The Whole Mystery of Christ: Creation as Incarnation in Maximus Confessor by JDW - Practically considered, So What?
its day by day implications
I've very nearly broken my brain trying to appropriate JDW's insights, trying to conceptually shoehorn them into my favorite phenomenological categories, especially as on offer by Maximus, Eriugena, Anselm, Bonaventure, Scotus, Peirce, Don Gelpi (Lonerganian) & Amos Yong (pneumatologist).
For example, I've wondered: How might one parse the differences between Christ's humanization and our divinization?
More specifically, I've asked: What differences might obtain in terms of our final potencies regarding, let's say, theophanic manifestations and/or beatific enjoyments?
I've not gotten very far beyond the rather clear notion that, personally, while we're all intended, like the Son & with the help of the Holy Spirit, to reveal Our Father & to beatifically enjoy the Trinity's self-delight, we're different subjects with unique tropoi.
I suppose this is to admit that my notions about the distinctions between the finite & infinite have gotten a lot more elusive and my conceptions about essences, natures, ousia, attributes, propria & idiomata - a lot more vague.
Concretely, this is to say that, in learning more about the whonesses & hownesses of persons, I now realize that I know way less about our whatnesses than I once imagined. In other words, I've no idea how to successfuly define "what" created persons are, even though I accept that our natures differ from the divine nature in that they do, indeed, have a "whatness." I also acknowledge that, like the divine nature, we can successfully refer to created natures because, like the uncreated divine nature, they're infinitely intelligible.
So, there you have it. So far, I've only located two differences between us & Jesus. First, as persons, we're all different subjects. Then, vis a vis natures, Jesus has one nature that's uncreated with no whatness and another that's created with a whatness that we can successfully refer to even if we haven't yet defined it.
Jesus has told us, though, that those equalities with God's nature are nothing to be grasped and that we can experience as adoptees by Grace both Who He is to the Father & How it is the Trinity, together, enjoys - not only each other & each's own self, but - all of Creation, most especially us persons!
Yes, we're all intended, like the Son & with the help of the Holy Spirit, to theophanically reveal Our Father & to beatifically enjoy the Trinity's self-delight, as well as secondary beatitudes!
Yes, the analogia entis does obtain but the primary practical takeaway for me from JDW's __The Whole Mystery of Christ: Creation as Incarnation in Maximus Confessor__ has been that, in our self-appropriations, in our journeys to authenticity, in our formative spiritualities, in our private worship & liturgical prayer, in all our interactions with & service of self, others, the Cosmos & Trinity, we need to more thoroughly deemphasize our status as adoptees and to more radically awaken to & so interrelate as the theophanies that we all already are, can everlastingly real-ize & increasingly become!
It is here that I might segue to concrete examples of how it is we might all better pursue such theophanic & beatific aspirations to daily walk closer to Jesus? But I’m not advocating performative changes to our ascetical practices, spiritual disciplines & other practical theologies.
What I’m suggesting, rather, is that Jordan’s book be appropriated as the Love Story it truly is! And that should better form our interpersonal dispositions, better foster our affective conversions and thereby to more swiftly & with less hindrance approach the Truth, celebrate the Beauty & realize the Goodness of Our Lord, day by day by day by day by day!
