Pondering "Holy" Destruction

First, some passages which are relevant to what I am thinking about these days.

“I have no words with which to portray the feelings of the heart when it receives this divine will in the guise of humiliation, poverty, annihilation…By just that which the senses lack is faith heightened, increased, and nourished; the less there is to human eyes, the more there is to the soul…Mary sees the Apostles fly, but she remains constant at the foot of the cross; she recognizes her Son in that face spat upon and bruised.”
- Jean-Pierre de Caussade

“God is not thought of as some being outside the world but rather as a particular form of creativity and ordering going on within the world, namely that serendipitous ordering which has given rise (among other things) to the evolution of life on planet Earth and the emergence of human beings, and which continues to sustain us and to move us toward a more profound humanization…And faith (or belief) in God will be interpreted essentially as commitment, in the face of the ultimate mystery of life, to this reality central to this particular vision of the world (rather than as assent to some quite dubious propositions about some cosmic person, as it so often is).”
- Gordon Kaufman

“Our falls into nothingness can be and must be trusted – we can learn to let ourselves fall, to let ourselves sink. Isn’t this what the seed does as it falls into the ground, eventually to sprout new life?”
- Matthew Fox

I’ve recently been reading Gordon Kaufman’s In Face of Mystery and also, at the suggestion of my spiritual director, Caussade’s Abandonment to Divine Providence. I am finding Caussade to be helpful but at the same time having some difficulty “translating” what he writes to better fit my personal understanding of God. I find myself agreeing with Kaufman’s working definition of “God.”

For a while now, I’ve been at peace with Fox’s elaboration on what he identifies as the via negativa – the path towards the divine through the negative aspects of existence such as pain, suffering, isolation, aloneness, destruction, and, ultimately, death. I have found myself benefiting from being able to view these things anew and, as is Fox’s intention, to be able to trust in these things. So, as I continue to construct my personal theology, Fox’s thoughts have been securely mortared into the hodge-podge structure that it is.

But here is the sticking point and the thing that has become my obsession lately. It is the immense amount of destruction that is integral to the universe. How does this fact correspond to or shape my idea of God? Like Kaufman, I believe that any theology, if it is to be of any use, needs to have as a conversation partner the findings of the empirical sciences. This is not to say that one has to be bound to the determinism or reductionism of the sciences, but that one cannot ignore the information they provide about the workings of the universe and ourselves. So, to restate the problem again, if God is, according to Kaufman, “the serendipitous movement which we discern in the cosmic and historical processes that have created human existence,” then what are we to make of all the destruction that has been part of this creative serendipitous movement? Let me make it clear that I am not concerned about the existence of destruction and death. I accept that they are necessary. But how does that necessity help modify this understanding of God. Specifically, I am concerned about the individual thing experiencing the necessary destruction.

If God is creative serendipitous movement, then does God somehow have to be found in the precise moment of destruction? Kaufman’s view, and he himself admits this, is found via reading back into cosmic and human history this movement. The problem is that this becomes a meta-utilitarian viewpoint in which the destructive presence in the cosmos is seen as beneficial precisely because it is viewed from the present. I suppose I could walk away at this point and say to myself, “O.K., I can trust this destructive presence because based on my looking back into the past and seeing the good that comes from it, I can rest knowing that any future destruction, including my own, will ultimately come to some good.” And that may be fine and workable. Nonetheless, I feel an inner urge to linger on this point and meditate upon it and explore it some more until I am fully satisfied.

What I hope to find is a way in which God is to be found in that precise instant of annihilation – that destructive moment. And I feel that it has to be something more than just a greater good coming from it in an event that occurs after the destruction. Let me give an example. If a hawk swoops down and grabs a sparrow and eats it, then obviously some benefit comes from it. The hawk is sustained to live for a while longer. But any redemptive act has to also be for the agent undergoing the suffering or destruction. There must be redemption for the sparrow. It cannot be only a posthumous benefit for something other than the victim. I am aware that certain process theologians address this issue by pointing to a redemption within God. But that only works if one accepts the process conception of God, which I am not 100% sold on. And this is not just an issue of theodicy. Rather than trying to justify God in the face of destruction, it is a search to see what implications destruction, so vital a presence, has for my always developing concept of God.