Replies

I would be interested…

For me, one of the things that I’m left hanging with is the idea of ethic to determine whether the creative response is good or not. Dr. Keller really tries to undo binaries, and here I’ve gone and introduced another. So maybe it is an ethic not of good and bad but “acceptability” in the sense of maximizing the creative flow. That has its obvious flaw without some sense of Divine judgment. As to the article shared, there is a creative beauty in the destructiveness of the results of the mining: a chaotic response of nature to the damage done (beauty resurrecting harm?). The resultant beauty is not a “purpose” even chaotically revealed for the damage done, not only to nature, but to the community that was displace and wildlife that lived in balance with the environment before the mining.
My wife told me about a new ecosystem developing around the edges of the great trash field in the Pacific Ocean. Again a sense of creation taking response into itself and providing new set of possibilities with no obvious end point. Is it good or bad or to get away from the binary, to what level is it acceptable, healing, unfolding, whatever the ethic is.
I think this is where Dr. Keller responded with recognizing the benefit of the absolute even while arguing with it. On the surface focusing on what opens up life, makes it more fulfilling, more loving, more holy, more whatever value tied to Christian theology(?) seems to make sense, but at the same time leaves the interpretation of the value to the user. I’m still hanging on an ethic that says one unfolding is better than another by whatever small margin. The sense I have, from personal experience and from the book, is that vulnerability or the power to be vulnerable plays a role in what guides us.
Sorry if this makes no sense, it’s been a long day.

Thank you, Charles, for such a beautifully thought out answer. Still your last question raises one for me: how do we respond to the seemingly lack of recognition of the lure of the Divine towards growth, creativity, sustainability, and, frankly, life within the cultural conversation of the day? Do we need to frame messages calling for advocacy in different terms, maybe more spiritual than scientific, to engage those who focus on personal spirituality rather than engaging in communal response? How do we take process thought and put it into the political conversation so that the persuasiveness of the Divine lure comes through? Ok, I guess that was a bit more than one question, but I think it is important to move what we talk about into a more mainstream conversation finding allies where we can.