March 22 2008

Unity and Human Types

I would like post a few words today about the notion of the undifferentiated unity of man and the absence of human “types” in the creational order (that is, the sinless state) -a notion which the relevant texts, I feel, do not support. We know that there are orders and hierarchies in heaven (or at least differentiation of function in the Lords “court"). But heaven is not our final destination (are we agreed?), but rather the “regeneration”. Be that as it may, it is not an insupportable contention that orders, hierarchies, and mediatorial functions are not simply the skins of sin that must be shed, but rather God-ordained offices and functions that do not cease when sin is swept away, but rather are “regenerated”, born anew. I think this view is not only scripturally supportable, it avoids certain exegetical difficulties with respect to the origin of human difference and social custom (culture). There is nothing in the earth that is not a degenerate form of the creational potentia. And nothing exists beyond the compass of the creational potentia. There was not a second creation in which the fall is somehow realized in new forms springing from new potentials. Diversity in itself, therefore, metaphysically, cannot be a phenomenon of the fall, but only the degeneration of diversity, its misuse. Thus it is not difference or diversity itself that can be called a “product” of sin, but rather the manner in which it is evidenced in human behavior (historical) is affected by sin. It is true that human potentials are not what they were. But we have good reason to think that difference is simply “wired in” to the way humans are made, and that separation and time will always result in difference -which is not itself evil, but is rather a degenerate form that must be sanctified by the continuing operation of the Holy Spirit in the elect. The elimination or marginalization of difference is therefore not approaching more closely the aboriginal condition of man, but rather moving farther from it as it is relegating to the status of an error one of the fundamental potentia of humanness. The a-cultural, atomistic, immediate, egalitarian view of the sinless state (whether heavenly, paradisic, or of the final regenerated habitation of man) is a set of inherited Theological assumptions that must be thoroughly challenged if Kinism is to claim a total reliance on scripture and necessary inference, and is to be fully equipped to answer the questions of great philosophical and Theological subtlety that will arise in due course. We must avoid the presumption (I think based on deeply rooted egalitarian thinking) that man’s relation to his fellow man, and to God are inherently immediate (being without mediation) and simple (being without regulatory or functional strictures of any sort). These mediations and functional strictures do not create diversity, but rather regulate it -that potential for diversity that is inherent in man and shows every symptom of being extraordinarily opportunistic. Difference shows itself eagerly and rapidly, just as in the animal kingdom. That difference can be properly estimated as a value related to our created condition, rather than valued in its increasing absence from man. We do not know precisely in what ways regenerate variety will differ from the unregenerate variety, but I think it has something to do with being a “good neighbor”, that is in right relation to the law with respect to one’s neighbor (both actively and passively). I don’t think it entails a program to destroy his identity through hatred of diversity. Now here, in this valuing of diversity as a creation mandate (fruitfulness and multiplication), we see where we are often misjudged by our opponents. This occurs in our promotion of the positive virtues (5th commandment, et. al) of valuing one’s own tribe and ones elders (in their unique manifestation, in their identity) -valuing them not merely as archetypes of “man”, but valuing them and honoring them qua themselves, as unique creations, as flesh and blood. In other words, we value them in their “identity”, not in their approximation to a type. But that approximation has its own creational value, as a manifestation of the potential of the created kind. This is the essence of cultural continuity, rooted in the Law. Our opponents hate individuality (ultimately). Thus they hate their elders as real living men. This is sin, since the 5th commandment is CLEARLY inter-generational. Real living men bear the marks of their familial belonging within themselves as a framework of resemblance into which their individuality is fitted. It mirrors the unity-in-diversity of the Godhead, and its economy is the type of which the human social economy is analogue. I stated in a previous article that it is my conviction that sin creates nothing. I do not think that it is a trivial point, Theologically or philosophically. Nor is it my invention. Sin is able to corrupt what is, not engender what was not. We have laid out a very strong case for the “inherent” nature of the potential for difference. Diversity of individuals and diversity of types are of the same creational order, being the valences of communities, which are necessarily based on the various forms of likeness. What remains is to marshal the relevant scripture. I have no doubt that a thorough review of the text will not diminish our case, but rather make it MORE compelling. There is more to be said regarding the typology of the creational order, but it must be left for another time.