I'm curious if my last post was bad/boring or if people were to busy to comment. So I'll try something shorter.
I've talked a lot about pantheism (all is God) and panentheism (all is in God) before, but Chris mentioned to me that N.T.Wright talks about the-en-panism (God is in all). I think I like it, but I'd like to hear what people think. What does it mean? What connotations does it have? Where does it put God and us? What is 'all'?
The only place I know that Wright discusses this is in the Calvin College Student newspaper, "The Chimes". You should be able to find it here: http://www-stu.calvin.edu/chimes/2002.01.18/ess1.html.
ReplyDeleteOr search "the-en-panism" on google.
Anyway, I think you would find his treatment of this interesting, because it is couched in a critical discussion of Moltmann's appropriation of the "zim zum", and then posits his own notion of "eschatological the-en-panism" as distinct from pantheism and panentheism, and something that we are to be working toward today and do not have to wait for some "resurrection body". He also discusses "inaugrated eschatology" which I like very much.
Thanks Chris, I've added a link to it on the post. He only mentions it once, which is a shame. He writes, "eschatological the-en-panism, that is to say that in the end, God will be all in all."
ReplyDeleteI also do not like God's retreat-creation that Moltmann takes from the Zim Zum. Mind you, Keller (who I do like) has creation as a cutting away, choosing "this, and not/never that," instead of what Wright is discussing as an over abundant flow or something. I'm not sure how this is achieved by Wright, and I suspect if he wrote more about it somewhere I would find too much hinted at theism for my taste.
It's interesting that he discusses this in an environmental section. It reiterates to me how important creation mythology is to environmental action.
I like viewing creation as superabundance. I'd like to hear what you (and/or Keller) have to say.
ReplyDeleteI think Keller would say that creation is differentiating, or 'divining' the chaos of infinite potential. So creation is a de-cision (as I think Arendt, and/or maybe Kristeva says) of 'this and not that'. There is an abundance (more than you could ever need, indeed, more than there could ever be) in the chaos/tehom/potentials from which everything proceeds. In that way it is superabundance (at least to my way of using the word). But I'm not really sure how you want to use it.
ReplyDelete