Heresy!
I'm working my way through the excellent Jonathan Sacks book "The Great Partnership". This is on p80:
"the rabbis...spoke of people becoming 'God's partner in the work of creation'. They believed that God left the world incomplete to be completed by humanity. That, in Judaism, is not heresy but mainstream belief."
He seems to be implying that a significant number of people think the idea of humanity working with God to complete creation is heresy. Who thinks this, and what is their justification for it?
"the rabbis...spoke of people becoming 'God's partner in the work of creation'. They believed that God left the world incomplete to be completed by humanity. That, in Judaism, is not heresy but mainstream belief."
He seems to be implying that a significant number of people think the idea of humanity working with God to complete creation is heresy. Who thinks this, and what is their justification for it?
Comments
That’s not quite it - building a better society, but not building the world per se (I’m not in a lodge currently but I am an initiated, passed and raised Freemason).
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by "world". In the same sense as a phrase like "The world today presents us with many challenges."
Heretick! 😉
Coming back to the OP, I think most mainstream Christian traditions would see humanity as somehow being 'co-workers' with God, at least potentially.
I imagine the comment in the OP is aimed at certain forms of ultra-conservative Christian, but other than out and out fundies, I'm not sure it would raise that many eyebrows.
That said, there is a thought in Christianity that as part of the new creation, we are to work to help to renew creation--to restore it to the way God intended. It is true, we will never return to a perfect creation, but it is the process that counts.
I came across this article that helps to explain how a modern Jew understands what dominion is all about.
BTW, I like how he says a rabbi in the 19th century explains the "us" in the statement where God says, let us make humans in our own image. Love the idea that God consulted creation in taking the next step in creating a man and a woman.
He also goes on to show how this is tied to the second story of creation.
That's an excellent point- he might mean that. However even if that is the meaning, it still leaves a very similar question, "Who are the some who might think it heretical, and why would they think that?".
I presume it might apply to various kinds of climate-change deniers or those who think that religion is only to do with what's sung, said or preached in a church service.
There are plenty of people out there who act that way. We all do at times.
I agree with @Gramps49 on this one.
I'm not sure it serves much purpose though, to go round wondering who the author might have in mind. The point is that we should ourselves seek to be 'co-workers' with God in this respect whether other people see it that way or not.
Personally I’ve never used the term heresy. It is tainted by the historical abuse associated with it.
There are messages in the New Testament about correction, where necessary, being carried out in a spirit of gentleness. By contrast, Spanish inquisitions, heresy huntings and their like are just illustrations how power can be abused, sometimes with great cruelty.
The nonconformist conscience, to which I adhere, originally emphasised religious liberty and equality; pursuit of justice; and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion. My spiritual ancestors were all originally classified as heretics by pre-existing religious authorities. And persecuted, sometimes to death.
Picking up on what @Gramps49 said above, I have been persuaded that when Genesis talks about God “creating” the heavens and the earth, it’s not talking about quite the same thing we generally mean when we talk about God “creating.” And that could play into how “being God’s partner in the work of creation” is understood.
I think most folks nowadays, or at least most Christians, when they think of God creating, think of God as “maker of all that is, seen and unseen.” And that is, I’d say, certainly a correct, and scriptural, description of God as creator. But it isn’t, I don’t think, quite the same as what Genesis is describing.
As I understand, a pretty universal theme in Ancient Near-Eastern creation myths—and Genesis comes out of and is in dialogue with that mythology—was an understanding that “creation” didn’t refer to making something new from scratch, as it were, but rather referred to bringing order out of disorder or chaos. That understanding is reflected at the very start of Genesis, which opens with the chaotic waters. The waters already exist when Genesis opens. We aren’t told that God created the waters, but rather are told that God moved over and separated the waters, and brought forth the heavens and the earth. The first creation story is all about establishing the natural order.*
Then, in the second creation story, humanity finds itself placed in a garden, which may be the prime example of bringing order in the world.
I think this is key to understanding “being God’s partner in the work of creation.” That partnership means, literally and metaphorically, tending the garden in which we have been placed—allowing it to grow and thrive, pulling the weeds, not allowing the wilderness to encroach. It’s stewardship, yes, but I think it’s maybe deeper than mere stewardship.
It might be regarded as heretical by some sects of Protestantism that have a particular aversion to "works". If you start out with the idea that the only thing that matters religiously is your own personal relationship with God and nothing good or bad that you do can change that relationship, you can start seeing the idea of becoming God's partner in the work of creation as heretical.
You describe that journey really well.
This is absolutely the case, and when Paul talks about the Church as the Body of Christ, he's continuing that line of thought into the situation of the New Covenant. The story of Adam, Abraham and Israel continues in Christ and then the Church.
There are those who tend to use the Bible as a series of largely unconnected units, when it's all one story. The Bible is more like a theological road movie, with God and humanity travelling together to the Great Destination, but having lots of ups and downs on the way.
I think there may be some clues in here to some of the bigger questions. Why is a journey needed at all? Why evil? Why does the omnipotent God show His strength through the weakness of the Cross? The partnership with humanity is somehow all part of the answers, possibly.
On a separate note, what would constitute 'heresy' with regard to this partnership? Are there lines of thought or deed that should not be crossed?
The Church. However we define that. It is described in the NT as a holy nation. A 'nation' made up of people drawn 'from every tribe and nation and people and language.'
As the hymn puts it, 'But there's another country I heard of long ago ...'
So it's a Big No to Christian Nationalism and such like.
On the 'heresy' thing, a priest once told me of a Greek Orthodox Bishop who said he'd only ever met one heretic in his life.
That was someone who had knowingly and deliberately exchanged a small o / Big O Christological position for an unorthodox one.
In Orthodox terms a 'heretic' is only one who is one knowingly and deliberately.
I'm not saying that the Orthodox are or have always been sweetness and light and not prone to persecuting or oppressing those who departed from received norms. Far from it.
I think the 'heretical' term is used rather loosely in the OP. I'd have preferred it if a different term had been used, that the views it discusses might be considered 'unorthodox' or 'eccentric', say.
As @Barnabas62 says, the 'h' would is loaded with too many historical connotations.
(The technical Jewish meaning of 'heresy' has differed a lot depending on the Jewish grouping and the period of time.)
If there is discomfort, perhaps I could rephrase the question- what are the lines in the sand that should not be crossed with regard to the idea of partnership between God and humanity?
The substantive issue would be, what are the don'ts in this situation?
Don't be a climate-change denier.
Don't consume as if resources are infinite.
Don't criticise those who are working to find sustainable solutions but support them.
That's a start.
We could go on.
I’m not sure I can, because I still think this is being come around to the wrong way—I’m not sure that thinking in terms of “don’ts” or “heresy” get us much of anywhere. It seems a bit . . . Pharisee-like? “What are the rules I have to follow? What lines do I need to make sure I don’t cross?” “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
It seems much more fruitful, to me at least, to talk in terms of “What, if anything, does Scripture tell us about partnering with God in creating? What does Scripture say that looks like? What does it mean for how we live our lives?”
Trying to spell out when someone has crossed a line into heresy/heterodoxy/unorthodoxy doesn’t hold much interest at all for me. Talking about how to live faithfully, on the other hand, does.
I think there's a general consensus here around that point, irrespective of which particular Christian tradition we inhabit.
I'd far rather approach the issue in the way you've articulated it. What can we do rather than a list of do's and don't, shoulds and shouldn't's.
So yes good post and good call, Nick, winking emoji and all ...
Thank goodness for this sensible post
How's that (what looks like) replacement theology working out?