The Reversal of Revelation—
The Integration of the One Reality in the World and the Word
Observation and Objectivity, Desire and Being, and the One
Introduction
Before tribes or tools, before gods or apes—there was the Wor(l)d. But when Wo(Man) looked up from the dust, s/he saw not the heavens, but h(er)is own reflection—and s/he named it divine. This is the great reversal. What follows is a decoding of that reversal—the parable/riddle, the chiasm, which is reality itself; framed as a five-word cipher that, read one way, is anthropology, and the other, theology. It is both a map of our fall and a path back to the garden. It is not a thesis. It is a confession. And the confession is this:
Man. Order. World. Made. God.
Now read them backwards.
This is what I see after 40 years, since a 6 year-old, of listening and reflection on what I hear when I listen to what Creation and its Creator has revealed.
I see that in both general and special revelation, there is a pattern of world–order–God–people—but the direction of causality is reversed. And this is what I am referring to as:
THE CHIASM OF REVELATION AND DESIRE
(Anthropology vs Theology | General vs Special | False vs True Order)
A. General Revelation (from below, distorted by desire)
People(s) → create → god(s) → to order → their world(s)
B. Special Revelation (from above, spoken by Spirit)
God → creates → people(s) → to order → his world(s)
Restated as inverse parallels:
Anthropological Projection: People imagine gods to explain and control their world.
Theological Reality: God creates people to reflect and steward his order.
From one perspective:
"People create God in their image to control what they fear."
From the other:
"God creates people in his image to love what he orders."
Adam will create a god to order his world
His world, ordered by God, will create Adam
People formed gods to form their world
God formed people to fill his world
Desire shaped god(s) to make meaning of chaos
The Spirit formed man to make order from meaning
This is a palindromic theological sequence: one single line that, when read left-to-right, reflects the human/anthropological perspective (general revelation); and when read right-to-left, reveals the divine/theological reality (special revelation). Same words. Two meanings. Opposing directions. One truth at the centre:
- People create god(s) to order their world
- World He orders God to create People
I can also centre it on the fulcrum of “order” (as the shared illusion/revelation), like this:
Desire → People → create → god(s) → to order → their world
World → their → order → to god(s) → create → People → Desire
Or even more compactly, as five reversible units:
People – create – god(s) – to order – world
World – order – to – god(s) – create – People
This is the chiastic genius of Genesis 3:
Eve sees → takes → gives → Adam takes → they hide → God seeks
Flip it:
God seeks → they hide → Adam takes → gives Eve → takes she → saw
Same structure. Two directions.
One leads to alienation;
One leads to reconciliation.
Forward (Anthropological Illusion):
The world needs order.
Man wants control.
Man makes god(s) to justify it.
This is Babel. Rome. Modernity.
This is Genesis 11. Romans 1.
Backward (Theological Reality):
God creates.
Man is made.
Man receives order.
The world is given.
This is Eden. Christ. New Creation.
This is Genesis 1–2. John 1. Revelation 22.
One line.
Two meanings.
One truth at the centre: order.
Forward (Anthropological Idolatry):
Man wants to order
the world,
so he made god
in service of that order.
This is Enlightenment. Empire. The myth of progress.
Man as creator of meaning.
God as utility.
Backward (Theological Reality):
God made
the world
with order,
and placed man within it.
This is Genesis 1–2.
Creation. Commission. Covenant.
God as source, not product.
Both are "true" in their own frame.
But only one is real.
The other is the great inversion.
"Man ordered world made god"
Man asserts order, creates divinity;
And importantly, "God made world, ordered man" is Backwards to Man.
-
Forward = Man imposes order, constructs meaning, deifies it.
-
Backwards = God creates cosmos, assigns order, appoints man.
To Subjective Man:
-
Ordered = man asserts control
-
Ordered = God assigns structure
But turn it— and sings the Word eternal: God. Made. World. Order. Man.
Human projection is:
Man desires control → imposes order → onto world → constructs meaning → names it god.
Divine revelation is:
God made world → world carries order → order forms man.
This work builds toward a full canonical theology of Word and World through a liturgical, poetic, and philosophical unfolding of:
- Genesis 1–3 (fall and formation)
- John 1 (Word and incarnation)
- Romans 1–3 (revelation and wrath)
- Philippians 2 (reversal and glory)
- Revelation 22 (tree and healing)
This is:
Old, not new, older than ancient script etched into stone.
It is a refrain, not just a line.
It mirrors the disorientation of sin and the reversal of grace.
It allows "order" to be the centre—the pivot on which meaning turns.
“Order” is the idol of man.
“Order” is the gift of God.
Only direction reveals the truth.
"Order" is the centre—like a crossbeam.
Why do I say “order” is the centre when the central word is world?
Because while "world" is structurally central, "order" is thematically central—the turning point of meaning. It’s where the sentence bends in intent and where both theological and anthropological readings hinge.
Reading Left to Right (General Revelation):
Man seeks meaning
imposes Order
upon the World
Made sense of it
and called it God
Reading Right to Left (Special Revelation):
God
Made the cosmos
the World
gave it Order
and created Man
"World" is the spine, the battleground, the thing acted upon.
But "order" is the axis of desire:
For man: order is his grasp
For God: order is his gift
The paradox:
The world is centre by structure
But order is centre by sin and Spirit
And in Christ, the true centre is Word
And Order in the centre of the World becomes the cross, signifying the One bearing on the upward inversion in crucifixion.
When not in shorthand, this framework is:
Wo(Man). Order. Wor(l)d. Made. God.
Firstly, (Wo)Man is Anthropological Typology not just a modern gender signal—it encodes the biblical anthropology of the beginning. In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew reads: "bā·rāʾ ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’eṯ hā·’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mə·nū"—"God created the Adam in His image"—and then immediately clarifies: zā·ḵār ū·nə·qê·ḇāh—"male and female He created them." The singular hā·’ā·ḏām encompasses both—the human creature made in relational unity.
In Genesis 2, YHWH God forms hā·’ā·ḏām from the dust, and from his side, brings forth ’iššâ—"woman"—not yet named Eve. She is called "Woman" (from ’îš, man), and is described as bā·śār mê·bā·śā·rî—"flesh of my flesh"—the one through whom union is established. Only after the Fall, in Genesis 3:20, does the man rename her Chawwah (Eve), "the mother of all the living."
But even then, hope is sown: her seed (zera‘) will one day crush the serpent's head (Gen 3:15). From her womb will come the One who will undo the grasp of the forbidden tree. This "He" is the second Adam—Christ—who in union with His bride, the Church (Eph 5:25–32), forms a new humanity. The Church becomes the womb of the Living, through the Spirit-seed of Christ sown in us. Thus, (Wo)Man at the start is not just Eve and Adam, but also the Church and Christ—one flesh, once broken, now redeemed.
Centrally, the stage is the Wor(l)d, where the (l) becomes a pole on which the One hung, becoming this disordered inversion itself, signified by the upward arrow.
This is the Gospel of the Kingdom coming in Christ in the World itself, where the pole turns upside down, following the reordering ascension, and the pole as upward arrow becomes a rightly orientated downward arrow, signifying the One who gives his Spirit at Pentecost:
- Wor(↑)d → Babel rises → Man grasps wisdom → God is crucified
- Wor(↓)d ← Spirit descends ← Word becomes flesh ← The world is given
- At the heart of this chiastic line is Wor(l)d—a word within a word, and a world within a Word. The ambiguous (l) at its centre forms not just a letter, but a pole—the axis of inversion.
- Read anthropocentrically, the (l) rises: a grasping ↑, man lifting his own wisdom, building Babel, hanging Christ. This is the pole of rebellion, the stake of self-made gods.
- But read theologically, the pole is turned: it descends—↓, the Spirit poured out, the Word descending in flesh, the gift of Pentecost.
- Thus the (l) in Wor(l)d becomes the cruciform hinge of all reality: first lifted in crucifixion, then lowered in revelation. The world, once seized, becomes the Word, once given.
The Cruciform Revelation in the Wor(⇅)d
Wo(Man). Order. Wor(⇅)d. Made. God.
At the centre of the chiastic line stands the Wor(⇅)d—a word bifurcated by a pole of glory and grief. This (l) is not merely a consonant—it is the axis of cosmic reversal, the hinge of time, the beam of the cross, and the spout of Pentecost.
Wor(↑↓)d
⬆︎ Cross: Man ascends—grasping, building, killing
⬇︎ Spirit: God descends—giving, healing, dwelling
This is the gospel equilibrium.
On the left:
-
Man builds Babel, reaches for heaven, lifts his own gods
-
The Word is lifted up—on a tree, by rebellion, for redemption
On the right:
-
God sends the Spirit, the Word becomes flesh
-
The order once seized is now given—the descent of divine love
The (⇅) in Wor(⇅)d becomes the vertical symmetry of revelation—a pole with twin arrowheads pointing in both directions:
-
Upward, it becomes the cross—the beam man raises in his striving
-
Downward, it becomes Pentecost—the gift God pours into our dust
So the world, once seized, becomes the Word, once sent.
The pole of rebellion becomes the pillar of grace.
The story reverses—not by force, but by faith.
Summary
This piece is Part 1 of a developing theological-philosophical manifesto exploring a simple five-word sequence—Man. Order. World. Made. God.—as a totalising structure of revelation and reversal. It integrates biblical theology, philosophical anthropology, evolutionary psychology, literary pattern, and canonical typology into a single framework.
It begins with the observation that general revelation and special revelation both tell stories about reality—but in opposite directions.
Through general revelation, Man sees a chaotic world, imposes order, builds myths, makes gods.
Through special revelation, God creates the world in order, makes Man, and reveals Himself.
The five-word palindrome is the crux:
Man → Order → World → Made → God (Anthropology | General Revelation | Fall)
God ← Made ← World ← Order ← Man (Theology | Special Revelation | Redemption)
The structural midpoint is "World"—the contested stage. The thematic midpoint is "Order"—the axis of sin or Spirit.
This work builds toward a full canonical theology of Word and World through a liturgical, poetic, and philosophical unfolding of:
Genesis 1–3 (fall and formation)
John 1 (Word and incarnation)
Romans 1–3 (revelation and wrath)
Philippians 2 (reversal and glory)
Revelation 22 (tree and healing)
Anthropology describes what man does. Theology reveals what God has done.
And the five-word cipher reveals both. Depending on where you start.
This is a riddle in plain speech. Five words—a palindrome of revelation—bearing within them the fracture of man and the faithfulness of God.
Forward, it speaks as man sees: a world in need of order, a god made to secure it. Backward, it reveals as God speaks: a world made with order, and man formed to receive it.
This is the story told in every culture, in every age. And only the reversal makes it true. This is not academic. This is breath. Scripture. Stone. And Spirit.
This post is a preliminary sketch of a full thesis I’m developing, aimed at integrating the one revelation of God who is in and through what he does–says (his world–word), providing a theological–philosophical, theology–anthropology:
Wo(Man). Order. Wor(l)d. Made. God.
This version is presented as structured notes—for publication, reference, minutes, or correspondence.
PART 1 OF N: STRUCTURE, MOTIF, AND DIRECTIONAL CHIASM
Thesis Title
The Reversal at the Root: Word, World, and Wo(Man) – A Canonical, Philosophical, and Anthropological Chiasm of Revelation
I. Thesis Summary Statement
This thesis argues that the five-word sequence:
Wo(Man). Order. Wor(l)d. Made. God.
…functions as a chiastic, canonical, theological, and philosophical cipher that reveals both the pattern of human fallenness and the shape of divine redemption. Read forward (left to right), it captures the anthropological grasp for control through general revelation. Read backward (right to left), it unveils the divine order of creation, special revelation, and the Word made flesh.
This thesis integrates:
-
General and special revelation
-
Anthropological psychology and evolutionary reasoning (via Haidt, Dawkins)
-
Contemporary theological revisionism (via Walton)
-
Canonical fidelity (via Beale)
-
Gendered typology and Christ–Church mystery (via Genesis, Ephesians, Revelation)
-
The logic of epistemology, ontology, and moral anthropology
-
Literary and poetic structuring (chiastic, palindromic, typological, analogical)
II. Chiastic Phrase Structure: The Five-Word Key
Wo(Man). Order. Wor(l)d. Made. God.
A. Chiastic Form
A Wo(Man)
B Order
C Wor(l)d
B’ Made
A’ God
-
Central pivot = Wor(l)d (ambiguity of “world” and “word”)
-
Symmetric movement inward and outward
-
Dual direction reading (left to right: fallen human perspective; right to left: divine revelation)
III. Semantic Dimensions of Each Word
1. Wo(Man)
-
Hebrew background: ish/ishah (Genesis 2)
-
Duality of origin: woman from man, man through woman (1 Cor 11:11–12)
-
Christ–Church typology (Ephesians 5)
-
Encodes: relational anthropology, typology of bride and groom, symbolic of the Church
-
Liminal space between self and other, giver and receiver
2. Order
-
Functionally neutral: either divine gift or idol of control
-
In creation: God orders by speaking (Gen 1)
-
In the fall: man desires control (Gen 3)
-
In society: Haidt describes order as the goal of moral systems
-
Philosophically: logos as structured reason and telos
3. Wor(l)d
-
Central ambiguity: is reality a product (world) or a revelation (word)?
-
Theological dual reference: John 1 (the Word), Romans 1 (the world reveals God)
-
Interpretive crux of epistemology: do we read reality or write over it?
-
Word in world = Incarnation; world without Word = idolatry
4. Made
-
Dual agency: God makes (Gen 1); man makes gods (Rom 1)
-
Christ “was made sin” (2 Cor 5:21) — the redemptive inversion
-
Passive/active contrast across chiastic axis
-
Anthropological expression of power (Dawkins: memetic construction)
5. God
-
The object of worship in the top reading (man → god)
-
The subject of creation in the bottom reading (God → man)
-
Climax of theological reversal: either our invention or our Creator
IV. Directionality and the Epistemic Divide
Forward (Left to Right): Fallen Perspective
Wo(Man) ⇨ Order ⇨ Wor(l)d ⇨ Made ⇨ God
-
Man, in search of meaning, constructs gods to impose order on the world
-
General revelation interpreted through sin leads to idolatry
-
Haidt: “Groups create supernatural beings to order their societies”
-
Subjective anthropology: coherence > truth
-
Romans 1: Suppression of truth → corruption of perception
Reverse (Right to Left): Redemptive Revelation
God ⇦ Made ⇦ Wor(l)d ⇦ Order ⇦ Wo(Man)
-
God speaks → creation forms → world receives order → man is formed
-
Special revelation corrects false perception
-
John 1: “In the beginning was the Word”
-
Romans 3: “But now the righteousness of God has been revealed…”
V. Theological Figures Interpreted Within the Chiasm
Jonathan Haidt (Agnostic Anthropologist)
-
Representative of general revelation’s fallen clarity
-
Sees religion as a psychological-social adaptation
-
Quote: “Groups create supernatural beings not to explain the universe, but to order their societies.”
-
Confirms Romans 1 pattern, without explaining why it exists
John H. Walton (Compromised Christian Hermeneutic)
-
Reinterprets Genesis 3 as “wisdom literature” devoid of original sin
-
Quote: “Genesis 3 is not about sin and punishment, but about a choice of wisdom and the consequences of that choice.”
-
Aligns Scripture to anthropology, not vice versa
-
Embodies Revelation 2’s “Jezebel” accommodation within the Church
G.K. Beale (Canonical Theological Integrity)
-
Interprets Genesis 3 as redemptive history’s launch point
-
Quote: “The rest of Scripture is the outworking of Genesis 3…”
-
Upholds Christ-centred canonical coherence
-
Reads the world through the Word
VI. Gender Typology and the Mystery of Christ
-
Wo(Man) = Eve and Adam, Bride and Bridegroom
-
Genesis 2: Woman taken from man’s side
-
Ephesians 5: Church taken from Christ’s side
-
Revelation 21: Bride adorned for her husband
-
Circular image: woman from man → man born of woman → both fulfilled in the One Man (Christ)
VII. Scriptural Intertext: Canonical Mirror Table
| Theme | Genesis | Romans | John | Philippians | Revelation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creation | Gen 1:1–2:3 | Rom 1:20 | John 1:1–3 | — | Rev 21:1 |
| Fall | Gen 3:6 | Rom 1:21–25 | John 1:10 | Phil 2:6–8 | Rev 2:20–22 |
| Reversal | Gen 3:15 | Rom 3:21 | John 1:14 | Phil 2:9–11 | Rev 22:1–2 |
| Bride | Gen 2:22 | — | — | — | Rev 21:9 |
| Word | Gen 1:3 | — | John 1:1 | — | Rev 19:13 |
Interpretive note: This table is not just textual but conceptual—mapping themes from origin to fulfillment, showing that what anthropology and history observe, the Word explains.
PART 2 OF N: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR UNBELIEVERS AND COMPROMISED BELIEF
VIII. Philosophical-Theological Framework (For Believers, Agnostics, and Atheists)
This section restates core theological claims using philosophical and existential reasoning, to speak convincingly to:
-
The agnostic mind (e.g. Jonathan Haidt)
-
The atheistic scientist or moral naturalist (e.g. Richard Dawkins)
-
The compromising biblical revisionist (e.g. John Walton)
These categories are not enemies—they are types of incomplete vision. Each represents a partial truth distorted by epistemological closure.
A. Ontology – What Is Reality?
“The structure of being is not symmetrical. Man cannot mirror God by constructing. Creation is given, not grasped.”
-
Premise: Reality is either self-caused, uncaused, or caused by another. If uncaused (a brute fact), it defies intelligibility. If self-caused, it collapses into paradox (nothing causes itself). Therefore, reality must be caused by an external, necessary, rational source.
-
Philosophical Analogy: You cannot be the author of your own existence without a prior frame. This is not just a theological axiom—it is a metaphysical principle.
-
Applied to the chiasm:
-
“Made God” (manward direction) implies that the highest reality is a product of the self.
-
But logically, a god that is made is not God.
-
Thus, being must be received before it can be known or interpreted.
-
B. Epistemology – How Do We Know?
“We either read the world through the Word, or use the world to distort the Word.”
-
Kantian Frame: All human knowledge is mediated through categories. But those categories are themselves unprovable—assumed. This creates a gap between phenomenon (what appears) and noumenon (what is).
-
Biblical Convergence: Romans 1 confirms: man has seen, but does not perceive, because truth is suppressed by will.
-
Haidt’s Contribution: Reason is not primary. Moral judgments are intuitive. We make decisions and then rationalise them. This affirms the biblical insight that the heart governs the eye.
-
Philosophical Consequence: True knowledge must come from a source outside the fallen interpretive grid. Otherwise, all meaning is self-reinforcing and circular.
-
Theological Implication: Revelation is not irrational—it is epistemically necessary.
C. Anthropology – What Is the Human Condition?
“The self seeks order for safety, power, and belonging—but apart from God, this becomes domination.”
-
Observable Truth: Across cultures, we see humans ordering their world through myth, ritual, taboo, governance, and law. Haidt confirms: the purpose is not explanation but cohesion.
-
Genesis 3 Framing: Eve sees, desires, takes, gives—acts of autonomous self-definition.
-
Romans 1 Framing: We exchange Creator for creation, truth for image, worship for technique. This is not primitive religion; it is modern secularism.
-
Dawkins’ Blind Spot: He assumes that moral evolution leads to truth. But why should a survival mechanism lead to moral meaning? Is does not imply ought.
-
Walton’s Blind Spot: He assumes that mythological similarity justifies genre reassignment. But this eliminates the Bible’s historical truth claims, turning it into mere cultural data.
-
Philosophical Synthesis: Anthropology without ontology leads to relativism. But if there is a transcendent source of being and purpose, human desire must be realigned—not indulged.
D. Christology – What Is True Power?
“Jesus is the only one who did not grasp at order, but gave himself—and was given all.”
-
Philippians 2:6–11 is the cosmic reversal of Genesis 3:
-
Adam: grasped at wisdom → fell
-
Christ: did not grasp → was exalted
-
-
Philosophical Weight: This is a meta-ethic: in a cosmos of domination, only self-emptying love can break the cycle.
-
Applied Universally: The logic of redemption does not rest on theology alone. It speaks to:
-
Political theory (power must be restrained by love)
-
Psychology (self-assertion cannot produce joy)
-
Metaphysics (the highest truth is not force but kenosis)
-
-
Relevance to Dawkins: Christ’s self-giving love subverts the genetic self-interest he champions. It does not “make sense” biologically—which is precisely the point: truth transcends utility.
IX. The Centre: The Word in the World
“Wor(l)d” — The Cruciform Pivot
-
The world is not silent. It speaks (Ps 19, Rom 1).
-
But the Word also became flesh (John 1:14).
-
In that convergence lies the mystery of revelation.
“The world is a word. The Word is in the world. But the world did not know him.” (cf. John 1:10)
This is epistemological irony: we live inside a sentence we refuse to read.
X. Interpretive Summary: What the Chiasm Teaches
Top Reading:
Wo(Man) ⇨ Order ⇨ Wor(l)d ⇨ Made ⇨ God
= Fallen anthropology: man makes gods to create order in a chaotic world.
-
Correlates with:
-
Haidt’s moral group formation
-
Dawkins’ memetic theory
-
Foucault’s power epistemology
-
-
Philosophical Error:
-
Assumes control leads to coherence
-
Ignores dependency of mind on being
-
Denies givenness of truth
-
Bottom Reading:
God ⇦ Made ⇦ Wor(l)d ⇦ Order ⇦ Wo(Man)
= Redemptive theology: God creates the world through Word, gives order, forms man.
-
Correlates with:
-
Classical metaphysics (Aquinas, Augustine)
-
Logos theology (John 1)
-
Canonical structure (Genesis → Revelation)
-
-
Philosophical Clarity:
-
Truth precedes understanding
-
Love precedes law
-
Word precedes world
-
PART 3: From World to Word—How the Theocentric Explains the Anthropocentric
I. Reality and the Rift in Vision
Haidt’s anthropology is compelling not because it’s wrong, but because it’s incomplete. He names the pattern: people create gods to order their world. And indeed, from within a closed anthropological system—this appears to be true. Religion functions as scaffolding. The gods we name serve moral cohesion. Meaning, from the inside, appears manufactured by minds and maintained by myth.
But what if that inside—the human world of moral reasoning, social bonding, religious symbolism—is not a creation of meaning, but a reception of meaning?
This is the theocentric inversion:
Not that people create gods to order their world,
but that God created the world to order His people.
Haidt sees rightly that moral patterns and sacred structures appear universally. But he concludes: this must be human projection. Why? Because he begins with man as the measure. He is not asking whether the gods are real—he is asking what people do with the idea of gods. In that sense, he’s not wrong. But it is the wrong question if one wants an explanation, not merely a description. What he gives us is an account of how people treat the sacred—but not what the sacred actually is.
So we must now ask the deeper question: What if general revelation is being misread as myth because the reader refuses special revelation as interpretive lens?
II. The Inversion of Revelation: From Seeing to Being
In my thesis, this is where the fault line will be laid bare. Because anthropology has a limit. It can describe human acts. It can name sacred behaviours. It can even correlate them with evolutionary advantage. But it cannot ask what those behaviours mean—not ontologically. Because it cannot speak of Being.
This is the insight from my observation that needs explicit expression:
Anthropology offers behavioural causality.
Theology offers ontological grounding.
That distinction matters, because without grounding, all moral analysis is floating—weightless, without source, without end. As Haidt says, morality binds and blinds. But he does not ask what it binds us to. Or what blinds us from the Light.
The theocentric claim is not an overlay. It is a disclosure. It doesn’t add God to the system. It opens the system to what was already present but unseen. Revelation is not projection—it is intrusion. The Word breaks the world open.
Thus, the theocentric account does not challenge Haidt’s anthropology. It explains it—by situating it as general revelation, distorted by desire, clarified by grace.
III. The Chiasmic Structure of Explanation
To integrate this with the deeper structure of my thesis, here is my central chiastic observation:
Wo(Man) → Order → Wor(l)d → Made → God
God → Made → Wor(l)d → Order → Wo(Man)
This chiastic movement shows why the anthropocentric vision alone cannot suffice. It ends with Wo(Man). But the theological vision begins and ends with God. The centre of the chiasm is the Word–World axis. That’s where the two views either diverge or reconcile.
• The anthropologist sees the world and traces back to man.
• The theologian sees the Word and traces out to the world.
This reversal is not mere poetry—it is philosophical necessity. You cannot ground an infinite regress of meaning in finite observers. To say we invented morality is like saying the mirror made the face. The structure of the world—moral, meaningful, relational—is not a product of man. It is the reflection of Being itself.
That’s what theology means by “image of God.” Not a religious sentiment. An ontological claim: morality is not a social construct. It is the imprint of Reality on a creature made to receive and reflect the Good.
IV. Summary so far
Anthropology, as exemplified in Jonathan Haidt’s work, provides a powerful descriptive framework for human moral behaviour. It offers insight into how moral systems emerge and how societies cohere around sacred values. However, this model remains within a closed anthropocentric frame: it can observe moral behaviour, but it cannot explain morality’s existence.
The theological perspective does not deny Haidt’s observations—it interprets them as general revelation: fragments of truth available through human conscience and culture, yet distorted by desire and limited by perspective. The theocentric view offers an ontological grounding: morality exists not merely to preserve group cohesion, but because humanity is made in the image of a moral and personal Creator.
In this light, religious practice is not primarily the invention of gods to order the world, but the reflection of a deeper order—the Word through whom the world was made. Thus, the theocentric account explains the anthropocentric pattern not by contradicting it, but by completing it. It moves from behaviour to Being, from projection to presence, from man’s view of God to God’s revelation to man.
From Projection to Revelation (Integrating Haidt, General Revelation, and Ontological Grounding)
V. Haidt and the Mirror of General Revelation
In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt makes a stunningly honest admission:
“Groups create supernatural beings not to explain the universe, but to order their societies.”
This is not a misreading. It is an example of general revelation functioning without special revelation. It recognises that religion plays a role in cohesion, meaning, and order. But it assigns the origin of the gods to human need, rather than divine initiative.
This is exactly what Romans 1 anticipates. Paul writes:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile… and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being…” (Rom 1:21–23)
Haidt’s anthropology is a truthful distortion. It sees the pattern (people create gods to establish moral order), but it does not see that this pattern is itself the result of the Fall. It is reversed vision—man interpreting the world without the Word.
Thus, the Haidtian anthropocentric model can be affirmed as descriptively accurate within its scope, but epistemically inverted when it comes to metaphysical interpretation.
VI. General Revelation as Inverted Light
Here, I build from my reflection that Chiasmic Revelation addresses both Observation & Objectivity:
“General revelation is real, but like the sun through tinted glass, it illuminates dimly when viewed through desire. Only special revelation allows true sight.”
This insight allows us to reframe anthropology not as rival to theology, but as broken mirror of it. What Haidt describes is not fiction—it is the shadow cast by the real. His data is valid. His explanation lacks horizon.
This leads to a theological axiom:
Anthropology is general revelation misread through desire.
Theology is general revelation interpreted through the Word.
Thus, when Haidt sees morality emerging from social need, we say: yes, that’s the symptom. But the cause is deeper—morality emerges because we are moral creatures, made by a moral Creator whose nature we image, even in distortion.
This harmonises with my reflections on Materialism and Ethical Value, where I observe:
“If pain is merely neural activity, why should it matter? Ethics requires an ontological claim—something that goes beyond observation.”
Here, again, Haidt falters not because he fails to see, but because he refuses to speak about Being. As I observe:
“We can know how we act—but not why it matters—unless the source of morality lies outside us.”
VII. The Projection Critique Answered: The Euthyphro Response
In Experiencing God, Being, Consciousness, Bliss, David Bentley Hart addresses the Euthyphro Dilemma; the old philosophical challenge:
“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”
This challenge assumes an external standard of morality—something God must either follow or invent. But my reply to this (rightly) collapses this binary by asserting:
“God is goodness—not a being who commands good, but Being who is Good.”
This collapses the false dichotomy between projection and revelation. It shows that:
-
God does not invent morality
-
Nor does God conform to morality
-
Rather, God is the ground of all that is good and true
From this foundation, the theocentric account not only explains the anthropological pattern—it explains why morality itself is possible.
To Haidt, religion is an invention of order.
To the Christian, religion is the reflection of the Orderer.
To the atheist, morality is an adaptive illusion.
To the theist, it is a broken echo of divine love.
VIII. Philosophical Clarification: Is the Theocentric Just Another Myth?
A common critique is that the theological model is just one more explanatory narrative—another myth among myths. But this critique assumes that all claims arise from within the same epistemic field. Christianity, however, does not claim to be a projection. It claims to be a revelation—a voice from outside the system, breaking into the closed loop of human desire.
The Ontological Argument for God supports this with a key framing:
“If reality is entirely contingent—if it could have failed to exist—then reason itself collapses. But reason exists. Therefore, something necessary must exist to ground it.”
This necessary ground is Being itself—not a being among beings, but the source of all beings.
Thus, theology does not compete with anthropology. It grounds it.
Anthropology asks what people do.
Theology answers what people are.
Anthropology explains behaviour.
Theology explains Being.
IX. The Chiasmic Reversal Diagram — From Desire to Being
We now integrate all prior insights into the core diagram that expresses the inversion at the heart of revelation. The structure shows two directions of meaning: one anthropocentric, one theocentric. Both are built on the same observable pattern. But they move in opposite directions—one away from, one toward, Reality.
(General Revelation, through desire) (Special Revelation, through Spirit)
───────────────────────────────────── ─────────────────────────────────────
Wo(Man) ⇨ Order ⇨ Wor(l)d ⇨ Made ⇨ God ⇦ God ⇦ Made ⇦ Wor(l)d ⇦ Order ⇦ Wo(Man)
Interpretive Key:
-
Wo(Man): Humanity, both male and female, representing embodied self-consciousness. Either projecting (forward) or receiving (reverse).
-
Order: The human impulse to structure, protect, and direct life. Either as imposed power or as given form.
-
Wor(l)d: The central ambiguity—do we interpret reality as our world or God’s Word? It is both the pivot and the battleground.
-
Made: In anthropocentrism, we make gods. In theocentrism, God makes us.
-
God: Either the product of projection (idol), or the source of Being (reality).
This structure embodies the mirror of general revelation (seen from inside the system) and the light of special revelation (spoken from outside it). Together they form a canonical chiasm.
X. Summary of Theological and Philosophical Integration
XI. Final Framing: Why This Matters
This section provides a bridge to Part 4 by highlighting the practical and pastoral importance of getting this right—not just academically, but spiritually.
-
In a secular world, the temptation is to see religion as function, not truth.
-
In a compromised church, the danger is to reshape theology to fit anthropology.
-
But in the gospel, the invitation is to be reordered by the Word made flesh.
As my reflections on Morality and Truth rightly insist:
“Everything points to the same thing—they’re just pointing in different directions.”
The goal is not to deny Haidt’s vision—but to turn it around. The truth is not that we made God to order our world, but that God made the world to order us. Anthropology is a mirror. Theology is a window.
Part 4: The Tree of Wisdom and the Epistemic Fall
I. Genesis as Ground Zero: Desire and Direction
The phrase “epistemic fall” refers to the core theological insight of this thesis: that the original sin in Genesis 3 was not merely moral disobedience, but an epistemological inversion—a reversal in how truth is known. Rather than receiving reality through the Word (revelation), humanity attempted to grasp it apart from God, leading to distorted vision. This section explores how that inversion—from revelation to projection—continues in modern anthropology and moral philosophy, and how it is reversed in Christ.
In the beginning, God spoke—and the world was. Order was not seized, it was given. The Word preceded the world, and the world bore the Word's shape.
But the Fall introduces a reversal—not of existence, but of vision.
“The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes… so she took…” (Genesis 3:6)
Here lies the origin of anthropocentrism:
-
Seeing replaces hearing (revelation ignored)
-
Desire replaces trust (goodness redefined)
-
Taking replaces receiving (order grasped, not given)
In short: epistemic rebellion. Not ignorance, but a new claim to know.
This is not incidental—it is the structure of sin: a reversal of the direction of revelation. And it is exactly the structure Haidt (unknowingly) affirms. Man creates gods to order his world. That is the Fall in five words.
But the theological insight here is not just that this happened. It is that this keeps happening—and anthropology names the pattern, while theology names the cause.
II. Haidt’s Mirror as Reenactment of Genesis 3
Haidt’s claim, again:
“Groups create supernatural beings not to explain the universe, but to order their societies.”
This is not a description of early religion—it is a reenactment of Genesis 3.
-
Eve sees → man sees patterns
-
Eve desires → man desires order
-
Eve takes → man constructs gods
-
Eve gives → man passes myths
-
All for one purpose: to survive in a world without trust in the Word
Thus, anthropology is not merely a neutral science. It is a witness—to the structure of fallen sight.
In Romans 1, Paul confirms this:
“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator…” (Rom 1:25)
And again:
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools…” (Rom 1:22)
This is the epistemology of the Fall: wisdom without the Word. Order without obedience. Being without gift.
III. Wisdom and the Grasping Eye
To link this to canonical Christology, we now turn to Philippians 2:
“Though he was in very nature God, [Christ] did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself…”
Here, Christ does what Adam would not:
He does not take. He receives.
He does not ascend. He descends.
He does not grasp wisdom. He is Wisdom.
Thus, the reversal of the fall is not merely ethical. It is epistemic. Jesus restores the proper posture of knowing—by trusting, not grasping.
Where Eve reached for wisdom apart from the Word,
Christ reveals the Word as wisdom made flesh.
IV. John’s Gospel: The Word Rejected and Received
“The true light… was coming into the world…
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him,
the world did not know him.” (John 1:9–10)
This is the chiasm again:
-
The Word made the world.
-
The world did not recognise the Word.
John is telling us: Revelation is not missing. It is misread.
And the only remedy is not more seeing—but receiving.
“To all who received him… he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12)
This is the reversal of the reversal.
Not new data. New direction.
V. Revelation 22: The Tree Restored
In Eden, the tree of life was not taken.
In Christ, the tree becomes a cross—and is given.
In Revelation, the tree returns—for the healing of the nations.
“On either side of the river stood the tree of life… bearing fruit… and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Rev 22:2)
And so the canon closes with the final chiasm:
-
Eden’s order grasped → Babel’s confusion → Cross’s surrender → Kingdom’s healing
The world that was lost by grasping is restored by giving.
VI. Summary of this Thesis
The theological narrative does not deny the anthropological pattern—it explains its origin. Genesis 3 is not a primitive myth. It is a structural x-ray of the human condition. From the moment humanity sought wisdom apart from the Word, we reversed the direction of revelation. We moved from receiving to grasping, from trust to control, from being to making. Anthropology names this pattern. Theology names its meaning. Christ reverses its power. In him, the Word is no longer ignored—but received. The cross becomes the tree, and desire is reordered. What began with a grasp ends with a gift.
To be continued...stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment