to the victory of Being over non-being.
Does that mean there won't be autumn leaves in heaven? I don't know, but I hope so. Though I have no idea how that works. If I had to guess, I'd pull a C.S. Lewis "The Last Battle" move with a "Further up, and further in!" imagination, where the autumn leaves fall but they do not die but are transfigured in something better, better, and better. We move deeper into Being than into non-being for eternity. The afterlife is dynamic with endless novelty and change, but the direction of existence--God or nothing--has been reversed.
first, I'm wondering if you are conceptualizing Adam as both historical figure and/or representative for this.
And if we think of it for instance as (whether true in history or not) as the story for which we understand how humans fall short of goodness. Is it not so much about the fate of humanity, but instead, what each of us will indeed pick, in the same way, no exceptions?
Wondering also is it true that to love without some variety of subjugation at work, there must be a kind of severing at some point and then following by a rejoining? (I'm spitballing here, because I sense that to fully know LOVE is to also know disconnection)
-----
Oh, and this!
"Thus, when humanity rebels against God, primordially and continuously, the logoi of creation as a whole remains "dropped" into ontological contingency and thereby drifts into non-being. Creation will remain stuck in this "dropped" condition until humanity, as a whole, says "Yes" to God. All particular logoi must return to the Logos, the many converging back upon the One. In the language of Romans 8, "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God."
Really interesting picture and association here. thank you! I'm thinking on this deeply. AND Wondering how fully and what it looks like this embrace of "yes!"
I would also imagine (friendly pushback just a tiny bit as we dialogue) that perhaps "mind" is not really enough. Mind is a priori and that works but it stays so conceptional and in that way static. I sense more of a verb [!] when it comes to humans. .. the animation, as it were. the in-spirited-ness, the breathed-into—not the mind, or the mind only. This also makes more sense in this sub-human i.e. "dropped" spot you mention.
That's a fun word to say, "hamartiological," for such a hellish subject!
I wish we'd never known or, especially, experienced it . . .
but we have, and so we pray "Mananatha!" huh?