Thursday, 26 March 2026

The vital importance of personal Creativity: God, Heaven, Resurrection

Virtue in traditional Christianity, indeed in traditional religion, is about obedience to external deity - service to the will of a deity.

Creativity is in fact the product of deity; and it may be regarded as the monopoly of deity.  

Traditional religion does not have a central place for creativity by Men...

Especially not by individual Men...

Especially not by all individual Men. 


Indeed, within ancient religions; creativity may regarded as be an impossibility, and the belief in the possibility of creativity as a delusion...

Given that everything has already been done (or conceived of) by the deity. There is simply no space for individual creativity to exist when God is regarded as omni-everything. 

Even when regarded as a genuine possibility; creativity is seen as, at best, an "optional extra". 

But more often it is at least a significant temptation to sin; and the impulse for creativity may even be itself regarded as a sin (e.g. by pretending to, usurping, displacing the divine prerogative). 


Yet, if is is acknowledged that creativity is an innate and inevitable fact of agency or "freedom" (properly understood as a positive phenomenon); then trivialization, denial, or demonization of creativity has a dreadful and distorting effect on religion.

At best this leads to a self-contradicting double-think; in which creativity is so framed as to deny its reality.

At worst it leads to a tyrannical attempt to thwart innate humanness and crush all individual people into becoming functional-parts of a social machine - a machine that is asserted to be dedicated to divine service.  

Then this crushing, and all which it entails, is labelled as Good! And insofar as the soul cries against it and yearns for more and better... Well, that is just more sin!


My interpretation is that there always was human creativity; because, for me, creativity is what each individual Being brings to divine creation, simply by virtue of his uniqueness participating in the ongoing work of creating. 

So, there always-was creativity; but it used to be unconscious, implicit - unidentified as such - hence deniable, hence relabelled as obedient service. 

What happened increasingly through the "modern" era, and by now is almost universal; is that individual creativity has become conscious, and therefore often deliberate and purposive. 

So that when creativity is trivialized, denigrated, thwarted, excluded, or suppressed nowadays by any religion - modern individuals are much more likely to realize, and be aware why, they feel crushed; why they feel fundamentally dissatisfied. 

Tis is one deep reason why any such religion feels... wrong


Traditional and Orthodox Christian theology does not take human creativity seriously enough to account for it; nor to recognize that creativity is absolutely central to the nature of Christian salvation. 

For example: an after-life without creation is not Heaven but something else. 

In a sense creativity is what resurrection is for: resurrection retains our individuality (hence agency) of self; whereas "the self" is explicitly discarded (and indeed vilified) by many other religious or spiritual afterlives. 

A self-styled Christianity that lacks a proper place for individual creativity, will likewise end up discarding - and demonizing - "the self". 

Resurrected eternal life in Heaven is for creation - when creation is understood as an intrinsic aspect of "Love".


Love is of and between individuals - and creativity is part of what we do about this! 

Put differently: creativity is each individual Being participating in the purposes and processes of divine creation, harmonized by a spirit of love.

    

Because traditional Christian theology was devised in a world where creativity was unconscious; the fact it has no place for personal creativity went unnoticed for many centuries.

But now it is evident that traditional Christian theology is wrong; exactly because it does not allow for the central necessity (and goodness) of individual creativity. 

We therefore need a new metaphysical understanding of Christianity; one in which creativity is explicitly recognized as occupying a central and vital place. 


7 comments:

Ron Tomlinson said...

>But more often it is at least a significant temptation to sin; and the impulse for creativity may even be itself regarded as a sin

Yes I'm currently reading 'Frankenstein' which I anticipate will be the ultimate example of that.

Part of the problem (which is evident even in Frankenstein) is that new ideas are seen as *replacements* for old ideas. Thus old theories become targets, fit to be destroyed, along with traditions which hold back progress.

Whereas genuinely creative and fundamental discoveries arise from honouring great but apparently contradictory ideas and trying to make them work together somehow. Subsequently these noble predecessors live on as limiting cases.

(This is related to the ideas that the source of novelty in evolution is not random mutation but symbiogenesis.)

Bruce Charlton said...

@Ron - I would distinguish between "novelty" and real creativity. It is easy to account for novelty by mechanistic means (recombination, extrapolation, interpolation etc) - but this does not really create.

I regard genuine creation as having nothing to do with any combinations such as honouring earlier ideas or the like; but very simply as a consequence of the uniqueness of each Being - being manifest in an environment of love, such that they are good and relevant because they both arise from love and aim at being compatible with love.

So individual creation gets its quality from being compatible with the lovingness of divine creation, and adding to it.

This is why notions of the perfection or completeness (perfection) of divine creation are so lethal. On the contrary, creation is added-to everytime an individual Being does something (including thinks a thought) that is in harmony with divine creation.

(The two great commandments can be taken as a brief summary of what this entails: love of God, being the love of divine creation, its aims, its principles etc; love of fellow Men being the "interpersonal" love between Beings. The situation can be modelled by thinking of the most ideal family - in an everlasting context - and how the individuals may each add to its loving nature, uniquely - and each could keep adding to it, without limit; and in principle each added family member would bring something additional.)

Maolsheachlann said...

I read once that CS Lewis and a young Harold Bloom had this very discussion, or something very like it. Lewis was against the notion of ultimate human creativity, Bloom for it.

Bruce Charlton said...

@M - I don't know about such an interchange - but IMO neither Lewis nor Bloom had any space in their metaphysics for real creativity.

Lewis was very incoherent on this subject! In his critical and philosophical writings, he adopted an attitude which was strongly at odds with his creative writing (his best friend, Owen Barfield, wrote about this).

Bruce Charlton said...

@Mal - BTW I have written a fair bit about creativity from the POV of The Inklings

https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/search?q=subcreation

Especially Tolkien's idea of subcreation - in which I argue that he had unorthodox views, which he disguised:

https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2019/04/fantasy-assists-in-evolution-of.html

Maolsheachlann said...

Thanks for that, Bruce. I must admit I strugle to take your meaning, especially as I've only been able to skim-read it so far. But it's very intriguing.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Mal - I am not surprised that you struggle with it! Partly due to my interest in teh subject of genius - https://geniusfamine.blogspot.com/ - I spent about 20 years trying to find a way in which creativity could be explained without trivializing it. I realized that genius cannot be explained by science, because science excludes by assumption the possibility of real creation. But traditional conceptualizations of religion also exclude it! So, I had to think it through for myself, helped by ideas from various sources.