IN THE PRIMACY OF THE NORM
 
The norm is not subject
to the supreme being,
it is the supreme being that is subject
to the norm.
The norm itself determines
what being is supreme,
or would be supreme,
not the other way around
as in religions of lordship
and submission.
For the supreme is not just what it is.
For the supreme is not what 'He' is.
The question of the existence
of the supreme being
is of no fundamental significance.
Whether in a dependent, cultural
or in an independent sense,
it is the existence of the norm,
not that of the supreme being,
which is relevant:
the actual existence of the supreme
is immaterial.
It is in this way that the supreme
is beyond being.
For it is not, or would not be, supreme
because it exists,
but because it is, and would be,
what it should be
according to the norm.
For 'e is not, or would not be, supreme
because 'e exists,
but because 'e is, and would be,
what 'e should be
according to the norm.
So it is that we believe and live,
in the primacy of the norm,
in the primacy of the ananorm.

The distinction between normistic and theocentrist denominational doctrines is so important that we will use this section mainly to give a condensed enumeration of the statements made in the previous one. This will be done by juxtaposing the normistic and theocentrist positions on a number of historical and systematic issues, as shown in the table of figures F.6.4.3.1 and 2. This table can obviously only give a picture of consistent positions. A particular ideology may in actual fact be so inconsistent or opportunistic as to combine elements of both normism and theocentrism.