Christogenesis

I'm back. Crummily.

The most intuitive response to the interrelationship of nature, man, and Christ would seem to be that the end of nature is man, and that the end of man is Christ. This would seem to be the intuitive, obvious response. And it was in the past. "Man is a Miracle" says Pico, quoting Hermes. Man is the microcosm of the macrocosm--the universe. His dignity is universally significant. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the end of man, be it by theosis or deification or whatever name you give to the process. The Christian path renews and raises man, and by extension nature, to a kind of godliness.

Very well. That is not the commonplace conception at all. The most commonplace conception is of course the secular one, which is more suited to be the subject of another conversation. The second most commonplace conception of the "nature-man-Christ" trichotomy is some disjointed and strange placement of nature as a kind of open-world "canvas" where man acts. God has a kind of relationship to the world, but not one of analogy and being. It's a merely causal relationship. Christ, in this conception, is not the Logos but merely an extended arm from God the Father to bring Man to heaven. There is of course a sense in which this is true but it seems to utterly bypass (if not outrightly condemn) created phenomena and their mirror like reflection of the miracle which is this natural world.

I'll have more to say later.

- bjs 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antiheroes of Modern Christendom

Thoughts on the New Missal