God is the cause of everything, our origin, being, and life. God is transcendently beyond what is, the Source of every source. God is the Life of the living, the Being of beings, and the Goodness that commands all things to be and keeps them going.
Such a beautiful, yet simple description of God, that seems to trumps even our best theology. Thank you for sharing this.
Hi Richard, really appreciate your insight... there were a few of your blogs many years ago around mimetic theory that really catalyzed a lot of thinking for me , so, thank you for your work. I hope this doesn't come across too disagreeable with you, but given that you've give me freedom to move into "abstract thinking," I'll just say that ...
I'm kind of swayed more by the school of thought formed by Rashi, the influential Jewish Bible commentator of the Middle Ages. Contemproary thinkers in atunement with this kind of thinking are people like Catherine Keller, Tom Oord, and Terence Fretheim who would want to highlight the agency of creation itself. It's not so much that God commands and something appears from nothing, as it is that God says "Let there be ..." Within the "let there be" there is room for the other (i.e., the cosmos) to respond such that we might be able to say that everything is "at play" with creation. That matter has some kind of ability to respond.
I mean, we live in a relational cosmos, everything is connected to everything, so on a physics level it kinda makes sense.
And also on a Genesis 1:2 level it kinda makes sense too... because the Genesis writer isn't necessarily saying that nothing existed, he's saying that the Spirit hovers over the chaos and potential of that which was there.
Btw, I could be wrong, and I know lotss of people have thought abut this over the ages, so I'm only offering this respectfully, but it's personally helped me to think more in terms of God being co-partners with us. It gets me away from a top-down hiearchical deity that can do whatever he wants which is highly problematic.
Hi Jonathan, thanks for the comment. I think the question this framework raises, simply as a logical issue, is what is the "ground" that holds both God and creation in their co-partnership in Genesis 1.1? What is the ontological field upon which this drama plays out? That "ground" would be ontologically prior to both "God" and "creation." The apophatic mystery that is God points toward that ontological "priorness."
I do know a lot of people push back on creation ex nihilo given their concerns about things like theodicy. I deeply sympathize with attempts to invent a doctrine of "God" that attenuates "God's" complicity in evil. I really do. But at the end of the day, there's a logical and ontological incoherence at the root of these attempts that I don't think can be waved away. In my opinion.
And you might be right. :) And yes, I definitely have theodicy questions in mind.
For me, I think it works (if that's the right term) if we think in terms of ...
a-The nature of reality being relational. Everything is in conversation with everything else. You can't get something from nothing. That the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing.
b-God as love. Love doesn't control. Therefore, God doesn't unilaterally dictate, determine, or "make things happen." Love is constantly interested in what the other has to say and co-creates.
c-God has always existed and has always been creating. It's possible that there was never a time when God wasn't creating. Creation and the created are intricately linked in the same ways that a momma and her unborn baby in the womb are linked. One needs the other. That "the ground" might be love and that love has been eternally in existence.
d-Problematic power issues... that we see how much damage we've done by insisting upon an omnipotent, hierarchial deity who can do whatever he wants... it's led to a thousand misabuses. And no, creation out of love (amipotence as it's sometimes referred to) doesn't fix all the issues, but it's less problematic for me than creation out of power (omnipotence).
But, again, this isn't meant to win any arguments; rather, just meant to give more thought around love, power, creation, and what might be going on when God "speaks."
We agree on a lot! The only thing I'd say is that we don't need to to erect a pagan view of God (which is what people do) to get the goods you describe (e.g., kenotic vision of power, relationality, etc.)
God as the source of every source, the origin, life of the living, etc. makes sense when trying to comprehend some of the laws in the Torah. Certain odd, random commands (bodily fluids and dead bodies for example) have a rationale behind them when paired when this understanding of God. It’s been eye opening and somewhat of a relief to explore that since God isn’t random and chaotic and haphazard.
God is the cause of everything, our origin, being, and life. God is transcendently beyond what is, the Source of every source. God is the Life of the living, the Being of beings, and the Goodness that commands all things to be and keeps them going.
Such a beautiful, yet simple description of God, that seems to trumps even our best theology. Thank you for sharing this.
Yup!
Hi Richard, really appreciate your insight... there were a few of your blogs many years ago around mimetic theory that really catalyzed a lot of thinking for me , so, thank you for your work. I hope this doesn't come across too disagreeable with you, but given that you've give me freedom to move into "abstract thinking," I'll just say that ...
I'm kind of swayed more by the school of thought formed by Rashi, the influential Jewish Bible commentator of the Middle Ages. Contemproary thinkers in atunement with this kind of thinking are people like Catherine Keller, Tom Oord, and Terence Fretheim who would want to highlight the agency of creation itself. It's not so much that God commands and something appears from nothing, as it is that God says "Let there be ..." Within the "let there be" there is room for the other (i.e., the cosmos) to respond such that we might be able to say that everything is "at play" with creation. That matter has some kind of ability to respond.
I mean, we live in a relational cosmos, everything is connected to everything, so on a physics level it kinda makes sense.
And also on a Genesis 1:2 level it kinda makes sense too... because the Genesis writer isn't necessarily saying that nothing existed, he's saying that the Spirit hovers over the chaos and potential of that which was there.
Btw, I could be wrong, and I know lotss of people have thought abut this over the ages, so I'm only offering this respectfully, but it's personally helped me to think more in terms of God being co-partners with us. It gets me away from a top-down hiearchical deity that can do whatever he wants which is highly problematic.
Thank you and all my best :)
Hi Jonathan, thanks for the comment. I think the question this framework raises, simply as a logical issue, is what is the "ground" that holds both God and creation in their co-partnership in Genesis 1.1? What is the ontological field upon which this drama plays out? That "ground" would be ontologically prior to both "God" and "creation." The apophatic mystery that is God points toward that ontological "priorness."
I do know a lot of people push back on creation ex nihilo given their concerns about things like theodicy. I deeply sympathize with attempts to invent a doctrine of "God" that attenuates "God's" complicity in evil. I really do. But at the end of the day, there's a logical and ontological incoherence at the root of these attempts that I don't think can be waved away. In my opinion.
And you might be right. :) And yes, I definitely have theodicy questions in mind.
For me, I think it works (if that's the right term) if we think in terms of ...
a-The nature of reality being relational. Everything is in conversation with everything else. You can't get something from nothing. That the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing.
b-God as love. Love doesn't control. Therefore, God doesn't unilaterally dictate, determine, or "make things happen." Love is constantly interested in what the other has to say and co-creates.
c-God has always existed and has always been creating. It's possible that there was never a time when God wasn't creating. Creation and the created are intricately linked in the same ways that a momma and her unborn baby in the womb are linked. One needs the other. That "the ground" might be love and that love has been eternally in existence.
d-Problematic power issues... that we see how much damage we've done by insisting upon an omnipotent, hierarchial deity who can do whatever he wants... it's led to a thousand misabuses. And no, creation out of love (amipotence as it's sometimes referred to) doesn't fix all the issues, but it's less problematic for me than creation out of power (omnipotence).
But, again, this isn't meant to win any arguments; rather, just meant to give more thought around love, power, creation, and what might be going on when God "speaks."
Peace,
We agree on a lot! The only thing I'd say is that we don't need to to erect a pagan view of God (which is what people do) to get the goods you describe (e.g., kenotic vision of power, relationality, etc.)
God as the source of every source, the origin, life of the living, etc. makes sense when trying to comprehend some of the laws in the Torah. Certain odd, random commands (bodily fluids and dead bodies for example) have a rationale behind them when paired when this understanding of God. It’s been eye opening and somewhat of a relief to explore that since God isn’t random and chaotic and haphazard.