A musing: I wonder about the significance for these theological worlds that we are inescapably relational/social beings (attachment theory comes to mind; our brains are social organs). How does that influence the particular epiphania for these 9 theological worlds, and how does God mediate joy and shalom to our bodies/souls? God is relational, came to us in a human body/person, and God's grace is mediated relationally (union) leading to participation in the Divine Reality through which we join in God's poetry in the world (do justice, love mercy). While something like the epiphania for Ecological Grief might seem to be less "relational," I think it is fundamentally connected to our psychosomatic connection to the order of materiality.
What is the goal in distinguishing different theological worlds? Is it to have grace for different expressions and experiences? [Fire and brimstone for one group, equality of outcome for the other?]
Seeing that each world is valid, is there a suggested ordering to them, or is this to help further the pull into tribes?
Is it ever possible to use false means to resolve an obsessio? If epiphania is often ineffable, how do we critique an experience as an enduring, fecund good?
I love the observation that Grace is both general and particular. We each experience God differently, and yet there is commonality.
A musing: I wonder about the significance for these theological worlds that we are inescapably relational/social beings (attachment theory comes to mind; our brains are social organs). How does that influence the particular epiphania for these 9 theological worlds, and how does God mediate joy and shalom to our bodies/souls? God is relational, came to us in a human body/person, and God's grace is mediated relationally (union) leading to participation in the Divine Reality through which we join in God's poetry in the world (do justice, love mercy). While something like the epiphania for Ecological Grief might seem to be less "relational," I think it is fundamentally connected to our psychosomatic connection to the order of materiality.
What is the goal in distinguishing different theological worlds? Is it to have grace for different expressions and experiences? [Fire and brimstone for one group, equality of outcome for the other?]
Seeing that each world is valid, is there a suggested ordering to them, or is this to help further the pull into tribes?
Is it ever possible to use false means to resolve an obsessio? If epiphania is often ineffable, how do we critique an experience as an enduring, fecund good?
Thanks for this series Richard. It's been very helpful.
Thanks, Paul. There's even four more posts to come. :-)