The Ladder Tearing: 

A Christopoietic Rejection of Ascent without Neighbor Bearing...and of DB Hart's Platonic-Inf(l)ected Teaching

Douglas Blake Olds

17 November 2025

There is a certain kind of metaphysician—learned, serenely confident, mistaking the florid for the elegant—who peers at the world’s formal splendor and mistakes its shimmering surfaces for truth. He believes the universe climbs a ladder: physics to psyche, psyche to nous (or v.v. when what is “presupposed” slips its rung), nous to the One. He names this ascent “order,” and calls its rungs “irreducibility.” He supposes that by describing desire’s upward reach, he has spoken of infinite goodness rather than finite conceit. He speaks of divine complexity as if it reveals covenant; of emergence as if it were responsibility; of metaphysical hierarchy as if it were wisdom. He presupposes far too much of what is knowable about the attributes of God, that his pattern allows the heart to be buried of its concern for neighbor. He writes decoratively, intending bouquets of what is already vulgarly assumed, the slop decorum of undestining solace. He recoils from the liberal protestant with a sneer of challenge.[1] Because we know how to say, “NEIN!” So that in the end, both in terms of his looping rhetoric of solace and critical rejection, readers suffer through a jibing sea of the most orotund, atelic apophaticism with never a sand of shore in view.

 

ABSTRACT: In his substack essay, “Entropy and the Metaphysics of Morals,”[2] DB Hart offers a layered argument against physicalist reductionism. It claims that higher-order phenomena—consciousness, culture, moral intentionality—cannot be explained by physics alone. It further invokes a Neoplatonic structure: psyche presupposes nous, and nous presupposes the One. In doing so, the passage rejects both mechanistic materialism and secular emergentism.

At first glance, this seems sympathetic to the longstanding critiques of reductive metaphysics, particularly its insistence that semantic and ethical life exceeds the explanatory scope of physical processes (a spiritual articulation of Goedel’s Theorem at the very least). However, upon closer analysis, the metaphysical architecture of Hart’s essay diverges sharply from the Shema-Christological, conative, covenantal theology I have articulated in the runup to the eschaton’s epochal shift.[3] Hart’s reliance on analogical ascent, noetic hierarchy, and an emanationist metaphysics places it within the analogia entis tradition—one Barthian Protestants reject as a metaphysical bypass of ethical embodiment and divine conation revealed by the Gospel witness.

This essay examines those convergences and divergences, and then considers the metaphysical implications of the differences when judged.

DB Hart’s Metaphysics of Morals

In this most recent essay, Hart performs an adumbrative sleight ornamented by patristics’ summons. He dissects the inadequacies of reductive physicalism, rightly challenging the claims of materialist ontology to explain moral intentionality, cultural creation, or aesthetic meaning through thermodynamic processes alone. The argument intends a clear rebuke to the sterile terminus of secular emergence, gesturing toward a reality irreducible to quantification. This gesture waves at those of us who insist on the irreducible reality of meaning, the semantic integrity of the Logos, and the moral demands of creation.

But what Hart giveth with one hand, he recovers with another—processing not through the heart of covenantal relations (cf. Jeremiah 31-34) that heal and repair but into the polished spirals of Neoplatonic emanation with effete if not tragic ethics. For Hart, psyche implies nous, nous implies the One, and the One remains beyond all differentiation except by logic of ascent, of metaphysical launch: a mis-sequenced anthropology eager to jump into full cognitive modes of discernment—theorizing--of theoretical dramas taking place.

Hart’s anti-materialist thrust is his critique of entropy, but one that does not yield to incarnational poiesis as Spirit but rather recoils into abstraction, and in so doing reverses the anthropological attainment of human immanence as earthbound trustee and divine imager. While Hart grants that physics cannot account for ethical or artistic depth, his solution remains outside the covenantal witness of Scripture: his is a metaphysical climb of and from cogito rather than a redemptive, horizontal journey of ethical and kinesthetic training prior to dianoia that solves problems in context. This the Shema’s (Deut. 6:4-9) sequence prior to attaining Christological understanding (Matt. 22:37) that contextualizes the living God’s presence with His people of the moment (v. 32). This sequence is also revealed in the foundation of ethics kinesthetically, autonomically and thus nominally purposed (Hebrews 5:13-14) to address here and now the greater context of eschatological challenge and throughput: the pithing of human reality by dechordate machining of perception and meaning making (see below).[4]

In contrast to cogito/ratio-first anthropology, the Shema-Christological theology of immanence is rooted to the regenerating cycle of the earth as substrate, its missional task proceeds not by hierarchical ascent but by conative trusteeship (far better than “participation” or “stewardship” in imaging the divine)—rooted in the Word who became flesh, in the Spirit who groans with creation, and in the incarnated covenant that binds the finite heart to neighbor to every other and to the infinite God incarnated through history. Where Hart sees an ontological ladder in the nous presupposed by psyche, I see a proprioceptive and kinesthetic grammar of the soul obligated by the Golden Rule. Where he locates the good in an ineffable source beyond conceits of differentiation, I locate it in the rupturing nearness of the Word who speaks, heals, and commands. Where he sees orthodox retrieval as what is necessary for every historical moment to believe, I see an epochal tipping point—an eschaton both now and for a briefest remaining moment “not yet,” requiring service that the Church Fathers both lacked awareness and the technologies to apply thereto.

Hart’s system is the over-saturated, over-familiar logic of the analogia entis: the idea that finite being can analogically reflect divine being through a chain of formal correspondences. This tradition, inherited from Plotinus and transmuted by Aquinas and Balthasar, organizes Being into formal continuity, with higher levels “containing” lower ones by participation. But this is precisely the move that Barth, Kierkegaard, and the ever-Reforming Christological conscience have rejected—not because it lacks sophistication, but because it lacks the radical rupture of divine conation torquing through soul and logos by obligated and accountable virtue rather than emanating from and by cogito sustained through pragmatic strategies of ego. Not every ethical program meets the demands of justice and righteousness. Christ’s advent experienced in every generation is not analogical but apocalyptic: not a higher expression of an existing order, but a judgment and regeneration of that order by the conation embedded in the Golden Rule.

Hart’s ontology is one of emanation rather than of embodied (ear-initiated, heart-trained and -centered) incarnational covenant. He begins with unity—as if the finite holds the infinite through proportion—through ratio--then descends into discerning multiplicity. The very complexity of the reverse is vitiated by complexity.

I begin with brokenness, then receive the possibility of singularity through Trinitarian grace that unifies. He posits the One as origin and explanation of theology, of religio; I proclaim the neighbor and context as the site of moral meaning.[5] For Hart, the hierarchy of Being justifies the existence of form beyond entropy. For me, the heart’s cry—“Hear, O Israel”—grounds the reality of the good in conative response and responsibility. Hart’s metaphysics ascend toward a god of formal sufficiency. Mine kneels before a God who speaks into history, whose Word rends the heart’s veil set by rational interest, who bears wounds, and who calls us not to analogize, but to remember and act.

From the theological perspective of Trinitarian conation and immanent anthropology, Hart proposes an:

Unspoken Seduction: Semantic Altitude Without Ethical Gravity

Hart’s essay begins in shared resistance: it rightly refuses the reduction of music to entropy, meaning to mass, consciousness to computation. There, our critiques harmonize. The author sees, as I do, that music cannot be collapsed into unembodied, unmerited thermodynamics. He grants that desire for the good is irreducible to physical conditions. He gestures toward Plotinus, tracing psyche to nous, nous to the One. Here they stand together before the veil.

But only the ethically (un)prized may step through by Christ’s gate, a difference simple and absolute: not to end in the One but to begin eternally anew with the neighbor and her context.

Where Hart’s essay presents irreducibility as proof of form, I see singularity as the call to mission. Where it ascends toward aesthetized elegance, I descend bruited with an iconoclast’s covenantal entrustment. Where it invokes metaphysical longing, I invoke Trinitarian love established in the virtues of the proprioceptive heart. What the author calls intrinsic form, I call membering entrustment: semantic reality not as structure but as responsibility; not as participation, but as hearing—Shema—begun in the ear’s remembering, the ear’s balanced repairing, rejoicing the heart’s connection and collective.

Plotinus sees reality as ascent into formal unity. But the God of Israel speaks only rarely in heights—when the people are most estranged--but in covenant: not psyche → nous → One, but ear → heart → neighbor. The moral world does not emerge from ontological necessity by the fall. It erupts from divine conation after the fall. It is given—as entrusted to hands, not spectated from the boxes.

---

Hart’s Analogia as Anti-Shema

Hart claims that desire for the good presupposes a horizon of goodness. But he forgets: that horizon was spoken. Not abstractly, but covenantally. It is not upward. It is given in the streets (Proverbs 1:20), in the cries of the oppressed, in the kinesthetic groan of the Spirit. The One he imagines does not speak. It receives no cries. It does not assign trusteeship. It simply rests as is, floating apophatically.

Such a metaphysics reaches toward the beautiful.

And lands with the false.

The core conflict between Analogia Entis and Conative Christopoiesis lies in metaphysical vector: heart movement (the supplicating blood of the Cross that pulls toward immanence) vs. the motion of cognitive “ascent” that abstracts ethics from incarnate, relational obligation. The mind that pushes away milieux and immanence to pull upward toward infinite absolutes as “proportioned” participation.

This encapsulates Hart’s metaphysical aesthetics: form, beauty, and participatory ascent is theodicy—theorized Spiritual Dramatik[6]--that putatively discloses the divine. This is precisely the structure of the analogia entis, which Hart explicitly affirms and which this review repudiates as theologically mis-sequenced, ethically inert, and metaphysically bypassing covenantal poiesis.

For “speaking” of participation in beauty without entrustment becomes the ground for simulacral ordering and detachment. The language itself is paradoxically both reductive and multiplicative of divine attributes:

 As for…ontology, it would certainly seem to offer thought a more obvious and substantial form of analogy: a direct and proportionate similitude (albeit in finite and infinite instances) between attributes inhering in discrete beings. It would seem, indeed, that the metaphysics of participation, precisely insofar as it regards God not as a being but as the source andultimate truth of all beings, opens an abyss between God and creatures that neither thought nor language can traverse without losing its moorings in human understanding. A more univocal ontology, though, allows the meanings of our attributions to remain intact, even with the addition of the further attribute “infinite.” (Hart, Beauty of the Infinite [BI], Eerdmans 2003, 301-2).

Hart is circling his wagons around Alexandria: the finite proportions the infinite by assigning attributes, rather than acting by the conative singularity that alone may be known about God—the heart for what is encountered, to sustain and repair context [10], and now the epochal moment of substrate tipping points requiring transformed instances of poiesis—including meta-hermeneutic rupture that stabilizes Anthropocene metaphysics by centripetal singularity of safety and care including through dynamically-contextualized technology. Such hermeneutics deny that participation in Being is sufficient without a Shema-structured poiesis of care, neighbor, and covenant.

Where Hart permits semantic continuity with infinity, I assert that true theological meaning begins where semantic structure is broken open by divine entrustment to the neighbor. The latent contradiction is exposed: Hart’s metaphysics both insists on the inaccessibility of God in infinite difference and yet preserves semantic continuity by analogizing divine attributes. This collapses by paradox into reductionist pluralism: God becomes formal rather than covenantal, encountered via beauty rather than responsibility.

“If [baptismal] theophany reveals God as perichoresis, it also shows him to be the God whose life of reciprocal “giving way’ and ‘containing’” (BI, 175).

If theophany reveals God in perichoresis, it does not thereby disclose reciprocity as divine essence. Human dance, too, must be subjected to a Shemaic-anthropological sequence of dynamic arts of grace [9]. What Hart speaks of the ecstatic sublime is a gift from the singularity of heart—the negentropic source of will and process by Creation. Reciprocity, even if for Hart a model of moral relationality, is not the foundation of Torah nor of the Golden Rule; accountable grace is the cornerstone. Hart gestures beyond processive anthropological ethics when he identifies (“also”) divine perichoresis with the certain pragmatics of reciprocity. Such metaphysically misaligns ethics. Reciprocity is a faulty, nominalist construct—contractual, mirror-bound—precisely a nominalist posture Hart elsewhere repudiates (BI, 133, 159). Nominalism’s resurgence at epochal thresholds (see Hesse’s liminal Steppenwolf and its portrayal of dancing as cultural maverick vector) often frightens orthodox systems into spectral formalism and quietist stasis. But as the eschaton advances, language must rupture these frozen, transcendentalizing conceits—instituted, inert, systematized, and entropic. The insight of the OT prophets carried forward by Herder is that substantives--which are contextual nominals--are unbound from their subterranean entropies by the lexemic unpacking of geminal roots to their underlying verbals. It is the dynamic vectors of divine in nature that are universal and reveal the divine, not the stasis of form--which take to nominalization and entropy.

 In his “Entropy and the Metaphysics of Morals” essay, Hart confronts entropy yet turns backward to what has been frozen by foreclosure: retrieving analogical metaphysics as a bulwark against moral disintegration. But analogy that aesthetizes, however lambent, is not negentropy. It cannot generate covenantal life from the centrality of practical cogito discerning by theory. As constructive departure, only Christic, proprioceptive, unreciprocated, accountable virtue is reanimating ethics in a world unraveling under the weight of conceits and mirror-seeking, egophantic ascent.

 Eschatological beauty comes by ethical poietics and accounted, not by Dramatic theurgy, pharisaically reasserted through ritualized reciprocity and ritual.  Rather, by an eschatological ontology that cannot be retrieved from patristic primordia. Form without mission is the elegy of the inert. This is not simply mis-sequenced theology. Hart’s analogical metaphysics occludes the interruptive immediacy of divine address as command that elects, as Shema, hear: Make the Gospel perceivable by nominals of the contextualized Logos, Adam’s task in a changing world of telic substrates as yet not fully eschatologically realized. Adam’s nominalist task rejects both the nostalgic sublime (retrieved transcendence) and the nihilistic sublime (ecstatic rupture without covenantal telos).

Excursus: The Sublime as Negentropic Charge — Divergences in Hart and Olds on Ethical Ontology

Both David Bentley Hart’s essay “Entropy and The Metaphysics of Morals” and my meditation, “Short Note on the Theoretical Physics of Grace (with an application to political systems)” confront the crisis of entropy at the intersection of metaphysics and moral philosophy. Yet we diverge significantly in our ethical response to the entropic condition. Hart frames the modern moral collapse as a symptom of metaphysical forgetfulness—specifically the loss of analogical participation in a non-nominalist order of transcendentals, among which beauty functions as a cosmic attractor. His solution is a retrieval of a metaphysics of form, mediated by beauty and supported by a premodern ontological grammar. While Hart laments entropy, he treats its moral consequences as remediable through metaphysical recollection—a backward-facing ascent on the ladder of analogia entis.

In contrast, I cast the sublime not as a static retrieval of form, but as a ruptural moment of negentropic charge: a divine call within collapse. The sublime, in my account,[7]  is not reducible to aesthetic arrest or to an analogical participation in Being. It is torquing vector of apocatastatic poiesis (see below)—a summons to the heart’s will that breaks open the entropic closure of metaphysical, ecclesial, or cultural stasis. The ethical register of the sublime is thus radically different: not a return to order, but a proprioceptive charge to enact covenantal repair amid collapse, even if forms and orders bring change—improvements by the eschaton’s ethical clarity. In this light, negentropy is not moral resistance to decay that slows down, but the creationally accountable conative force that realigns relational perception from debility. Unlike Hart’s entropic concern with the loss of stable form, my taxonomy of the sublime insists on ethical reembodiment through kenotic responsiveness and poetic justice in the flux of telic history.

Crucially, Hart’s essay does not explicitly engage the sublime as such—let alone as a negentropic phenomenon. His analogical aesthetics aligns beauty with form and order, not rupture and renewal. There is no articulation of the sublime as a destabilizing ethical imperative that calls the creature into action, only a yearning for the re-enchantment of metaphysical architecture. In this way, Hart’s vision remains within a metaphysics of hierarchical structure and retrospective intelligibility. By contrast, negentropy’s conative sublime demands that beauty and ethics be actualized in responsive movement rather than preserved form. The ethics of negentropy is eschatologically charged—requiring not recollection but covenantal interruption. The result is a metaphysical shift from Hart’s drama of return to Being to the summons of Becoming.

Hart’s ladder ascends by beauty as non-nominal universals and thus by the rungs of stasis. The gospel begins when the ladder falls—Jacob’s ladder inverts--and brings the human trustee to ethical emplacement actualized by the virtues which serve neighbor in context (Olds 2023). Aisthesis in the sense of Hebrews 5:13-14 manifests when doctrine gives rise to tested ethics, and then theophany results in and by kenotic, autonomically pacified, kinesthetically pacifying, contextually situated, creational and creationally-accounted virtues of apocatastasis—that which flows from (apo)[8] the resistance (cata) to stasis—including the conceits of a fully formed ego, the homunculus of conceit fully sprung like Athena from the head of Father Zeus.

---

Conclusion: The Emergence of Immanence by Semantic Iconoclasm and Contextualized Praxis that Refuses Displacement by Static Orders

The metaphysical cost is high.

In the absence of covenantal anthropology:

• form is mistaken for the approach of truth;
• irreducibility is mistaken for vocation;
• semantic structure is mistaken for divine voice
• ethics are reduced to pragmatism.

This is how analogia entis comes of medievalism's theology--every man a pope brandishing two-swords doctrine slicing out theoretical dominicum and compelling imperium. Hart’s system—elegant, lambent as a wind-quaking flower, tragically inert—offers no trustees, no neighbors, no Shema. It proposes to dazzle the mind but bypasses the body. It names depth but flees descent. Its polite refusal to silence is not reverence, but the cutting absence of the God who calls.

The crisis of secularity deepens when these displacements enact real-world effects: generative Artificial Intelligence, with Boolean algorithms conceited as diagrams of “neurolinguistic programming,” now threatens to reorganize human perception on machine-compatible, non-chordate phyla. It offers meaning not through revelation but through directional simulation—perceptual vector imposition divorced from ethical—even motor-sensory--ground. This disembodied form enacts by machine recursive loops what ancient heresies dreamed: Gnosticism’s subtraction of soul from body, now automated.

C. S. Lewis lamented the secular “men without chests”; in our age, AI produces students without spines—neural patterning severed from ethical response, truth without trust. The human becomes an image processed, not a person met. This trajectory is not ethically neutral. It constitutes a metaphysical betrayal: the abandonment of covenant for trust-avoiding coherence, and of grace for remunerative gradient.

Against this, the Shema-Christological alternative affirms a conative metaphysics: God’s presence is not encoded in Being’s restored and stabilizing order and hierarchy but entrusted by the blood that pulls to the hearts of creatures, grounded by context, sent to neighbors. The ethical is not the afterthought of ontology; it is the site of divine encounter. As Hebrews 5:14 insists, discernment is the fruit of trained senses, not metaphysical intuition that treats the Golden Rule as a fungible guideline.

The Danger of AE’s Revival and the Call for Iconoclasm

The contemporary resurgence of AE—especially in the works of Balthasar and Hart—locates the divine in the beauty of form. But this aestheticization fails to account for evil’s deformation or the cross’s rupture. It assumes continuity where Scripture witnesses interruption; it prefers pattern over prophetic call. AE and AI alike operate on metaphysical assumptions foreign to Israel’s God: they seek image without election, form without repentance, metaphysics without mercy, trust without accountability.

Thus, both AI and AE call for reparative iconoclasm—a poiesis that shatters false likenesses and typological recurrent patterns, iconoclasm not for nihilism but for repair. Analogical metaphysics bypasses ethical immanence for a promontory box seat in the infinance; it smooths over the jagged terrain of moral responsibility with the paste of coherence as participation by "theoria." But divine conation rends coherence to restore communion.

Epilogue: Poiesis over Pattern

A Christopoietic, Shema-grounded metaphysics directly rejects Hart’s analogical aestheticism. Where Hart locates the good in contemplative ascent toward the formally beautiful, you relocate it to kinesthetic, covenantal, incarnational descent into historical obligation. Theological rupture—Christ’s descent and the tearing of the temple veil—stands for you as the decisive judgment against Hart’s metaphysical continuity. The ladder falls where it conspires to ascend. The ladder falls. The trustee rises. Not by ascent, but by grace trained in service. 

These nominals do not cohere. Their convergent anti-physicalism masks a profound divergence on the nature of divine-human encounter, the shape of ethical life, and the structure of theological metaphysics.

The gospel begins not in form but in the tearing of form—the interruption of analogical elevation by covenantal entrustment. Against Hart’s contemplative moment of peace as proportioned entry into infinitude, the kinesthetic theology of repair grounds the ethics of finite incarnation, poietic responsibility, and eschatological judgment: (Matthew 10:34-36).

For proportion and beauty entails no explicit responsibility other than implicit orders of stability except by accommodation with Being. The analogical elevation of the soul without the tether of neighbor detaches from the Shema, Matthew 22:32-37, and Hebrews 5:14. Hart’s metaphysics ends in contemplation; whereas the eschaton is revealed as accountable obligation.

The conceits of theory holds theological danger: the displacement of the incarnate, covenantal God with an abstracted set of theatrical metaphysical principles. When mirrored in AI, this danger becomes technological: a simulation of care without a heart, of presence without trust. Against both, the Shema-Christological witness insists: the divine is not analogized, but encountered—through conation, covenant, and care. For--

Now that my ladder’s gone

I must lie down where all the ladders start

In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.

—William Butler Yeats, “The Circus Animals’ Desertion”

...And assay something new.

In place of Hart’s consoling enchantments in the face of mechanical surveil—his titular revival of the ancient intuition that “all things are full of gods”— we require paradigms of dynamic and responsive faith: not governed by the seductions of order, first things (other than the metaphysical singularity of conative entrustment), or aesthetic pulchritude. Not patterns, but people. Not singularity of cognition, but covenantal processing by the singularity of Trinitarian heart.

That the battle is finished, the ladder is put aside,
that good has triumphed,
and that all engines still grinding toward discernment—all compute designers and elegant rhetoricians of scoping pattern--are condemned to ash, by the daylight that they occlude by taxonomy then display as haberdashery inside tabernacling taxidermies.

---

[1] “It may sound like I'm becoming a liberal Protestant, but fear not, because no liberal Protestant theologian can withstand the fire of my intellectual contempt.” https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/an-interview-with-ross-allen-of-the

[2] Leaves in the Wind (Blog), November 14, 2025. https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/order-entropy-and-the-metaphysics

[3]“The Restoration of Reason from the Eyes of a Neighbor: A Shema-Christological Metaphysic of Conative Healing” In the iconoclast’s descending (blog, June 15, 2025). https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-restoration-of-reason-from-eyes-of.html

[4] “AI’s Necromantic Narcissism: Hallucinated Hegemonics and Its Condemning Collapse of Covenant Perception.” In Ibid, June 6, 2025.

“The Lamb’s Victory: Spectacle or Repair? Status Confessionis and the Kinesthetic Ethics of Poiesis.” In Ibid, September 9, 2025. https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2025/09/from-spectacle-to-repair-lambs-victory.html

“The Hermeneutics of Iconoclasm in Mid-Modernity: A. Covenant Substrate, Non-transactional Kinesthetics, and the Vectoring Awareness of Atoning Energies and Flows. B. Valorization of Entropic Forms and Feudalizing Mechanisms of Babel.” In Ibid., August 29, 2025.

[5] See source in footnote 3.

[6] See the critique of Balthasar in “The Lamb’s Victory…” sourced at footnote 4.

[7]“τάξεις of the Sublime that Reopen Meaning After  Anthropological Collapse” In the iconoclast’s descending (blog, October 23, 2025). https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2025/10/six-taxes-of-sublime-that-reopen.html

[8] Cf. “Precis for a Metaphysics of Flow” In the iconoclast’s descending (blog, October 21, 2024). https://douglasblakeolds8.blogspot.com/2025/06/precis-for-metaphysics-of-flow-rev.html

[9] See "The Kinesthetics of Dance as an Theological Allegory for Immanence: Johann Gottfried Herder's Adrastea, II.9 [Introduction] (1801-02)." In Crying in the Wilderness of Mammon (Blog, August 15, 2023). https://douglasolds.blogspot.com/2023/08/kinesthetics-of-dance-as-theological.html

[10] The Antiochene Biblical hermeneutic, the poiesis of immanence that some would subsume into "sua causa voluntarism" [BI 166] but is ethically realized through Golden Rule deontological virtue.

The singularity of Trinitarian dynamism is the conative kinesthesis of perichoresis by the three divine hypostatic persons in the one Creation—the only metaphysical attribute is the willing heart revealed by Christ and thus finitely perceivable and achievable—not by analogy but by union of conative essence in the earth-bound trustee that images God in earthly creation (Cf. Olds 2023: Architectures of Grace in Pastoral Care, Appendix I).