A Theodical Curve – A synthesis between neo classical and classical Theism – between the tension between Process and classical Theology

There are 3 apparently conflicting theodical (I think it is a word!) views and how they relate to God’s omnipotence. They perhaps can be related to a parent’s response to the pending tragedy of a child crossing a road. Why didn’t the parent rescue the child?¬†Three possible answers: (1)They would not, (2)could but did not or (3) simply could not do anything. Applied to God:

1.Omnipotent God: boy walks into road – placed there by parent deliberately the car ordained by God for this particular event.

2. Self limiting God: Boy walks into road. Parent can do something but does nothing. God chooses to do nothing.

3. Process God: Boy walks into road. Parent can do nothing. God cannot do anything to prevent this event.

trajectory of Christ

Let’s draw a curve – a ‘u’ shape representing the trajectory of God through Jesus Christ from time beginning (alpha) top left with creation ending (omega) top right with the completion of all things.
Let the top left represent creation – 1 fits perfectly fine here.
Let the top right be the end of all things – 1 fits perfectly well here too.
Let the cusp of the U be the lowest kenotic point = the cross. Here God can do nothing (although it is a pivotal point in history) 3 perfectly fits well here.
Leading up to the cusp we have the incarnation – self limitation of God 2 fits perfectly well here.
After the cusp we have the resurrection and ascension and Pentecost – a foretaste of 1.
Each theodicy is correct when related to the correct God event. That is omnipotent God > self limiting God> Process God > … > omnipotent God.
God is beyond all things and each theodicy is only adequate in so far as it describes not the actuality of God but the revelation of God in each major event.
Process on its own does not sufficiently describe God any more than other forms of neo classical theism or classical theism but all are accurate within a given divine event context.
Arthur young also depicts the evolution of creation from the big bang to singular cells and onto complexity and greater movement and back to what may be termed de Chardin’s omega point. He also traces the same u curve to illustrate his point – see his ‘reflexive universe’. Maybe a similarity can be traced here.
But let’s go back to the Theodic curve and refine it. Down at the cusp we have the crucifixion. This should be shown rather as a point rather than a flowing curve rather similar to the bezier drawing converting a curve to an angle for the truth is that the cross was punctiliar – aorist rather than the perfect tense. It was the moment of Christ’s death that we are looking at here – the cry of ‘it is finished’ as a singular momentous act not part of a gradual flow but a cutting in – a de cision. This converts the u into a v but not with straight lines.
Let us also realise that when we stand outside time we can join the beginning with the end- the alpha with the omega – united in omnipotence – we have now a

Celebration of death

Yes this is my first WordPress blog thanks to Mr Rossmeister. What a morbid title I hear you say … but wait …. there is more to this than meets the eye. All the great religions, metaphysics, philosophies and seekers for truth and reality have in one way another agreed with G K Chesterton who was once asked by a London newspaper to join other authors and thinkers to address the weighty and important question of “what’s wrong with the world.” His response:

Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton

Yes – if we are honest we all come to the same conclusion. If we choose rather to point the finger at others we ultimately discover that there are 3 fingers pointing right back at us. (that is unless whem you point at others you use all 4 fingers). Perhaps if we did not want to take responsibility for the whole world as did¬† Chesterton we can at least (there is no escape from it) conclude that … my main problem is myself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But isn’t death a bit … terminal? Couldn’t we soften the edges ease it a bit … make this a wee bit more palatable? I dont think so for at least 2 reasons … the very question betrays the quest for self(ish) preservation. It is as if the proposition of ‘dying before I die’ carries within itself its own reason for being. ‘Why should I die?’ … ‘Why do you ask?’ We need the statement with all its radical/ness to provoke the response which confirms its veracity. Jesus was full of provocative statements. He often followed questions with questions. The purpose being to create in the other an awareness of the truth he was proposing.

Secondly death deliniates a clear dividing line which other words fail to do. This dividing line separates us sufficiently from that which at best is merely a perpetuation of the old in new garb to a new spacious reality clothed in the pristine. It is this terminality which enables us to make clear the lines … the axe at the root of the tree … the ending which presupposes a new beginning.

Furthermore the whole idea of something new, lightbearing, novel has a certain wellbeing implied that can quite unintentially only serve the very self whose thraldom we sought to escape from – a point of return. Death therefore, dramatic as it sounds, is the only term that suitably carries us beyond the point of no return.