This is helpful and interesting. Thanks. I’ll have to think about it more. I suppose my initial hesitance would be a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God (though I do acknowledge that man does in a sense become uncreated through participation in God), but that may not be what you’re getting at. I would wholeheartedly agree tha…
This is helpful and interesting. Thanks. I’ll have to think about it more. I suppose my initial hesitance would be a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God (though I do acknowledge that man does in a sense become uncreated through participation in God), but that may not be what you’re getting at. I would wholeheartedly agree that neither man nor cosmos is ontologically separated from God in the sense that God is the transcendent and self-existent source of all being and all creation. Was there a particular bit in the article that prompted your thoughts? I’d like to reflect more on it if there was.
The whole article, including the title, is thought-provoking and offers many great points to jump off from and have further discussions. What I’ve shared is what I would call a cosmic view of Christianity, pointing out the non-dual nature of Reality and the relationship between God, man, and the cosmos (as nature).
You said that the “whole of reality, both in its created and uncreated aspects, if I may speak this way, involves fundamentally both the absolute personal transcendence and imminence of God, and the relative personal transcendence and imminence of man, who mediates the meaning imparted by God to the cosmos.” It’s worth considering that the transcendence and immanence of God and man are not-separate and exploring the implications of what that really means. The same is true for the cosmos (as nature).
I think Staniloae doesn’t go far enough in saying that “the world is called to be humanized.” The world is called to be Christified, seeing that the world (man included) is Christic - that is, the transcendent God the Father made immanently manifest. Teleologically speaking, the entire world is an ever-unfolding of the glory of God made manifest. Theosis isn’t simply a nice idea for man, but the very calling and purpose of the entire world in which man must play a conscious role. This is a cosmic view of theosis.
You also described man as “microreality,” where reality is comprised of God and man. I would again gently nudge you to see that Reality is the transcendent God the Father, the source and being of All That Is, made immanently manifest as the entire cosmos (man included) by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit. This is a cosmic, non-dual, Trinitarian view of Christianity which sees no ontological separation between God and man and All That Is.
Lastly, let me be explicitly clear: we need not be afraid of “a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God” - no such collapse is possible. Let Christ be our guide. We rightly proclaim that the God-man is both fully God and fully man. We maintain a distinction of natures without any ontological separation whatsoever. Christ’s human nature was not somehow swallowed up by his divine nature. The same is true for man. The incarnation revealed not simply who God is, but who man is (at least in potential). Man simply lost sight of who he always already is. Theosis is not about uniting ontologically separated God and man (nor was the incarnation), but rather actualizing the fullness of that which man is by nature through the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for such a thorough response, which helps me understand much more clearly where you're coming from. I find myself agreeing with most, if not all of what you say here; perhaps I am subtlely reading my own perspective back into yours, but I'm inclined to think not. What I hear you describing sounds like a form of monism (in a non-dualistic sense, of which I acknowledge the nuance), if you'll excuse the crude description, whereas I'm trying to tease out something I've come to refer to as "supra-dualism", which I take as an attempt to acknowledge and uphold distinction in a transcendent unity (which, in Trinitarian terms, would see the two as entirely interdependent and constitutive of each other). I may be splitting hairs here, but at least on a linguistic level, I potentially worry that "non-dual" could imply a subjugation of distinction to unity.
Granted, I am still relatively new to reading Staniloe, but I have at least initially understood his point about the cosmos (as nature) being "humanized" not to imply any sort of absolute ontological separation between the cosmos, man, and God, but rather an attempt to point to the mode in which each is transformed (and, as you'd say, perhaps in the strongest terms, ultimately divinized). That is, the cosmos (as nature), is, in a relative sense, "humanized" by man, but as you quite rightly point out, I would take this humanization ultimately to be a divinization, since man himself is being divinized in Christ, so humanization (because of the hypostatic union) would be divinization, and vice versa. My motivation to hold onto this kind of terminology is precisely to highlight the inner logic of the process. I couldn't agree more than Christ's human nature is not swallowed up by His divine nature, for they are perfectly united in perfect distinction in His person.
I am quite fond of the idea of "incarnation as creation", and that the incarnation, along with the resurrection (and crucifixion, and ascension, and pentecost, for that matter, as these all really constitute an organic whole, and in all of which man participates), form the basis of God being all in all.
I again thank you for your insightful comments, for posing deep and challenging questions, and helping me along in my effort to understand these things.
I think “supra-dualism” as you’ve described it is non-duality by other words. You’re pointing to the One Reality which is “beyond-dualism.” Both approaches rightly maintain the distinctions between all apparent dualities such as uncreated/created, infinite/finite, transcendent/immanent, absolute/relative, divine/human, essence/energies, etc while insisting on the ontological oneness of the many. It’s my opinion that we should be very sensitive to and critical of any theology based on ontological separation. Distinctions must be made, but ontological separation there is none. Unfortunately, it seems much of the current Christian thought has slipped into this plague of dualism.
This is helpful and interesting. Thanks. I’ll have to think about it more. I suppose my initial hesitance would be a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God (though I do acknowledge that man does in a sense become uncreated through participation in God), but that may not be what you’re getting at. I would wholeheartedly agree that neither man nor cosmos is ontologically separated from God in the sense that God is the transcendent and self-existent source of all being and all creation. Was there a particular bit in the article that prompted your thoughts? I’d like to reflect more on it if there was.
The whole article, including the title, is thought-provoking and offers many great points to jump off from and have further discussions. What I’ve shared is what I would call a cosmic view of Christianity, pointing out the non-dual nature of Reality and the relationship between God, man, and the cosmos (as nature).
You said that the “whole of reality, both in its created and uncreated aspects, if I may speak this way, involves fundamentally both the absolute personal transcendence and imminence of God, and the relative personal transcendence and imminence of man, who mediates the meaning imparted by God to the cosmos.” It’s worth considering that the transcendence and immanence of God and man are not-separate and exploring the implications of what that really means. The same is true for the cosmos (as nature).
I think Staniloae doesn’t go far enough in saying that “the world is called to be humanized.” The world is called to be Christified, seeing that the world (man included) is Christic - that is, the transcendent God the Father made immanently manifest. Teleologically speaking, the entire world is an ever-unfolding of the glory of God made manifest. Theosis isn’t simply a nice idea for man, but the very calling and purpose of the entire world in which man must play a conscious role. This is a cosmic view of theosis.
You also described man as “microreality,” where reality is comprised of God and man. I would again gently nudge you to see that Reality is the transcendent God the Father, the source and being of All That Is, made immanently manifest as the entire cosmos (man included) by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit. This is a cosmic, non-dual, Trinitarian view of Christianity which sees no ontological separation between God and man and All That Is.
Lastly, let me be explicitly clear: we need not be afraid of “a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God” - no such collapse is possible. Let Christ be our guide. We rightly proclaim that the God-man is both fully God and fully man. We maintain a distinction of natures without any ontological separation whatsoever. Christ’s human nature was not somehow swallowed up by his divine nature. The same is true for man. The incarnation revealed not simply who God is, but who man is (at least in potential). Man simply lost sight of who he always already is. Theosis is not about uniting ontologically separated God and man (nor was the incarnation), but rather actualizing the fullness of that which man is by nature through the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the excellent article.
Thank you for such a thorough response, which helps me understand much more clearly where you're coming from. I find myself agreeing with most, if not all of what you say here; perhaps I am subtlely reading my own perspective back into yours, but I'm inclined to think not. What I hear you describing sounds like a form of monism (in a non-dualistic sense, of which I acknowledge the nuance), if you'll excuse the crude description, whereas I'm trying to tease out something I've come to refer to as "supra-dualism", which I take as an attempt to acknowledge and uphold distinction in a transcendent unity (which, in Trinitarian terms, would see the two as entirely interdependent and constitutive of each other). I may be splitting hairs here, but at least on a linguistic level, I potentially worry that "non-dual" could imply a subjugation of distinction to unity.
Granted, I am still relatively new to reading Staniloe, but I have at least initially understood his point about the cosmos (as nature) being "humanized" not to imply any sort of absolute ontological separation between the cosmos, man, and God, but rather an attempt to point to the mode in which each is transformed (and, as you'd say, perhaps in the strongest terms, ultimately divinized). That is, the cosmos (as nature), is, in a relative sense, "humanized" by man, but as you quite rightly point out, I would take this humanization ultimately to be a divinization, since man himself is being divinized in Christ, so humanization (because of the hypostatic union) would be divinization, and vice versa. My motivation to hold onto this kind of terminology is precisely to highlight the inner logic of the process. I couldn't agree more than Christ's human nature is not swallowed up by His divine nature, for they are perfectly united in perfect distinction in His person.
I am quite fond of the idea of "incarnation as creation", and that the incarnation, along with the resurrection (and crucifixion, and ascension, and pentecost, for that matter, as these all really constitute an organic whole, and in all of which man participates), form the basis of God being all in all.
I again thank you for your insightful comments, for posing deep and challenging questions, and helping me along in my effort to understand these things.
I think “supra-dualism” as you’ve described it is non-duality by other words. You’re pointing to the One Reality which is “beyond-dualism.” Both approaches rightly maintain the distinctions between all apparent dualities such as uncreated/created, infinite/finite, transcendent/immanent, absolute/relative, divine/human, essence/energies, etc while insisting on the ontological oneness of the many. It’s my opinion that we should be very sensitive to and critical of any theology based on ontological separation. Distinctions must be made, but ontological separation there is none. Unfortunately, it seems much of the current Christian thought has slipped into this plague of dualism.