No One Expected the Divine Imposition
I have found Dr. Charlton’s posts concerning First Creation and Second Creation particularly clarifying and helpful in my understanding of the role of freedom, particularly as it pertains to the First Creation being opt-out and the Second Creation being opt-in.
On the matter of Primary Creation, Dr. Charlon notes:
The primary creation was imposed-upon the pre-existing and eternal Beings by God.
This imposition was by necessity. Before creation, Beings existed in isolation and without relationships - thus direction, purpose, and meaning in a creation based-upon Love emerged only after primary creation.
In this sense, also, freedom and the capacity for an agency based on distinguishing the self from the not-self was only possible post-creation.
(i.e. We cannot know we are a self until after we know of other selves.)
Therefore, it was impossible for any Being to opt-out of creation, until after creation, because there could be no consent to creation, nor of 'opting', until after creation had-happened -- hence the necessity for its imposition.
Readers of this blog know my assumptions regarding the primacy of freedom. These assumptions made me wary of Dr. Charlton’s argument for the necessary imposition of creation. If freedom is primary and sacred, then God the Father’s imposition amounts to little more than a divine encroachment upon that freedom.
The only way to avoid such encroachment would be through consent, so I leaned more toward the idea that beings consented to creation in some way rather than having creation imposed upon them.
However, Dr. Charlton’s notion of a necessary imposition began making more sense to me as I began to consider the state in which beings existed before creation— Beings in isolation and without relationships. Freedom was primary, to the point that freedom was all there was and could not be actively utilized for much of anything.
Before creation, beings were free to the point that they had little to no self-consciousness, let alone any awareness of other selves. Primordial chaos then was a state of unordered, undirected, unaware freedom. Beings within such a state of existence would not be capable of consenting to anything. Hence, the need for divine imposition.
In primary creation (which was all of creation before the advent of Jesus Christ) God operates as a power acting-upon us, i.e. upon Beings.
In a sense; God does creation to us.
Living in creation is therefore the default situation; from-which we would need to opt-out if we did not want it.
This imposed-creation situation was recognized by all the old religions and still is recognized (at least implicitly) by those religions that have a supreme God but do not recognize the truth and desirability of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the Old Gods, and the understanding of the ancient monotheistic God of the Hebrews or the later God of Islam - regard God as primarily power.
And such a God of non-optional imposed-creation demands of us obedient service above all else - which goes-with a relationship as essentially one of awe, fear, submission, propitiation etc. That is; a relationship analogous to that of an ignorant peasant towards the absolute Emperor of vast domains.
As I said; this attitude is a natural consequence of the primary creation in which creation was done to us. Our understanding-of and relationship-to God is of one who is done-to - who is insignificant; not one who participates-in, or who himself contributes something of substantive value.
Thus, the divine imposition of the First Creation was a dictatorial act.
In a recent post, I touched upon the traditional Christian assumptions of divine totalitarianism. In this sense, traditional assumptions concerning the non-optional quality of the First Creation are more or less correct. What traditional Christianity gets wrong—in my opinion—is creation from nothing.
If we assume the truth of creatio ex nihilo, we have a God-or-nothing framework. We can never evolve beyond the divine imposition of the First Creation. Creatio ex nihilo makes divine totalitarianism fundamentally necessary, not just in the First Creation but also in the Second. Both creations can only be if God’s status as divine dictator is preserved. Challenge that assumption, and the cosmos collapses into chaos and disarray.
Within the creatio ex nihilo framework, God alone creates something from nothing. Such power places God in an entirely distinct category of being. No, more than that. God is being. Creation, as a whole, is within God’s being.
The big problem with creatio ex nihilo and its divine imposition boils down to motive. Traditional Christianity assumes God possesses no intrinsic motivations. To do so would be to mistake him for a being who lacks something or seeks further fulfillment. Traditional Christianity assumes that God’s will is always already fulfilled. He lacks nothing; he possesses everything. So, he is not motivated to do anything. He has always already done – is always already doing – all that he would do.
Such assumptions become prickly when one considers God without creation. Traditional Christian theology solves this problem by abstractly playing around with concepts of time, yet there must have been a state when God was without creation or sans creation. If such a state existed, then God was already fulfilled. He did not need creation. This implies that the divine imposition of the First Creation was an epically gratuitous act. Sure, traditional Christianity goes on about things like love, but the creatio ex nihilo God did not need that love. He was fulfilled without it.
Within the core tenets of traditional Christianity, with its insistence on creatio ex nihilo, the nature of God cannot change. Thus, the Second Creation offers little more than an extension of the divine imposition of the First Creation. We remain beings “who are done-to” not beings who are capable of truly participating creatively and contributing substantively.
Dr. Charlton explains why this conceptualization of the Second Creation is errant:
The secondary creation was made-to-happen by Jesus Christ; and this fundamentally changed our relation with God.
The second creation was (for the first time) an opt-in situation and made God (potentially) the supreme beloved Father of a vast family -- rather than King of 'a people'.
Since the second creation; God no longer requires or desires us to regard him as primarily a power, but a loving parent; God no longer requires our obedient submission to His imposed authority but invites our loving participation in his continuing work of creation.
Loving participation in a continuing work of creation is not an option with a creatio ex nihilo God.
The best option such a God offers is "loving participation" in divine totalitarianism.
Moreover, the Second Creation changes nothing in this regard.
On the matter of Primary Creation, Dr. Charlon notes:
The primary creation was imposed-upon the pre-existing and eternal Beings by God.
This imposition was by necessity. Before creation, Beings existed in isolation and without relationships - thus direction, purpose, and meaning in a creation based-upon Love emerged only after primary creation.
In this sense, also, freedom and the capacity for an agency based on distinguishing the self from the not-self was only possible post-creation.
(i.e. We cannot know we are a self until after we know of other selves.)
Therefore, it was impossible for any Being to opt-out of creation, until after creation, because there could be no consent to creation, nor of 'opting', until after creation had-happened -- hence the necessity for its imposition.
Readers of this blog know my assumptions regarding the primacy of freedom. These assumptions made me wary of Dr. Charlton’s argument for the necessary imposition of creation. If freedom is primary and sacred, then God the Father’s imposition amounts to little more than a divine encroachment upon that freedom.
The only way to avoid such encroachment would be through consent, so I leaned more toward the idea that beings consented to creation in some way rather than having creation imposed upon them.
However, Dr. Charlton’s notion of a necessary imposition began making more sense to me as I began to consider the state in which beings existed before creation— Beings in isolation and without relationships. Freedom was primary, to the point that freedom was all there was and could not be actively utilized for much of anything.
Before creation, beings were free to the point that they had little to no self-consciousness, let alone any awareness of other selves. Primordial chaos then was a state of unordered, undirected, unaware freedom. Beings within such a state of existence would not be capable of consenting to anything. Hence, the need for divine imposition.
In primary creation (which was all of creation before the advent of Jesus Christ) God operates as a power acting-upon us, i.e. upon Beings.
In a sense; God does creation to us.
Living in creation is therefore the default situation; from-which we would need to opt-out if we did not want it.
This imposed-creation situation was recognized by all the old religions and still is recognized (at least implicitly) by those religions that have a supreme God but do not recognize the truth and desirability of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the Old Gods, and the understanding of the ancient monotheistic God of the Hebrews or the later God of Islam - regard God as primarily power.
And such a God of non-optional imposed-creation demands of us obedient service above all else - which goes-with a relationship as essentially one of awe, fear, submission, propitiation etc. That is; a relationship analogous to that of an ignorant peasant towards the absolute Emperor of vast domains.
As I said; this attitude is a natural consequence of the primary creation in which creation was done to us. Our understanding-of and relationship-to God is of one who is done-to - who is insignificant; not one who participates-in, or who himself contributes something of substantive value.
Thus, the divine imposition of the First Creation was a dictatorial act.
In a recent post, I touched upon the traditional Christian assumptions of divine totalitarianism. In this sense, traditional assumptions concerning the non-optional quality of the First Creation are more or less correct. What traditional Christianity gets wrong—in my opinion—is creation from nothing.
If we assume the truth of creatio ex nihilo, we have a God-or-nothing framework. We can never evolve beyond the divine imposition of the First Creation. Creatio ex nihilo makes divine totalitarianism fundamentally necessary, not just in the First Creation but also in the Second. Both creations can only be if God’s status as divine dictator is preserved. Challenge that assumption, and the cosmos collapses into chaos and disarray.
Within the creatio ex nihilo framework, God alone creates something from nothing. Such power places God in an entirely distinct category of being. No, more than that. God is being. Creation, as a whole, is within God’s being.
The big problem with creatio ex nihilo and its divine imposition boils down to motive. Traditional Christianity assumes God possesses no intrinsic motivations. To do so would be to mistake him for a being who lacks something or seeks further fulfillment. Traditional Christianity assumes that God’s will is always already fulfilled. He lacks nothing; he possesses everything. So, he is not motivated to do anything. He has always already done – is always already doing – all that he would do.
Such assumptions become prickly when one considers God without creation. Traditional Christian theology solves this problem by abstractly playing around with concepts of time, yet there must have been a state when God was without creation or sans creation. If such a state existed, then God was already fulfilled. He did not need creation. This implies that the divine imposition of the First Creation was an epically gratuitous act. Sure, traditional Christianity goes on about things like love, but the creatio ex nihilo God did not need that love. He was fulfilled without it.
Within the core tenets of traditional Christianity, with its insistence on creatio ex nihilo, the nature of God cannot change. Thus, the Second Creation offers little more than an extension of the divine imposition of the First Creation. We remain beings “who are done-to” not beings who are capable of truly participating creatively and contributing substantively.
Dr. Charlton explains why this conceptualization of the Second Creation is errant:
The secondary creation was made-to-happen by Jesus Christ; and this fundamentally changed our relation with God.
The second creation was (for the first time) an opt-in situation and made God (potentially) the supreme beloved Father of a vast family -- rather than King of 'a people'.
Since the second creation; God no longer requires or desires us to regard him as primarily a power, but a loving parent; God no longer requires our obedient submission to His imposed authority but invites our loving participation in his continuing work of creation.
Loving participation in a continuing work of creation is not an option with a creatio ex nihilo God.
The best option such a God offers is "loving participation" in divine totalitarianism.
Moreover, the Second Creation changes nothing in this regard.
No comments have been added yet.
