Today I’m inaugurating for this blog a special series that I’ve been contemplating for months now. As might be evident from some of my tangential or mountainous discussions of certain concepts in my articles (i.e., discussions that seem long-winded or to be strained summations/filtrations of far more complex ideas I’ve floating in me noggin’) there’s many things I want to share and flesh out in my articles. These are ideas that are integral to how I process theology, philosophy, history, and the whole gamut of my Weltanschauung. Whether because I simply don’t have the time to spell these things out on my own, or because I feel that others have done it far better than I have (often both), these primers will be a hub for secondary sources that have personally influenced me and spell out the concepts I’m intrigued and defined by in a great fashion. It’s simply a way to save me some legwork, give credit where credit’s due, and direct my readers to information I really need us to be on the same page about so my arguments and intellectual pontifications make more sense. The divine council worldview is one, virtue ethics is another, and in today’s inaugural series of The Ruminatrix Primers we will focus on perhaps my most significant doctrine: communal ontology.
Communal ontology is a view of the nature of human beings, reality, and even God Himself that, most simply, addresses the ancient philosophical issue of “the One and the Many.” In other words, is the ontological foundation of reality monistic or pluralistic? Do all things, as the Neoplatonists asserted, reduce down to one fundamental substance (the Monad/Absolute) or, rather, as ontologically pluralist systems would affirm (like postmodernism or relativism) is there, at most, no overarching, single, fundamental principle, but only a patchwork of overlapping interconnected ontologies ineluctably leading from one to another? There are various observations (rational, intuitional, and empirical) that lead persons to one or the other metaphysic, for the immense soup of disparate human egos seems to be pluralistic, but cosmic principles (such as the empirical observation of the primordial singularity) seem to affirm a singular source and foundation for all things. What’s true, what isn’t?
Communal ontology enters the ring and knocks both contenders out by positing an insightful and enlightening middle way that affirms plurality as well as unity. The underlying impetus for developing a communal ontology, as well as possessing one, is found in the Trinity, the theological starting point for many fellow travelers of this school. The Godhead, which is the fundamental reality as the Creator of reality (the Author of all things), is Triune, which means that in the very underlying foundation of all things we find a resolution between the One (the single divine Being) and the Many (the threefold divine Persons). In the words of the Athanasian Creed, “So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.” Three in One, One in Three. The Trinity is the pinnacle of maintaining distinction while also preserving unity. If all of reality is grounded upon this, shouldn’t all of reality reflect this as well?
A wonderful illustration that I’ve devised for explaining how the many can be one and the one many incorporates my own appreciation for classical art. Take any work of that category, a Rembrandt, a Monet, a Velázquez, a Caravaggio, or whoever, and contemplate its brushstrokes. We’ll use, for the sake of an example, a more modern yet equally talented piece: Gray Mountain by Bob Ross. Gray Mountain, which serves as the main image for this article, is a perfect example (although, truly, any classical painting by any of the artists I just listed are as well) of what I’m getting at. Notice that this painting uses thirteen different colors, many of which you can identify by quickly glancing at the painting (yellow, white, green, blue, etc.). Yet, all the same, we see one painting, correct? Thirteen different colors come together in a variety of ways to produce one entity, a mountainscape. Yet, at the same time as we perceive the one mountainscape we must perceive the thirteen different elements, for the yellows, reds, whites, greens, etc. are unmistakable. In much similar fashion to how St. Gregory Nanzianzen spoke of the Trinity (“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One”),1 as soon as we apprehend the one mountainscape we are enraptured by the thirteeness of the palette. This is more appropriate as an analogy for humankind than it is the Trinity because the colors of the painting are not consubstantial, like humans, unlike the Trinity, so, accordingly, all the “disparate” persons that make up mankind (the billions of us altogether, the hundreds of us in regular community) are, as a whole, like the mountainscape, a beautiful ensemble of numerous elements. You, I, your parents, your neighbors, my colleagues, our greater communities that we belong to are the yellows, reds, whites, blacks, greens, and other intrinsic colors that make up the whole painting.
The significance of communal ontology to my thinking is various, but a few specific and key reasons can be named. First, and most original, it’s allowed me to understand human beings more appropriately, making sense of how to keep us unified without falling into a snare of collectivism, and also understanding where we’ve gone wrong as a society, a why I’ve attributed to the atomization (depersonalization) of our society (each person being a tempest-tossed ego amount a million others with no true, substantial connections, due to either radical individualism or collectivism).2 Secondly, it’s allowed me to foster a far more complete and edifying understanding of the Trinity, for the theo-philosophical work that has been done on communal ontology has tended to focus on these two matters: Christian (Trinitarian) anthropology and Christian Triadology.
By understanding the communion of Persons that is the Trinity, and by extension how this communion applies to humanity, I’ve come to learn invaluable theological and biblical truths. Thirdly, communal ontology has, over time, evolved beyond its original applications to the Godhead and has begun to inform various different aspects of reality, showing how communality/interrelation/Threeness-in-Oneness can illuminate just about all of Creation, which has proven very insightful and enlightening for me. Fourth, as I’ve gone further with communal ontology I’ve found it popping up more and more in my other studies, which shows that, however incipiently, numerous theologians of all walks of life realize just how important a communal ontology (even if they don’t know to call it that) is. For example, Carl Trueman, in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (which relates to my first point), wrote the following about human nature and our interrelations:
[I]ndividual personal identity is not ultimately an internal monologue conducted in isolation by an individual self-consciousness. On the contrary, it is a dialogue between self-conscious beings. We each know ourselves as we know other people.3
That is textbook communal ontology, and, of course, Trueman is not an isolated example. Communal ontology, then, has proven integral to the revolution, transformation, and completion of my worldview, for it makes room (and explains where that room comes from) for all sorts of wonders. To borrow the words of C.S. Lewis, “I believe in [communal ontology] as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”4
Like I said earlier, I can only be pushed so far in fleshing out all this, although in the instances in which I have (like earlier) I believe I do a decent job. It is thus my interest to present you to those voices that have done a far more excellent and comprehensive job in explaining and defending what communal ontology is. First and foremost I must commend to you Treydon Lunot, the man through whom I first discovered communal ontology who, as far as I know, is the very originator of this term “communal ontology.” Lunot, an Eastern Orthodox lay theologian, operates a Substack (like me) called “Telosbound,” (the telos in question being our eternal Trinitarian communion with God) along with a YouTube channel of the same name. On either platform Lunot has published [video] essays explaining communal ontology and applying it to a variety of subject matters (much like I have), such as time and epistemology. Depending on your preference (for watching or reading) you can go to either his blog or channel, but either contains most of the same information (for his YT you can find his communal ontology playlist here, and for his Substack you can find his communal ontology archive here). Lunot is definitely your go-to, as, again, he’s responsible for much of my own understanding.
Beyond Lunot himself there are not many other names I can think of, for, as I mentioned, Lunot is the main proponent of this here in cyberspace. Granted, there are interlocutors of his who’ve commented on the main tenets of communal ontology, although insofar as they’ve directly interacted with Lunot, more so presenting his thinking to their audiences than creating original contributions (I don’t mean to sound harsh, all I mean is that they’re simply propagating Lunot’s work, much like I am). Seraphim Hamilton, another Orthodox writer, has gotten close in producing his video essay “Scripture and Symbol,” an independent production that complements Lunot’s “The Sacrality of the Mundane” (an essay that resonated with me so much, namely in reciprocating the independent studies I’d been doing into beauty and the sacramentality of Creation, I immediately purchased the book the essay was inspired by, James Jordan’s Through New Eyes). Although, truly, once we go beyond Lunot not much remains except what I feel is the oncoming proliferation of original communal ontology studies owing to Lunot’s work in the near-future, leaving us with the primary sources Lunot works with in developing his thinking.
These sources are primarily the treatises of leading Eastern Orthodox theologians of the past century, namely Dumitru Staniloae, John Zizioulas, Sophrony of Essex, Pavel Florensky, along with a few other names (mainly Church Fathers, like Gregory Nanzianzen, Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, even Augustine), Zizioulas is probably the most well-known among these names, owing to his prominent role in the Orthodox Church (as a bishop of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and a committed ecumenist, leading to numerous dialogues with the Protestant and Catholic Western Christian worlds, making his name known among them; I’ve seen Zizioulas in the indices of more Western Christian works than any other Eastern Orthodox theologian, perhaps with the exception of Kallistos Ware). Zizioulas’s main, integral contribution to communal ontology is found in his book Being as Communion (there is also Communion and Otherness, which I’ve heard good things about, although without having read it), which is very appropriately named, although this primarily refers to the first 40-page essay in the book, the rest being an application of this main theo-philosophical discussion to different ecclesiastical, dogmatic, and liturgical issues (although all equally as insightful). Zizioulas’ main thesis in the book is summed up in this following statement of his:
The being of God is a relational being: without the concept of communion it would not be possible to speak of the being of God. … The substance of God, “God,” has no ontological content, no true being, apart from communion.5
No wonder this is a foundational text of communal ontology. Lunot himself recommends numerous texts as important to communal ontology, many from the writers listed earlier, such as those by Dumitru Staniloae, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, particularly his book Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God, volume one in Staniloae’s series on Orthodox dogmatic theology, “The Experience of God.” Beyond these Lunot recommends sixteen additional primary sources from a variety of authors, some non-Orthodox (affirming the unconscious universality of communal ontology I mentioned earlier), such as:
David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite
Gregory Palamas, (particularly) The Triads
Nikolaus Loudovikos, Eucharistic Ontology
Peter Leithart, Traces of the Trinity
and, Sophrony of Essex, We Shall See Him As He Is.
I am confident in all of these, although I don’t own all, and am particularly intrigued by Loudovikos’ Eucharistic Ontology. Since the Eucharist is a true participation in the Body and Blood of Christ,6 the mystical means through which we the saints are confirmed as one Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-31), then a “Eucharistic ontology” makes sense as explaining how we are communified as many into One through Christ. Accordingly, I hope to make Loudovikos’ work the next focus of my study (if I can get around to clearing some of my backlog anytime soon).
Furthermore, I’ll, myself, provide a few recommendations, particularly the works in which I’ve noticed the most (insightful) correspondences with Lunot’s communal ontology. First, and more explicitly, is a little-known book from the 1990s called The Call to Personhood by Alistair McFadyen, which was actually what sent me down this path in the first place. Earlier this year I was interested in the study of mankind I mentioned earlier, especially to make sense of decadent modernity, and had independently concocted the idea that “community” was where my answer lied, so I began looking into works that identified humans as communal/social entities. McFadyen’s was the most promising book I came across (it’s not a perfect book, but perfect in fulfilling my desires and in prototypically formulating a communal ontology, only erring in its author’s social-liberal tendencies), so I purchased it, and certain insights from the book spurred on my research, in which I discovered Zizioulas’ work, was more fully introduced to the Eastern Orthodox world, and then found Lunot through searching for commentaries on Zizioulas’ philosophy. McFadyen contains many observations, theories, and concepts that appear to me, now, as inchoate, yet isolated, Western Protestant formulations of communal-ontological thinking, which continues to strike me as incredible. Other than McFadyen, I also recommend Christopher Watkins’ Biblical Critical Theory, which I discovered under the same desires that led me to McFadyen, and, upon reading, found a very illuminating (and, later, harmonious) discussion of the Trinity and what its implications are for cosmic, human, societal, and soteriological realities. Third and finally, I direct you to Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity, a Reformed Protestant textbook on (biblical, theological, and historical) Triadology which interacts far more openly and readily with Eastern Orthodox theology (and, thus, important progenitors of communal ontology such as Staniloae and Bulgakov) than most other Western Christian theology books I’ve read (which is what like 80% of my library consists of).
Start, if anywhere, with Lunot’s essays. From there, after familiarizing yourself with these lay-level treatments and insightful articulations, then I advise you move onto the heavier, upstream material, like Zizioulas and McFadyen (although McFadyen is a good starting point for primary sources as well). However you go about it, I implore you to simply go about it, for I am immensely confident that you’ll find it as insightful as I have, and that you’ll not only come to appreciate more of what I have to say (and why I’m saying it) but you yourself will be able to see things by communal ontology much like I have. Thank you for your time, I hope this has proven enlightening, and God bless.
St. Gregory of Nanzianzus, “Select Orations,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, vol. 7, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 375.
Concerning why collectivism doesn’t provide genuine bonds between persons, and thus why communal ontology is a superior alternative, I’ll be publishing an article about that in the near future.
Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, 56. I found many correspondences with communal-ontological thinking across much of pp. 56-61 of Trueman’s work, which was quite fascinating the first time I spotted them.
Although, since I believe communal ontology is inalienable from and essential to Christian theology I suppose Lewis’ original wording would work just fine (although only to those in-the-know, to those who know that by “Christianity” I mean “a Christianity informed by communal ontology”; “informed by” can also make it sound a bit too extraneous to Christianity, so I again emphasize that communal ontology is one and the same with Christian theology).
John Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 17.
See, esp., Richard Barcellos, The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace.