Can Presbyterians be Co-Creators?
November 8, 2006
I love watching Presbyterians get antsy. Especially those who are “really” Presbyterians. You know, the hard-core Presbyterians. They were baptized, confirmed, went to Triennium, probably served on a local Youth Council, probably even went to General Assembly as a YAD (Youth Advisory Delegate). And now they’re in seminary, passing right through the ordination process, passed all their Ords…they have Reformed Theology, Calvin and Presbyterian Polity down pat. Yah, those Presbyterians.
I like watching them squirm. Recently, they’ve been squirming in a class where we’ve been occasionally using words like “co-creators” or “participation” or “partnership with God.” Seriously…as soon as those words are uttered, Books of Order come out, people’s hands go up and all of a sudden they’re quoting from Calvin’s Institutes.
Or perhaps, it’s not quite that dramatic. But I have found it humorous that there are a few of these students in one of my classes that just can’t handle these phrases or ideas. “We cannot do ANY good or anything apart from God” they say. “We don’t co-create with God, we’re totally depraved…God is the creator.”
I’ve latched on to such phrases as co-creators, co-(re)creators, partners, etc., through friends like Doug Pagitt and other writers in the open-theism camp. And frankly, I don’t have a problem with such language at all. Perhaps it’s the part of me that isn’t really *that* Presbyterian, or the part of me that just grates against Calvin. What is it about Reformed-folk that causes them to have such a hard time with the idea of humanity partnering with God? With humanity and God interacting with one another in a dynamic relationality…even with the possibility that what God does affects us and what we do might even possibly affect God? What would be so wrong with that?
I see the depravity of humanity - that’s clear in our world, both in systems and individuals. But I don’t see the point in emphasizing how it’s futile for humans to desire to be participators with God in the world today, to be co-creators, to be partners with God. If anything, it helps encourage those seeking after God to be active in the world today, to believe that they can be part of the change, be part of God’s Kingdom-making on earth as it is in heaven…
So let’s be partners with God. Let us continue to be passionate about co-creating with the Creator God, and believe that what we do, by the grace of God, is important and can change things and could possibly even influence the very God of the universe. Not because we’re all-amazing, or because we’re incredibly special, but because that’s the type of relationship God desires. We see it in the perichoretic, inter-penetrating dynamic relationship within the Triune God. God desires a dynamic, not static, relationship with humanity. Does that jibe with Reformed Theology and Calvin? Maybe. Is that a huge concern of mine…? Maybe not.
Tags: Open-Theism, Relationality, Theology
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 9th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Hey Adam,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. It’s definitely frustrating when seminary students get antsy or even very anal retentive and start squirming and pulling out the BOO.
I do consider myself a liberal Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, confirmed, went to a lot of Montreats, served as a YAD, etc., but also use the co-partnership language and very much believe in it. I picked it up from Theology with George Stroup and Shirley Guthrie, particularly Guthrie’s “Christian Doctrine” which opened up a new conversation and understandings about Reformed Theo. CD emphasizes God’s desire of us to be in partnership with God, to be a part of building God’s kingdom. It’s been my understanding that using co-partnership language is very Reformed, it speaks to how God is always forming and reforming and calling us to continually respond and be a part of that reforming or reshaping. It sounds to me like the students in the class are misinterpreting Reformed theology and possibly Calvin. (Although, the Institutes themselves are Calvin’s own theo debates within himself so there’s not always an absolute answer there which is why I think most modern Presbyterians agree with some of what Calvin says but not all of it.)
In Christian Doctrine, Guthrie points out that because God is the sovereign creator makes it even more amazing that God loves us depraved sinners so much that God wants to be in relationship with us and us in relationship with God. The irony in the folks in your class getting their drawers in a wad is that it is actually a very Reformed and Presbyterian idea. It’s classic build up the body to equip the saints for ministry/priesthood of all believers stuff. (Now that I’m thinking about it, I’m kinda surprised there are some folks making a big deal out it or maybe I’m missing something because I wasn’t there)
Only clarification I would make is that what humans do affects God in the sense that our mistreatment of one another (judging, prejudice, hate, violence, lying, deceiving, etc.,) upsets and angers God. Just as God has loved us, God desires for us to respond in the same way to God and neighbor. God doesn’t like to see people suffer or hurt one another.
But do our negative actions toward one another affect God in the sense that God is incapacitated to fix the mess we’ve made.
No, because God’s already fixed it. God has and is pouring out grace on the world, has and is redeeming the world (already, not yet). Nothing we can do or not do to earn grace or prevent grace from happening.
So the only thing left is for us to be a part of the grace, part of the reforming, reshaping, creating that has and will come.
In essence, I think you may be more Presbyterian or Reformed than the folks who claim to be Presbyterian who are making a big stink about the language you use. It’s actually the language all Reformed Christians should be using.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:35 am
It’s probably the ‘creator’ language that you’re using. We Calvinists are usually pretty uptight about that because of it’s implications about sovereignty and providence. And if you listen to the language, co-creator screams out idolatry to Calvinists (whether that’s the intent or not), and of course idolatry is sin number one in the reformed book.
Participation, however, shouldn’t ring any alarums. After all, we’re freed by grace from our inability to do anything good…(which suggests that once we’re free we should start participating in the doing of good, yes?).
Ultimately, to answer your question, “What is it about Reformed-folk that causes them to have such a hard time with the idea of humanity partnering with God?” I think it’s because the question seems to presume a much lower view of sin than is common in reformed thinking. Even when we ‘participate’ with God, it’s only because of the grace we received in the first place. The idea of partnering or co-creating seems like it’s prompted too much by a thinking that counts clear, unrestricted human agency as a norm and that the human agency deserves to be in an equal partnership with God (rather than as a secondary mover).
Now, you may not believe that but that’s how it rings in my ears.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I would struggle with the “co-creator” language, not because of total depravity but because of the sovereignty of God.
In my first (and so far only) career, I spent 17 years building theatrical scenery as a carpenter and welder. I always had a problem when I would tell people about my job and they would say something about how creative or artistic I must be.
It was not my job to be creative or artistic; rather, it was my job to produce what someone else had created artistically. (I had a friend who referred to our jobs as working in the “art mines.”)
The scenic designers, working with the directors, provided the art and the creativity. It was my job to produce, as closely as I possibly could, what they had created, just bigger and in three dimensions. If you could tell that I had made it, if it had any of my personality or creativity in it, then it was wrong. The designers were sovereign over the look of what I was building, I was not a co-creator with them.
I feel the same way about my relation with God, I am not “co-creator” with God, I try to do my best to follow God’s plan as closely as possible, but the creation part of it all flows from God.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:07 am
“the perichoretic, inter-penetrating dynamic relationship”
Pretentious much?
November 9th, 2006 at 1:10 am
While I might use different language to say it, I’m totally with you.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:09 am
I couldn’t agree more! I love going out everyday and doing something that (at least I think) hasn’t been done before, thus Stepping out and seeing what God and I can do together as a team.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:17 am
I’m with Meghan here. In my mind, such language and thinking is an attempt to put us on the same level as God when we are not that high, and he is not that low. It chips away at our perception of God as being almighty.
Also I would like to point out something that seems to occur regularly when theological issues are discussed these days. It seems that people have something against those believers who are not willing to budge in certain beliefs. For example, when Adam talks here about his fellow seminary students who don’t like this kind of “language,” the implication is either that they are weak or close-minded. I don’t understand why that has to be the case. Why aren’t they allowed to hold close to them their beliefs in the same way that everyone else is? Why aren’t they allowed to argue something that they don’t believe is right.
I see so much talk about “discussion” and “conversation” these days, but I see very little respect for other people’s beliefs.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:26 am
I agree with the use of co-creation, and especially participation, and use it frequently. But in doing so, we need to be concious of what we truly mean and how it aligns with our Reformed perspective of God’s sovereignty (as mentioned above).
Yes, I can participate in God’s acts only because “I no longer live but Christ lives in me…” (Galatians 2:20). Truly the actor and participator is Christ alone by the Spirit in me. Therefore, I think it would be safe to use the language of co-creator, participator so long as we acknowledge that the agent working is solely Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.
As for the use of “partner,” that I am weary to because it elevates me to status alongside God that I am not comfortable with. I am thinking in terms of Law Offices, I would not even want to be considered a Junior Partner to God.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
People who are graphed into our religious institutions have a hard time with change. We quickly forget that founders of our modern faith structures entered into conversations that eventually lead to the reformation. Reformers like Calvin, Zwingly, and even Martin Luther himself were co-creators in their own cultural context, though I doubt they would ever use that vernacular. The difference between now and then is that when we co-create I hope that we allow for change and not set the creation in stone like our forefathers did. I hope that what is said about us in history will be different that what is said about the one who came before us, because if it is not then we have just helped rotate the cycle rather than break it.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I would use ‘co-steward’ language. Human beings are not ‘creators’ in the same sense that God is. We don’t create ex nihilo we reorder prexistent matter, albeit in incredible ways. It would be a mistake to conflate human creativity with God’s creative power, but it is important to acknowledge that human creativity and inventiveness derive from God, whom the Genesis account affirms has both created all things and has graciously placed humanity in a stewardship role within that creation.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Hi Adam. Great blog - just discovered! I think the answer to the problem these antsy folk are stressing over lies in the liberationist strand of Reformed theology. Take the two key doctrines of the sovereignty of God and election:the sovereignty of God means the doing of God’s will on earth because God is Lord of all created reality. That means that we are engaged with the Missio Dei - the kingdom as both gift and task. In that sense we are “co-creators” with Gofd because God’s mission the establishment of the kingdom) is born out of resurrection - re-creation. As the Church we are called upon to share in this re-creation - at the very least, to erect signs of the kingdom where these are absent. It means, for example, making the lives of the poor and the oppressed better!
Election is theology of history. It correlates the presence and activity of God with human history. Human history is about the human creation of a wrold without reference to God. We are aready creators, in other words. Salvation requires, therefore, that we engage with the nuts and bolts of sinful structures - the ways in which we have created our world through socio-political and socio-economic structures.
The point is that these are human creations. Their “redemtion” is not achieved by waiting for some sort of divine intervention apart from Spirit-led, Spirit-empowered people tackling and transforming these structures.
Best wishes and more power to your emergent, postmodern elbow!
November 12th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Man, I don’t know about you, but the thought of creating something out of nothing really taxes my brain. I don’t think I’m capable of it. I’m pretty sure most Presbyterians aren’t capable of it either. But hey, what do I know? Maybe the Book of Order does provide some kind of recipe for the ability to fashion worlds. Let me know if you find it!
November 14th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
I dont know if I agree with the “co-creator language. There are probably a number of reasons why I would not but I am only going to hit on one and I want to see what others think.
I want to come from the angle from the Genesis account. In the beginning when God created all that there is he specifically said that it was “good”. In the case of man and woman He said that it was “very good”.
In those two instances He used the word “good” which means a lot more than what we usually think of when we here it. For one thing, and what it means to this discussion, it means that it is complete, essentially “it doesnt get any better than this”.
So when God spoke that it was “good” and than rested He was signifying that He was doen with creating his Creation, it was perfect, done, finite, etc.. So He is no longer creating in that sense.
So how can we be “co-creating” when He is done? He is no longer creating, He is seeking, interacting, and redeeming that which He already created. We should, instead, be more concerned with joining Him in the process of redeeming those who are lost and without Him, not worried about creating and redeeming the environment, but rather rescuing the lost from the grips of hell.
Any thoughts?
Blessings,
December 14th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
With humanity and God interacting with one another in a dynamic relationality…even with the possibility that what God does affects us and what we do might even possibly affect God? What would be so wrong with that?
Why talk about it being “right” or “wrong”? It’s illogical. On a more personal level, you get people who say things like this:
I love going out everyday and doing something that (at least I think) hasn’t been done before, thus Stepping out and seeing what God and I can do together as a team.
What a high view of God and servanthood!
Here’s a similarly related post by what I would call real Presbyterian—you know, those nasty one’s that are all into good doctrine and that boring stuff!