In developing a theological ontology, one of the most important questions is if and in what way does God participate in this reality. Now, there are many versions of ontology in theology. Each has its own view on this idea of participation.

Here are the main ones (simplified):

• Deism – God created this reality, then has nothing further to do with it.
• Pantheism – The cosmos IS God but not personal (Spinoza)
• Classic theism – God is “wholly other”
• Panentheism – various versions where God is in some way “in the world” but also transcends it.

Now, obviously, there are many nuances and variations in these ontologies, but a huge issue for all of these is to offer an answer to the problem of evil. This particular question also raises another question. The question is: does God fully participate in this reality and therefore participate in specific acts of evil or not? From what I can tell, in all of these mainstream theological approaches, the answer is no. God does not participate in specific acts of evil. There seems to be a motivation to shield God in some way, protecting God’s so-called perfect goodness. God may be responsible, in some indirect way, for the presence of evil in the world, but God doesn’t actually perpetrate acts of evil like murder, abuse, genocide, natural disasters, etc.  To put it colloquially, “God doesn’t get God’s hands dirty”.

But what about feelings of shame and guilt over our past actions? We have all done things we regret and feel bad about. However, in some cases, the act is so egregious that the shame and guilt can be monumental, devastating, and persist for a lifetime. If God doesn’t fully participate in every aspect of this life, then God is spared from this “personal” devastation. As the creator of this reality, that seems incredibly cowardly, doesn’t it? Apparently, God doesn’t want any “blood on God’s hands.” Now, some will say that God “feels” your shame and guilt. Thanks for the empathy, but it’s not even close to the same.

TDLC Ontology

As I was trying to choose an ontology for my theology (The Divine Life Communion), it became apparent to me that only full participation in this reality by God would make sense given the problems of evil. A distant God untainted by evil just didn’t seem like a God I could have as my guide to try to live a courageous, meaningful life. Only a God who participated in every aspect of life could have any legitimate sway over how I lived my life. And so, I chose an ontology of an aspect monism (a form of priority monism in philosophical jargon). In this model, everything is a living aspect of God. Everything, including quantum fields, particles, weather, plants, animals, all the way to the most complex and sentient beings in the cosmos, are living as that aspect of the divine (a specific divine life). In other words, God lives every life, as that life (an incarnation, God-as-living). This occurs through kenosis ( a Greek word for self-emptying). Each divine life has truly its own life and a finite independence and freedom from God-as-transcendent. In other words, each life is truly an individual with its own freedom and responsibility.

So, what does this mean in the context of this post? It means that God is willing to be tainted by this reality. God is intimately involved in both the beauty and horrors of this existence. It means that from the vicissitudes of existence, God-as-living (you and everything else) can choose whether to create a stunning work of art from that complex clay of life or cop out for finite pleasures and debasement. This is the essence of choice that presents itself every day to us all and makes life meaningful.

No, God is not a coward! Quite the contrary. God chose to experience and live life in all its forms, from the most despicable to the most saintly. In other words, God chose to get God’s hands dirty. Each person has their own history and consequences, but also a divine depth that beckons to be better. Sometimes that divine spark wins out, and sometimes it doesn’t. That’s our choice. This means that God-as-living “personally” experiences shame and guilt as well as the fulfilment in creating love, beauty, and meaning.