Co-Creation Is Not *Obviously* Subcreation

Co-Creation Is Not Obviously Subcreation

1/31/2022

Man lives within God’s Creation. Man is also a creator within God’s creation and can freely create within Creation. This is often referred to as subcreation.

Within subcreation, man is free to rearrange, modify, and complexify Creation. Put another way, man can add to and expand Creation using the elements God has provided.

Those who believe man to be a creature of God rather than a pre-existing being that God has “created” into His Creation of pre-existing beings posit that because man is within Creation and using the “stuff” of Creation, his subcreation is also *obviously* co-creation – that is, when man creates, he is by default, creating with God.

Man is certainly within God’s Creation, and man certainly participates in subcreation, but that does not entail that all subcreation is *obviously* co-creation.

Subcreation that aligns with God and Creation – is in harmony with truth, beauty, virtue, goodness – is a form of co-creation. Man can pour his energy into creative activities that increase, add to, expand, or refine truth, beauty, virtue, goodness in Creation.

In these cases, God likely co-operates in man’s creative activity to some degree – through motivation, inspiration, providence, guidance, communication, grace, and so forth. In other words, God takes an interest in the endeavor because He sees the potential of man’s creative act adding to and expanding Creation.

Yet man is also capable of creative activities in subcreation that are not aligned with God. In subcreation, man can and does use the elements of God’s Creation in to bring forth creative acts that are hostile to and opposed to God and Creation.

This kind of subcreation is *obviously not* co-creation. It may use the elements of God’s Creation, but it is difficult if not impossible to imagine God freely choosing to co-operate in such an endeavor. On the contrary, I believe God would refuse to act as a co-creator in such a "creative" undertaking.

After all, why would God actively aid man in the co-creation of anything that intentionally undermines, corrupts, inverts, or reduces Creation?

To do so would imply that God freely co-operates with forms of subcreation that could be termed demonic or diabolical creation – forms of “creation” whose purpose resides solely in the weakening or destroying of Creation.

I do not believe God would freely engage in such co-creative efforts with man.

In sum, subcreation may place man on the side of God and Creation. Co-creation, on the other hand, definitely places man on the side of God and Creation.

This dispels all notions that subcreation is *obviously* just co-creation.

12 Comments

Lady Mermaid

2/1/2022 01:55:23

I'm a mediocre Protestant who gets bored by abstract theological debates so I may be missing the boat entirely. I've always viewed creation as making something entirely new that did not exist before. When God created our universe, He created from His word or thoughts. I believe that humans engage in this when they use their imaginations. This may sound ridiculous, but I believe that God used the minds of C.S Lewis and J.R. Tolkien to create new worlds. We don't have access to them, but I believe they exist in another dimension. Some other examples that come to mind are having children and engaging in prayer. Technically, it would be more efficient for God to perform all of these acts Himself. However, throughout Scripture, God uses angels or humans to carry out His work. Jesus told His disciples that they would perform greater works than He.

This is not meant to diminish God as all true creation must be aligned w/ Him. He is the source of goodness and truth. I remember reading a recent article pondering why so many TV shows and book series start out strong but putter out into mediocrity. The insight gained was that since all creation is divine, many artists' work flounders as they are not aligned w/ God. "Sub creation" not aligned w/ God is not creation at all, but destruction or anti creation. The modern left symbolizes this fact quite well as it's incapable of building, only destroying.

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2022/01/theyre-demons-they-want-destruction-of.html

Francis Berger

2/1/2022 11:25:05

@ Lady Mermaid - I am generally averse to theological debates. These posts are more "thinking aloud" or "digestion" exercises for me.

Christianity has yet to properly grapple with freedom and creativity -- and I personally believe the further development of Christianity hinges on a reformulation of these. The reformulation will be simple and childlike in nature and will have to come from freedom and creativity themselves

bruce charlton

2/1/2022 17:48:16

That seems valid to me; and a useful distinction for the purpose of analysis.

One twist is that genuine co-creation can be subverted by "creative activities in subcreation that are not aligned with God".

For example, Amazon TV's production based on Tolkien later this year. The *intention* behind this (apparently most expensive TV show ever) seems very clearly to take Tolkien's co-created world (which is aligned with God); and to "rearrange, modify, and complexify" bits and pieces of Tolkien to twist these into something Not aligned with God - and thereby to invert the effect of Tolkien's work.

It is a similar idea to the 'Black Mass' which takes Christian symbols and rituals, and twists and inverts them to try and make something anti-Christian.

2/1/2022 18:11:08

@ Bruce - Yes, that's an important point, and I am glad you have drawn attention to it.

In Tolkien's case, I think the most important aspects of his co-creation are already beyond demonic reach in Creation. What I mean is, the demons cannot touch the time Tolkien spent creating LOTR, nor can they do much with the immense benefit it has provided generations of readers. This is all firmly locked away, beyond their grasp.

At the same time, they certainly can attempt to subvert Tolkien's co-creation now and in the future.

The very fact that They *need* to do this stands as testament to the greatness of Tolkien's co-creation. Hopefully, some discerning souls will be able to surmount the subversion and keep the original Creation alive as it is meant to be.

On the flipside, the awfulness of the inverted version may also motivate the general population to reject it outright in favor of the original.

2/1/2022 18:20:57

@ Bruce - I meant "original co-creation" not "original Creation."

I'll chalk this up as a positive Freudian slip.

Kristor link

2/2/2022 08:01:02

Francis, your distinction here between cocreation and subcreation is useful. Cocreation is subcreation that cooperates with the Divine Will, and with the divine act of creation, while subcreation that does not thus cooperate is not cocreation. Indeed, it is rather destruction: anticreation.

We could then call cocreative subcreation “procreation.”

NB however: your definitions entail that all cocreation *just is* one sort of subcreation. It’s just that not all subcreation is cocreation, or procreation; some subcreation is anticreation.

This all neatly aligns with traditional soteriology.

2/2/2022 21:00:46

@ Kristor - Thanks. I sense it does align with traditional soteriology, but I also believe the idea of co-creation must extend past salvation into creativity, which is more a matter of theosis (for lack of a better way of putting it). Salvation comes first, however. And if creativity never comes . . . well, then salvation is enough.

Whenever I contemplate spiritual creativity and co-creativity, I am often reminded of Matthew 13:58 and Mark 6:5. I find it fascinating that Jesus could not perform many or any miracles in Nazareth for the simple reason that the Nazarenes he encountered lacked faith.

I imagine most Christians believe Jesus chose not to perform miracles in Nazareth, but rarely consider that it may not have been a choice. What if Jesus couldn't for the simple reason that the miracles He wished to perform were a form of co-creation that required the active faith of the human part of the divine-human operation for the divine part to work?

This is pure speculation on my part and please don't read too much into it. All I am trying to do is expand the idea that co-creation depends upon the willing participation of both the human and the divine. If either side is unwilling, co-creation cannot happen.

On a side note, I just want you to know that I have been a longtime reader of your posts at the Orthosphere. In that time I have come to know you as an intelligent, sincere, and well-motivated Christian. I hope our differing ideas on some matters does not leave a sour taste in your mouth.

2/3/2022 02:10:44

That is an interesting thought about Jesus' lack of miracles in Nazareth. It makes sense that since cooperation is required for salvation, the same must be true for co-creation (theosis).

NLR

2/6/2022 04:48:02

"Subcreation that aligns with God and Creation – is in harmony with truth, beauty, virtue, goodness – is a form of co-creation. Man can pour his energy into creative activities that increase, add to, expand, or refine truth, beauty, virtue, goodness in Creation."

I agree.

And there can be many nested levels of sub-creation. C.S. Lewis once wrote something about how the first person to ever put paint on the wall of a cave was a greater genius than whoever came after because they are all working within his paradigm.

Following Tom's Shakespeare analogy from the last post, we can say that Shakespeare was indeed enriching the English language, but in harmony with the greater genius (or geniuses) who started the language, who were in turn sub-creating in harmony with those who started the Proto-Indo European language, who themseslves were sub-creating in turn with whatever people started the first human language.

Tom was right in invoking the great chain of being, because when we sub-create, we are sub-creating with beings all the way up to God Himself who are involved with that part of Creation.

2/6/2022 18:28:53

@ Kevin - Tom's ideas about the great chain being or about subcreation are not wrong, but they do not address co-creation properly.

This is partly due to my sloppy attempts to explain co-creation and partly due to Tom's metaphysical assumptions (Roman Catholic, I assume, but please correct me if I'm wrong, Tom), which allow no real space for a fuller understanding of co-creation.

As we have outlined, all humans participate in subcreation. This participation happens regardless of whether people are aligned with God or not. Some of the creation that occurs in subcreation can be called co-creation if the creative impulse behind the subcreation is aligned with God and Creation. In these cases, God is working with man on the creative activity to some degree, but the creation itself is limited to modifying and rearranging "the stuff" God has provided.

But the co-creation I am trying to outline is not dependent on products or artworks in the material, object world (which all act as nothing more than symbols anyway). The co-creation I am referring to extends beyond that -- to the possibility of man introducing something truly original into Creation -- something that strikes God as new and original -- something that God chooses to work with.

The co-creation I am referring to is spiritual action centered in thinking, which is free and creative. The idea is that man is capable of introducing a new and original thought into Creation. This thought positively surprises God, and He makes room for it in Creation and begins to work to expand it, and this expansion transforms the symbolic, material aspects of Creation rather than merely adding to them or modifying them.

I think Jesus exemplified this form of co-creation. Jesus's creative activity is not about books, or language, or art, but about new thought leading to a whole "new" mode of being -- a new way of thinking about God and Creation that was not in sync with the conventional thoughts of His day, but which was, nevertheless, in sync with God. But in order for the alignment with the divine to happen, God had to make room for this new "creation", accept it, and work with it, together with Jesus.

Now Christians of a traditional mindset will simply state that this was all just subcreation or divine creation since Jesus was God, implying that God was either playing a game with himself or creating new ways of being from himself. But I don't see it that way.

Yes, Jesus was divine, but he was also human, and through his humanity he was able to introduce an entirely new "creative impulse" into Creation -- a form of creative activity God alone could not have accomplished, but was pleased to work with once He understood it to be good and aligned with Creation.

I'm not sure if that helps or not, but that is more or less the essence of the kind of co-creation I am trying to describe.

Tom

2/10/2022 01:11:23

Since it's been asked, I'm of the Apostolic faith. My wife's mother was raised from incurable paralysis in church one Sunday when she was young. My kin have spontaneously preached in languages they never learned. I've danced and been with others in worship in two feet of rising floodwaters until holy fire decends on the congregation. That kind of stuff.

You're right about metaphysical assumptions. My first assumption is that the Logos is. Thr Logos by it's nature is the praxis for interaction between any intelligent beings. In a sense it is the chain of being itself. Without the logos there can be no interrelationship.

Thr incarnation is the natural outgrowth of that: the Logoss nature us to be known and being man is a very good way to make the Logos knowable to man. In the same way the end of man is no more or less than to know the Logos as He is.

---

I hope I didn't go on too long, I tried to balance being consise with being clear.

---

I think your description of co creation is fine, but that you are correct that our view of the universe is sufficiently different that we can't really have a meaningful dialouge on this topic.

Unfortunately that indicates that the Logos we seek are quite different, doesn't it? At least on this matter. It is not so wholly different that we cannot talk about matter of faith.

I'm curious, to what end do you want to surprise God? To delight God is a venerable end, and very easy as God is easily delighted. Anything that is not sin is a delight to God, though he appriciates mastery and effort.

The purpose of surprising a child or a wife is to increase their delight. But God is already delighted with such simple things it doesn't seem to be a worthy goal, even in a paradigm in which it was in fact possible.

2/12/2022 13:47:34

Francis,

Have you read the book Small Gods by Terry Pratchett? In it there is a state religion that has all of the trappings, but no true belief. The god Om returns to the Discworld and finds his powers greatly diminished because he only has one true believer left.

It was originally meant as satire, but sadly it's an accurate statement of many modern day churches.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Co-Creation Is Not Obviously Subcreation

Leave a Reply.

Archives