Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    What is meant by the term "Creation Spirituality"?  I understand the
    the concepts represented by those two words when used separately, but
    I've never seen them used juxtaposed that way before.
    
    Mike

    Mike -1,
    
    I will enter a few brief excerpts from an interview in the June 1989
    issue of Psychology Today with Matthew Fox that will provide
    information on your question.
    
    Karen

    Excerpts from an interview with Matthew Fox from Psychology Today, 
    June 1989, retyped with permission.
    
    Interviewer: Sam Keen 
    
    Introduction by Sam:
    
    	On December 15,, 1988, theologian Matthew Fox joined the 
    controversial brotherhood of thinkers who are currently troubling the 
    conscience and testing the catholicity of the Roman Catholic Church.  
    Although not every voice has been silenced, all have run afoul of the 
    Vatican for one reason or another:  some, for instance, because thir 
    brand of liberation theology is influenced too much by Marxism 
    (Bishop Pedro Casaldaliga and Franciscan priest Leonardo Boff);  
    others because of their unorthodox views of sexual ethics (theologian 
    Charles Curran and Archbishop Ramond Hunthausen).
    
    	Fox, who holds a doctorate from the Institut Catholique in Paris, 
    is the founding director of the Institute in Culture and Creation 
    Spirituality in Oakland, Ca, and the author of a dozen books.  His 
    best-known work, _Original Blessing:  A Primer in Creation 
    Spirituality_, presents a manifesto for a more mystical and 
    ecologically based theology with far less emphasis on the traditional 
    themes of sin and redemption than on the themes of blessing and 
    creativity.
    
    	It is too early to forecast how the dramatic confrontation 
    between this mystic and prophet of an earthy cosmic faith and those 
    who regard themselves as the keepers of orthodoxy will end.  It is 
    instructive to remember that the rising power of nationalism and 
    individualism made Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation 
    inevitable.  Perhaps the recent emergence of an ecological 
    perspective will make something like Creation Spirituality 
    historically inevitable, too.
    
    Note:  The Catholic Church rescinded its order for Matthew Fox's 
    silencing about a year later, after it appeared that it had generated 
    even more attention and interest in the theology of Creation 
    Spirituality.
     
    ...
    
    Karen

    Sam:  The Vatican's guardians of orthodoxy say you are "dangerous and 
    deviant."  You have been officially silenced, forbidden to teach, 
    preach or lecture.  In just what ways are you dangerous and deviant?
    
    Matt:  It is not exactly clear.  I have never been permitted to face 
    my accusers.  But the charges against me are that I am an ardent 
    feminist, that I call God both Mother and Child as well as Father, 
    that I do not condemn homosexuals, that I hired a self-described 
    witch to teach about Wicca, a pre-Christian folk religion practiced 
    by European peasant women, and that I emphasize original blessing 
    over original sin.  
    
    But the real issue is not these theological charges, which I do not 
    deny, but the political threat the Vatican feels from creation 
    spirituality.
    
    Sam:  What is creation spirituality?
    
    Matt:  For starters, let's say that it's liberation theology for the 
    First World, for the overdeveloped peoples.  Unlike that of Third 
    World Peoples, our poverty is not so much material as it is spiritual 
    and psychological.  Our addictions to alcohol, drugs, sports, 
    entertainment and work spring from our alienation from the earth and 
    God and our effort to cover up both our pain and our joy.  The 
    mystical tradition that I am seeking to revive has a lot to say about 
    freeing ourselves from addiction, getting high on the beauty of the 
    created world and re-creating our society.
    
    Sam:  How does creation spirituality differ from the garden varieties 
    of Christian theology?
    
    Matt:  It is the opposite of fundamentalism.  It's about trust:  
    trusting nature, including our own human nature, our dreams, our 
    bodies and our imaginations.  It believes that passion, Eros and 
    ecstasy are blessings and not curses.  It emphasizes creativity 
    rather than obedience, the aesthetic rather than the ascetic.  And 
    above all, it is about cosmology, about resetting the human agenda 
    within the context of the cosmos rather than in the man-made world 
    we've been living in since the Enlightenment.
    
    Sam:  It sounds a lot like pantheism, romanticism, nature mysticism, 
    or the transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau.
    
    Matt:  There is an important difference.  There are basically only 
    four ways that we can think about our relation to divinity.  Theism 
    means there is a God who is up there in the sky behind the universe 
    with an oil can, keeping things running.  As Jung once said, when we 
    believe in this kind of God we lose our own souls.
    
    A second way is atheism, which is a reaction to and rejection of 
    theism.  It says "No, thank you" to theism.  And frankly, if the 
    distant God of theism was the only one I was offered I would probably 
    be an atheist, too.
    
    The third option is pantheism, which says that everything is God and 
    God is everything.  The church has always rejected this because it 
    leaves out the transcendence, or the surprise, of God.
    
    And the fourth option, the one I choose, is panentheism, which says 
    that the image of God or divinity is immanent in all things but that 
    God transcends the created order.  This doesn't lock God into what 
    already is.  Creation spirituality is about the end of theism and the 
    reemergence of panentheism.
    
    ....

      I can see why the Catholic Church had a problem with this man's
    theology. It is radically removed from traditional Catholicism.
    I'll have some questions for you, Karen, when your excerpts are
    completed.
    
    Gil

    I'm not much of a church historian, but whereas I'm aware of many
    drives to exterminate one or another heresy, I've also felt that a
    strength of the Roman church was its ability to maintain a context for
    independent thought.   Perhaps Vatican II engendered a fear of the
    unknown.   A natural reaction to the winds of the Holy Spirit is to
    make stronger walls, the better to withstand the blasts.
    
    DR

    Sam:  Is creation spiritality a kind of religious Esperanto, a 
    homogenized New Age mysticism?  Or is it specifically Christian?
    
    Matt:  I would argue that creation spirituality is the oldest 
    tradition in the Bible.  All of the prophets as well as Jesus were 
    creation-centered in what they preached.  It is also at the heart 
    of the mystical tradition of both East and West, as well as being 
    the essence of what native peoples on this continent lived for 
    thousands of years before Christianity arrived.  As Meister 
    Eckhart said, "God is a great underground river," and the wisdom 
    in all religions taps into this one source.
    
    Sam:  I'm beginning to get a sense of why you trouble the 
    guardians of orthodoxy.  Are you taking the X out of Xmas?  What 
    part does Christ play in your scheme of things?
    
    Matt:  Fundamentalists and liberal theologians have one thing in 
    common.  I call it Jesus-olatry.  They concentrate so much on 
    Jesus that they miss the cosmic Christ and the divinity within 
    creation.  And, what is even stranger, they even miss the message 
    of the gospels.
    
    The gospel writers weren't looking for the historical Jesus;  they 
    had encountered him.  They were developing cosmic hymns to the 
    cosmic Christ.  The Gospel of Mark, for instance, begins with the 
    baptism of Jesus in which the whole sky opened up.  That's a 
    cosmic event.  Then Jesus is driven out into the wilderness and he 
    wrestled with Satan -- the dark force -- and wild beasts and 
    angels came to succor him.  That's cosmology.  The story of the 
    crucifixion is also set in a cosmic context -- an eclipse of the 
    sun, and the death of the lamb of God who takes away the sins of 
    the world.
    
    The Gospel of John begins with the assertion that Christ is the 
    Word, the Logos, the indwelling divine reason within all things.  
    The cosmic Christ is in the soil, in the rain forest, in the body 
    and in the pain of the world.  This Christ is there wherever 
    anyone encounters the prisoner, the hungry, the homeless.  Far 
    from underplaying the part of Jesus, I frankly think we're 
    recovering the cosmic Christ that was at the center of the New 
    Testament tradition.  The cosmic Christ is a wonderful archetype 
    for our time because it can move us into an era of mystical 
    politics, if you will, of re-relating to the earth with reverence 
    and respect.
    
    ....
                                                   

    Sam:  Let's turn to sin.  Are you for or aginst it?  Do you deny 
    original sin as your critics say?
    
    Matt:  I don't deny original sin, but I insist that we start with 
    original blessing.  We have to begin thinking about our condition 
    with the fact that we inherited an earth that is hospitable toward 
    us, with the right levels of ozone, oxygen and water, and healthy DNA 
    in our bodies and reproductive systems.  There were 19 billion years 
    or so of history and God's creative activity before human beings 
    appeared on the scene and invented sin.
    
    I also object to original sin as the starting point of religion 
    because of the tremendous psychic damange it has done.  People are 
    already terribly vulnerable to self-doubt and guilt, especially 
    members of minority groups -- women, blacks, Native Americans, 
    homosexuals.  The whole ideology of original sin increases one's 
    alienation and feeds the sado-masochistic energies in the culture -- 
    the sense that one is not worthy.
    
    If you start with the notion that you were born a blotch on 
    existence, you will never be empowered to do something about the 
    brokenness of life.  In creation spirituality, we begin with the idea 
    that each of us is born a unique expression of divinity, an image of 
    God.  Teaching our children this is the only way to build the pride 
    and security our culture needs so desperately.
    
    ....
    

    Gil .5,
    
    I think I'll hold the other excerpts at this time - there
    are probably enough ideas out on the board to discuss already :-).
    I'll incorporate other excerpts in the ensuing discussions as
    appropriate.
    
    Karen.* 
    
    Hi Dr .6,
    
    > A natural reaction to the winds of the Holy Spirit is to make
    > stronger walls, the better to withstand the blasts.
    
    Agreed.  I know in myself, as I feel the "winds of the Holy Spirit"
    stirring within, I do not always react with joy, for oftentimes the
    winds are prompting me to change something about myself and to grow
    further -- this always means that something is about ready to die 
    in me and be resurrected in new life.  My ego fears this process, 
    because it is a part of itself that is dying... my soul loves it, 
    as it *knows* it is being resurrected unto God.  
    
    Karen

    
    	Let me see if I got this right.  We are all part of the 'cosmos'
    therefore part of God.  We do not have 'original sin' but rather
    'original blessing' (ie: we are basically good).  We do not have 'sin'
    accounted to us because we are part of God.  Or can God sin.  
    
    	But God can't sin because He is an impersonal part of the entire
    'cosmos'.
    
    	Is this 'really' what this guy is trying to say?????
    
    

    
    	In my confusion can some one please try to reconcile all of what 
    previously was said to any kind of tradition 'christian' theology.
    Or is 'tradition' a bad word?

    re:  .11
    
    Tradition is a wonderful word.  It helps us remember our roots.  It is,
    however, only part of the tree of life.
    
    DR

    Tradition seems to be part of what human yearn for.  Tradition
    insures a sense of predictable security.  At the same time, tradition
    can become burdensome and oppressive, especially when form replaces
    substance.
    
    Tradition must be weighed against Scripture, reason and experience.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Ed .10 & .11,
    
    > Let me see if I got this right.  We are all part of the 'cosmos' 
    > therefore part of God.
    
    Not quite right Ed, see below.
    
    > In my confusion can some one please try to reconcile all of what 
    > previously was saids to any kind of tradition 'christian' theology.
    
    The traditional christian theology that Creation Spirituality is 
    based on can be found in numerous passages similar to this 
    (paraphrased) one:
    
    	There is one God who is above all, and through all, 
    	and in you all.
    
    This theology is also referred to as panentheism and as noted above, 
    has much scriptural support.  God is in all, as is everything is in 
    God.  Therefore, that is how your first statement would be understood 
    in Creation Spirituality, as well in some traditional Christian 
    theologies.  Although the Bible states that God is above all, through 
    all, and in us all, some "traditional" theologies have a monotheistic 
    view of God - a view that sees God as a being far above and removed 
    from creation and humanity.  This is one of the essential differences 
    between Creation Spirituality and monotheistic Christian theologies.
    
    > We do not have 'original sin' but rather 'original blessing' (ie: 
    > we are basically good).
    
    Re-read .8, Ed.
    
    Matthew Fox states "I don't deny original sin."  Creation 
    Spirituality says _both_ original sin and original blessing exist.  
    Creation Spirituality places an emphasis on original blessing (the 
    basic goodness of people) as did Jesus in his teahings and sermons.
    
    Hope this is helpful.
    
    Re: Richard and Dr, .13 & .12,
    
    Tradition -- I agree, particularly with "tradition can become 
    burdensome and oppressive, especially when form replaces substance."
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Karen
                                                                      

    This is interesting ! 

    So far what I've read (Thanks Karen) of what Matthew Fox's theology is 
    about, is similar to an incident of demonic possession of a priest that 
    I'm reading about in Malachi Martin's "Hostage To The Devil."
    The priest that is possessed, started to believe in a theology that he
    had developed through a misinterpretation of Teilhard De Charden's (SP?)
    theology. He was very into the God/nature/cosmos type thinking. He was
    put on a leave of duties by his Bishop before he left and started his own 
    church in Greenich Village. The possession start from there. 

    I'm not saying Matthew Fox is possessed, but so far his theology sounds
    the same as the priest I mentioned.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim,
    
    Yes, such pronouncements of demonic possession are made 
    all the time.  
    
    What else is new under the sun ;-) ?
    
    Karen

    Jim,
    
    If you're wondering about Matthew Fox, you may want to consider
    attending an upcoming talk he's giving on Friday evening Oct 18
    in Watertown Ma.  That'll give you an opportunity to experience 
    more of who he is and what Creation Spirituality is about on a 
    more personal level and you can make your own determination. 
    
    Feel free to send me mail if you'd like more details.
    
    Karen         

CARTUN::BERGGREN "Please, don't squeeze the shaman.." 8 lines   9-OCT-1990 11:38
                             -< what else is new? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Karen,
    
>    Yes, such pronouncements of demonic possession are made 
>    all the time.  
    
>    What else is new under the sun ;-) ?
    
     Karen the demonic possessed priest I mentioned wasn't a pronouncement,
    it was reality. An exorcism was performed by another priest which took
    four months to complete.

    Again, I'm not saying Matthew fox is possessed, his theology just
    sounds familiar up to this point.

    Peace
    Jim

    Karen,
    
>    If you're wondering about Matthew Fox, you may want to consider
>    attending an upcoming talk he's giving on Friday evening Oct 18
>    in Watertown Ma.  That'll give you an opportunity to experience 
>    more of who he is and what Creation Spirituality is about on a 
>    more personal level and you can make your own determination. 
    
>    Feel free to send me mail if you'd like more details.

    I like to know if he'll be west of rt.128 anytime ? I don't travel
    east of rt.128  unless I'm forced to.   

    I have read the charges that the Catholic Church had against him, and
    I agreed to their reason's for silencing him. Apparently he  left the
    priesthood however.

    The church has silenced other theologians before and later rescinded
    their order. Theilhard De Chardin was silenced and then later, the
    order was not only rescinded, but his theology is accepted and taught
    in the seminaries throughout the church.

    Jim

    Hi Jim,
    
    Yes, I understand you were not pronouncing Matthew Fox as being
    demonically possessed.  My comment was really generic in nature.
    I don't know the case of the priest you're referring to so I 
    cannot comment on that.  I do know that there have
    been occurances where the "church fathers" (any demonimation) 
    have pronounced others to be demonically possessed, which I 
    personally don't believe happens as frequently as it is purported.
      
    As for Matthew Fox, I'm not sure where you recieved the information 
    that he left the priesthood, but that is not true.  He has not left 
    the Catholic Church, been booted out, or left the priesthood and when I
    heard him speak in August, he said he has no intentions to leave the
    Church and wishes to work within it.
    
    The location of his talk in 2 weeks is about 3 miles east of 128 off of
    route 20.  I don't know if or when he'll be west of 128, and still in 
    the state.  But I'll keep you posted if I find out Jim.
    
    peace,
    
    Karen                                                       
    
    

Hi Karen,

I'll be there for Matthew Fox's Friday night lecture and will also be 
attending his Saturday workshop at Interface in Watertown.  ;')

Ro

    Great Ro,
    
    I look forward to seeing you there.  It's been awhile!
    Oh, Carole is also attending.
    
    Karen

re: Note 12.17 by Karen "Please, don't squeeze the shaman..." 

    >    If you're wondering about Matthew Fox, you may want to consider
>    attending an upcoming talk he's giving on Friday evening Oct 18
>    in Watertown Ma.                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Karen,

Friday evening falls on the 19th that week!

(rats, I can't make it either day, but I'd really like to...)

Peace,

Jim

    Oooooooppps!
    
    Thanks Jim for the correction of dates!
    
    Matthew Fox's talk is Friday October _19_
    
    :-)
    
    Wish you could make it too Jim;  It would be nice to meet you.
    Maybe another time!
    
    Karen

    I'm confused.  I thought the view of "God in the sky with an oilcan to 
    keep things running" was * deism * and that * theism * was the view of God
    as personally involved with people.  Can someone explain, please?
    
    Question #2, can you explain more about the difference between
    pantheism and panentheism?  I think I understand that in panentheism,
    God is not fully 'contained' in everything else that is, but is
    contained and simultaneously is 'more than.'  Is this right?
    
    If so, what about people?  Are we completely 'contained' in God or do
    we have any, um, for lack of a better word -- individuality, free will,
    etc.?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    
    Re.25
    
     Nancy:
            Just to add to the confusion I thought that "deism" was
    a 18th religious belief in only "God" a sort Unitarian belief
    system. I am pretty sure Franklin and Jefferson were "deists"
    or is it "Deists" with a capital "d". I dunno, I am as confused
    as you are, maybe even more confused.
    
    
                                                       Mike     
                                         
                                                       

    As I understand it, pantheism believes that God is the same as the
    universe.  Panentheism believes that God is in the universe, and the
    universe is in God; this implies to me that God is more than the
    universe, and the universe is more than God, but both partake in one
    another.  This means that God is both transcendent and immanent, rather
    than just immanent as pantheism believes.

    My understanding is that deism believed that God created the universe
    and its natural laws, but that the universe now proceeds according to
    those natural laws without any further divine participation in the
    universe.

    Nancy, 
    
    The difference between pantheism and panentheism as Mike V described is
    also what I understand it to be.  Pantheism sees God as only immanent,
    while pan*en*theism views God as being both immanent and transcendent.
    
    Regarding your question about individuality and free will and as people
    are we completely 'contained' in God... yes, I believe that our entire 
    beings are within God, and that within God we also have free will and
    individuality.   There is no part of ourself that is outside God, 
    imho.  After all, God is all in all.  How can anything exist outside of
    God?  
    
    If we are totally contained in God, maybe the question becomes, 
    is our 'free will' really _God's will_?    
    
    I'll create a topic on free will and individuality if anyone wants to 
    pursue this line of thought further.
    
    Karen               

    Thanks, Karen.  That helps -- I *think* -- :-)
    I have to keep relating it to being an idea in the mind of God.
    Still, I shy away from anything that seems to be pantheistic, so I
    have to keep mulling over the distinction...
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Hi Nancy,
    
    I also shy away from anything that seems to be pantheistic. :-)
    
    Perhaps the following two statements will help you further in making
    the distinction:
    
    	The pantheist says:
    
    	"I am God".
    
    	The panentheist says: 
    
    	"I am in God".
    
    Hope this helps. 
    
    Karen

I attended the Matthew Fox lecture and workshop over the weekend.  It was one
of the most moving Christian experiences I've ever had.  I ordered the tapes of
Friday night and Saturday and should receive them in a couple of weeks.

Anyone interested in listening to them, please contact me offline and I will
make arrangements for you to borrow them.

Ro

    Matthew Fox makes the point in _Original Blessing_ that "the basic
    consciousness of compassion" is interdependence.  In effect, all of the
    universe is interconnected, and therefore interdependent.  Fox quotes
    Meister Eckhart, who said "What happens to another, whether it be a joy
    or a sorrow, happens to me"; and Jesus, who said, "Whenever you do it
    to one of these little ones, you do it to me".

    This view of interdependence is also the basis of mysticism.  The
    mystic views the world, not in dualistic terms of subject and object,
    but rather in terms of what Martin Buber termed the "I-Thou"
    relationship.   Fox quotes the poet Angelus Silesius, who says "There
    are no objects for compassion because there are no objects."  Buber put
    it this way, in his book "I and Thou":

        When *Thou* is spoken, the speaker has no thing for his object. 
        For where there is a thing there is another thing.  Every *It* is
        bounded by others; *It* exists only through being bounded by
        others.  But when *Thou* is spoken, there is no thing.  *Thou* has
        no bounds.

    Process theology also recognizes the interdependence of that is
    inherent in the universe.  Cobb and Griffin call this an "ecological
    attitude":

        Strictly speaking, the word "ecology" refers to the study of the
        interconnections among things, specifically between organisms and
        their total environments.  An "ecological attitude" would thereby
        be one that recognized the interrelations and hence
        interdependencies among things.

    An ecological attitude naturally leads to a reverence for nature, which
    characterizes both Creation Spirituality and Process Theology. 
    According to the first creation myth in Genesis, God repeatedly blesses
    creation as being good.  A dualistic, Cartesian approach to nature,
    which sees the universe mechanistically, and humanity as over nature
    rather than part of it, is contrary to the spirit of Creation
    Spirituality.  Such dualism is naturally hierarchical.  Fox argues that
    a consciousness of interdependence is "a consciousness of equality of
    being."

    What panentheism argues is that not only do humans and the rest of
    nature partake of one another, but a similar mutual participation
    occurs between God and nature.  This means that God and nature are
    interdependent.  This notion runs counter to traditional theism, which
    argues that God is immutable and independent of creation.  A God that
    is dependent on creation is an important part of process theology,
    which views God as being affected by the universe through the process
    of objective immortality.  God's role is to creatively lure the
    universe out of chaos, as as the universe's creativity is expressed,
    God responds positively. Like process theology, Creation Spirituality
    also views creativity as the fundamental reality of the universe (Fox's
    term for God's creativity is "Dabhar").

    The idea that God and nature are interdependent is a radical notion. 
    It means, as the Jewish feminist theologian Judith Plaskow has argued,
    that God is not necessarily over us, but instead with us, or perhaps
    even under us as the ground of being.  As images of God, we are
    co-creators with God.  God is friend, lover, companion, as well as
    creator.  And God shares in our joys and our suffering.  When we
    express our love to others, God (who is creative-responsive love) also
    receives our love.   Thus, just as we are dependent on God's creative
    lure, it is possible to conceive of God as also being dependent on us.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    As quoted in Matthew Fox's "The Coming of the Cosmic Christ"...
    
    "Perhaps the great disaster of human history is one that happened
    to or within religion: that is the conceptual division between the
    holy and the world, the excerpting of the Creator from the creation."

    						Wendell Berry
    

    Thanks Mike .32,
    
    re Judith Plaskow's and Creation Spirituality's God as ground of
    being...
    
    > God is friend, lover, companion, as well as creator.  
    
    I know this to be true.  One night a few years ago I spontaneously
    opened up my evening prayer to God with a very intimate "Hi Honey!"
    I immediately felt a wave of embarassment flood over me, as if I was
    saying something "inappropriate" or disrespectful.  But that feeling 
    was washed away as I felt God's vibrant laughter rise up around me and 
    through me.  Then I began to laugh, unashamed.  Yes, God loved the idea
    of being my honey.  And so S/He is. :-)   
    
    Karen

    Mike .32,
    
    I would like to expound on something you wrote in .32 if I may:
    
    > Like process theology, Creation Spirituality also views creativity 
    > as the fundamental reality of the universe (Fox's term for God's 
    > creativity is "Dabhar").
    
    Actually, the word "Dabhar" is a Hebrew word found oftentimes in 
    biblical scripture.  Fox's contention is that western theology has 
    rendered us an incomplete and narrow translation of the word 
    "Dabhar".  Western theology would have us believe that it simply 
    means "Word".  However, this definition is only partially true.  
    According to Gerhard Von Rad, scholar of wisdom in the Hebrew 
    scriptures, the more accurate definition of Dabhar is "Creative 
    Energy", God's Creative Energy.  Dabhar also means Wisdom;  Wisdom 
    that is extended to *all* of being, *all* of Creation.  "You have 
    made all your works in wisdom," Ps. 104:24.
    
    Human words is one way God's Creative Energy is shared, but there are 
    many other ways in which God communes and participates in His/Her 
    Creation.  "The human word is only one among billions of words that 
    God has spoken and that therefore emanate from the divine splendor.  
    To make contact with wisdom is to go beyond human words", according 
    to Fox.
    
    Von Rad asserts that when we let go and allow ourselves to go beyond 
    human words and return to Dabhar as the Creative Energy of God, 
    "truth happens, affection happens and God happens;  for creation not 
    only exists, it also discharges truth."  So what Von Rad is saying is 
    that Creation itself, not just books, is a source of truth and 
    revelation.
    
    Consider the first chapter of John's Gospel using the more accurate 
    understanding of the word Dabhar:
    
    	In the beginning was the Creative Energy:
    	The Creative Energy was with God
    	and the Creative Energy was God.
    	It was God in the beginning.
    	Through it all things came to be,
    	not one thing had its being but through it.
    	All that came to be had life in it
    	and that life was the light of persons,
    	a light that shines in the dark,
    	a light that darkness could not overpower....
    	The Creative Energy was the true light
    	that enlightens all people;
    	and it was coming into the world.
    	It was in the world
    	that had its being through it,
    	and the world did not know it...
    	But to all who did accept it
    	it gave power to become children of God....
    	The Creative Energy was made flesh,
    	it pitched its tent among us,
    	and we saw its glory,
    	the glory that is its as the only Child of the Creator,
    	full of grace and full of truth. 
    
    Fox concludes, "Dabhar wishes to be incarnate in us.  Truly Dabhar is 
    active, imaginative, and playful.  A creation-centered spiritual 
    person is sensitive and aware, alive and awake to the ever-flowing, 
    ever-green, unfolding of the divine Dabhar.  For such a person, 
    creation itself constitutes the primary sacrament."
    
    Karen

    Re.35
    
    Karen,
    
    That God is Energy...this brings light to a few things which have
    crossed my path recently.
    
    Alan Watts used a story about a grape to show how God is with-in
    everything.  He said that God is *in* the grape.  So we cut the grape
    to see God, but we only see outsides of the grape again.  Then we cut
    it again, and still the outsides.  "No one hath seen God at any time."
    
    It's the same energy we (some of us) feel eminating from crystals, from
    our hands, from two or more gathered in God's name (spirit of community
    and togetherness), and so on.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cindy,
    
    Glad to see you here more regularly now. :-)  
    
    I like that story from Alan Watts about the grape.  
    I believe to see God we just need to use our 'other' eyes.
    
    :-)
    
    Kb

                A New Creation Story
         
         In the beginning was the gift.
         And the gift was with God and the gift was God.
         And the gift came and set its tent among us,
            first in the form of a fireball
            that burned unabated for 750,000 years
         and cooked in its immensely hot oven
            hadrons and leptons.
         
         These gifts found a modicum of stability,
         enough to give birth to the first atomic creatures,
            hydogen and helium.
         
         A billion years of stewing and stirring
         and the gifts of hydrogen and helium
            birthed galaxies -- spinning, whirling, alive galaxies
         created trillions of stars,
         lights in the heavens and cosmic furnaces
            that made more gifts
         through violent explosions of vast supernovas
         burning abright with the glow
            of more than a billion stars.
         
         Gifts upon gifts, gifts birthing gifts, gifts exploding,
         gifts imploding, gifts of light, gifts of darkness.
         Cosmic gifts and subatomic gifts.
            All drifting and swirling, being born and dying,
         in some vast secret of a plan.
         Which was also a gift.
         
         One of these supernova gifts exploded in a special manner
         sending a unique gift to the universe,
         which later-coming creatures would one day call
            earth,
            	their home.
         Its biosphere was also a gift,
         wrapping it with beauty and dignity and just the right
         protection from sun's radiation
            and from cosmic cold.
         And eternal night.
         
         This gifted planet was set as a jewel
         in its most exquisite setting,
         in this case, the exact distance of 100 million miles
            from its mother star, the sun.
         
         New gifts arose, never seen in such forms in the universe --
         rocks, oceans, continents,
         multicellular creatures that moved by their own inner power. 
            Life was born!
         Gifts that had taken the form of fireball and helium,
         galaxies and stars, rock and water, 
            now took the form of Life!
         
         Life -- a new gift of the universe, a new gift in the universe.
         Flowers of multiple color and scent, trees standing upright.
         Forests arose offering places for all manner
            of creeping, crawling things.
         Of things that fly and sing.
         Of things that swim and slither.
         Of things that run on four legs.
            And eventually,
         of things that stand and walk on two.
         With thumbs that move to make still more creativity --
            more gift making -- possible.
         
         The human became a gift, but also a menace.
         For its powers of creativity were unique in their potential
         for destruction or healing.
            How would humans use these gifts?
            Which direction would they choose?
         The earth waited for an answer to these questions.
         And is still waiting.
            Trembling.
         
         Teachers were sent, divine incarnations
         birthed from the soil.
         Isis and Hesiod, Buddha and Lao Tzu, Moses and Isaiah, 
            Sara and Esther, Jesus and Paul,
         Mary and Hildegard, Chief Seattle and Buffalo Woman.
         To teach the humans ways of compassion.
            And still the earth waited 
         to see if humanity was gift or curse.
         Trembling.
         
         Have you ever given a gift and then regretted it afterward?
         Earth wonders and waits.
         For the gift has been made flesh
            and dwells everywhere among us
         and we tend to know it not.
         And to treat it not as a gift
            but as an object.
         To be used, abused, trampled underfoot -- even crucified.
         
         But to those who do receive it as a gift
         all is promised.
         All shall be called children of the gift,
            sons and daughters of grace.
            	For all generations.
         
         

    re: 9.371 SDSVAX::SWEENEY:                     
    
    > Fr. Matthew Fox, as I understand it, has made a formal renunciation 
    > of his Dominican vows, has been released from his order, and is 
    > seeking a release from his obligations as a Roman Catholic priest.
    
    How current is this information, Patrick?
    
    I received an update of Fr. Fox, (a panentheist) today in _Creation 
    Spirituality_, a magazine which Matthew Fox is Editor-in-Chief:
    
    Damian Byrne, the former Master General of the Dominicans, who had 
    petitioned the Vatican for Fr. Fox's dismissal has since been 
    replaced by a new Master General-elect, Timothy Radcliffe.  Mr. 
    Radcliffe (as of press time) stated in an interview to the Catholic 
    News Service that he knew nothing about the petition for Fr. Fox's 
    dismissal.  So according to this report, Fr. Fox's dismissal is still 
    "pending," though at the time (apparently) not being actively 
    pursued.
    
    "Matt has sought to stay within the Order because the spirit of 
    Dominic, Aquinas, Eckhart and otherprophetic Dominicans has inspired 
    him.  Furthermore, he once said in an interview:  'The model I follow 
    is Rosa Parks.  You stay on the bus if you're going to change things.  
    You don't leave the bus voluntarily.'  
    
    Matt has struggled to stay in the Dominicans and the church because 
    he does not want to see the Creation Spirituality movement 
    marginalized but rather put to use to renew the mainstream of 
    traditional religion.  As he has said, 'The spiritual and moral issue 
    of our time centers around the environmental revolution.  Creation 
    Spirituality wakes up all of us to our responsibility to effect the 
    healing of the Earth and all our relations.'
    
    Even if the Vatican decides to dismiss Matt from the Dominicans, he 
    would still remain a priest.  His dismissal would remove his 
    faculties to administer publicly the rites and sacraments of the 
    Catholic Church unless he were accepted into another religious 
    community or into a diocese by the invitation of a bishop."
    
    _Creation Spirituality_ September/October p.5
    
    

    Thanks for the update, Kb.  As a Matthew Fox admirer, I found Mr.
    Sweeney's unsubstantiated 'gossip' upsetting.  Having met Fr. Fox in
    person, I couldn't imagine him giving up the priesthood or his religion
    willingly.
    
    Ro
    

    In 9.371 I mentioned that Fr. Matthew Fox, O.P. was released from his
    order, the Dominicans.  This was confirmed by an article in Crisis,a
    Journal of Catholic Lay Opinion, in the October issue which I just
    received.

    Of course he was released from his order.  He's a heretic.
    
    jeff

    jeff,
    
    Have you read any of Matthew Fox's books?  Have you attended a lecture
    or listened to his tapes?  He is a devout person who has dedicated his
    life to serving God.  He has brought many people back to the Lord and
    it is a shame you feel the need to negatively label him without taking
    the time to find out the facts for yourself.
    
    Ro
    

But is he teaching the Catholic Faith?

    /john .472,
    
    That's the million dollar question. :-)
    
    I know Fr. Fox and his work was the reason I opened my heart to 
    Christianity again.  For that, I am graciously indebted to him and 
    the Holy Spirit who works through him.
    
    Karen

    Yes, I'm familiar with Mathew Fox's writings.  He's a heretic plain and
    simple.  The God he brings people back to is not the God of the Bible
    or of the Catholic Church.
    
    jeff

    Re: Jeff, .474:
    
    In *some* people's opinions. :-)
    
    Karen

    RE: .474  Jeff,
    
    			Thats a pretty strong statement which really puts
    me off.  To make the judgement that his God is not yours, IMHO, is 
    dangerous and narrowminded. And then to say that its not the God of
    the Bible or the Catholic Church is strange to say the least.  Such
    knowledge must be an awesome burden to carry.  Not to mention the
    judgement required to make such a statement.
    
    
    Dave

A very good thing about the Catholic Faith is that expositions of what
it is, what it says about God, and what it expects of its believers are
usually pretty clear.

I suspect that the rejection of Matthew Fox's teaching is based on clear
evidence that he has taught things contrary to the Faith.

    
    		For me and I want to emphasize "for me", the Bible is real
    and organized religions thoughts on it are irrelevant.  My God is a 
    personal one and not one characterized by an organization.  I guess I
    wouldn't make a very good Catholic. :-)
    
    
    Dave

    re: the works of Fr. Matthew Fox --
    
    For further information, please refer to topic 12 -- Creation 
    Spirituality, particularly notes 12.3, .4 .7 & .8 (an interview 
    with Matthew Fox). 
    
    12.32, by Mike Valenza which comments on Fox's book _Original Blessing_ 
    and the relationship between Creation Spirituality and Process Theology, 
    and note 12.35, Fox's discussion about the word "Word," (Dabhar) as used 
    in the Bible.
    
    Karen

    If you are a follower of Matthew Fox as you say you are then I believe
    your testimony alone is enough to prove my point.  Your ideas and
    beliefs generally are in contradiction to the Bible and to the Catholic
    Church and its traditions. 
    
    jeff

    I'm sorry Dave if I put you off.  I stand by what I said however.  Yes,
    I could be considered dangerous and narrowminded in the context of this
    notesconference.  But drop me in another context and I'll be seen as
    liberal.  Then there are places where I'll be perceived as just about
    right. 
    
    Unburdened,
    jeff
    
    

    RE: .481 Jeff,
    
    			I just kinda wondered why you chose to tear down
    someone elses belief rather than introduce them to your own.  Seemed
    to me to have been a very negative reply when you possess a positive 
    'word' to present.  
    
    Dave

    What's your point, jeff, that Matthew Fox is a heretic?  He follows a
    long line of them, all the way back to Jesus Christ.   
    
    And/or if it's that my ideas and beliefs are in contradiction to the Bible 
    and to the Catholic Church, that's totally okay with me.  We deal with
    it. :-) One, I was never a Catholic anyway, and two, I have only God to 
    answer to on my beliefs and ideas and how I live my life.  This
    knowledge alone gives me deep peace.
    
    Karen

    But Karen, unless I'm mistaken, you did not take a theological vow to
    teach what the Catholic Church teaches, you did not take the religious
    vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
    
    Fox did and it's taken this long to formally acknowledge that he is
    not, and has not been teaching what the Catholic Church teaches, and he
    is not obedient to his Dominican superiors.
    
    Fox is leading people to his own theology, not to the theology of the
    Church that Jesus entrusted to St. Peter and his successors.

    RE: 9.484  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				You raise an interesting question.  Is the
    Church more important than your relationship with God?  And if not, how
    do you 'handle' God revealing something opposite to the Churches
    teaching?
    
    
    Dave

    I'm not a Catholic.  I agree with Mr. Sweeney in that Fox is a heretic
    in the Catholic church.  He is also a heretic in the Protestant church. 
    
    
    jeff

    Patrick .484,
    
    Two things:
    
    > Fox is leading people to his own theology...
    
    If you read his work, Fox never claims to have created his own 
    theology, but rather continually points out the longevity and 
    eldership of the theology he discusses.  Fox cites many sources and 
    most abundantly from the Bible and some of the following people 
    and Christians who are listed in Appendix A: Toward a Family Tree of 
    Creation-Centered Spirituality in _Original Blessing_:
    
    The Yahwist author, Jesus, St. Iraneus (130-200), Hildegarde of 
    Bingen (1098-1179), St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1225), Mechtild of 
    Magdeburg (1210-1280), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Meister 
    Eckhart (1260-1329), Julian of Norwich (1342-1415), Nicholas of Cusa 
    (1401-1464), Teresa of Avila (1515-1591) and St. John of the Cross 
    (1542-1591) to name a few.  (Most of which were either condemned or 
    referred to as heretics in their time.)
    
    > ...not to the theology of the Church that Jesus entrusted to St. 
    > Peter and his successors.
    
    Patrick, I do not mean any ill-intent or ridicule here when I say 
    this:  I believe there is enough evidence that presents a valid 
    argument that the Church, in some important ways, has corrupted 
    some of the theological teachings Jesus entrusted to Peter and his 
    successors.
    
    Please reference my note 9.451.  In it I discuss and cite evidence  
    as to how women were intentionally and systematically cut out of 
    Christian leadership roles, after Christ's death, contrary to 
    Christ's clear teachings as recorded in the Bible...A brief excerpt 
    from .451:
    
    >Despite the previous public activity of Christian women, by the year 
    >200, the majority of Christian communities endorsed as canonical the 
    >pseudo-Pauline letter of Timothy, which stresses the anti-feminist 
    >element in Paul's views: "Let a woman learn in silence with all 
    >submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over 
    >men:  she is to keep silent"....By the end of the second century, 
    >women's participation in worship was explicitly condemned:  groups 
    >in which women continued on to leadership were branded as heretical.
    
    Which brings up another interesting point...since the Church once 
    condemned groups who placed women in leadership roles as heretical, 
    should denominations today be condemned as heretical for moving to
    do the same thing?  
    
    I believe in some important ways, Fr. Matthew Fox is theologically 
    more aligned with what Jesus Christ taught and intended than the 
    Church is or has been -- particularly regarding his views on women 
    and their equal involvement in all aspects of Christian affairs.
    
    Karen 

    The Roman Catholic Church did not regard "most" of that list as being
    heretics.  In fact, I don't recognize any.  A few of the more
    well-known in that list have been honored by the Church with the title
    of Doctor of the Church.  They taught what the Church teaches.

    If there is corruption in the Roman Catholic Church then it is over her
    inability to provide the example of holiness in the men and women who
    profess the faith.  The Roman Catholic Church believes is guided in a
    unique way by the Holy Spirit in what it teaches on matters of faith
    and morality.  It is more than an opinion is it a matter of history
    that the Church has survived persecution, schism and personally corrupt
    leadership.

    If the fruit of the teaching of Fr. Fox matches that of his brother
    Dominican St. Thomas or St. Theresa of Avila who reformed the Order of
    the Disclaced Carmelites over the next 100 years, I will owe you an
    apology.

re Note 12.60 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     If there is corruption in the Roman Catholic Church then it is over her
>     inability to provide the example of holiness in the men and women who
>     profess the faith.  The Roman Catholic Church believes is guided in a
>     unique way by the Holy Spirit in what it teaches on matters of faith
>     and morality.  

        In a way it's a pity that Matthew 16:18:  "... upon this rock
        I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
        prevail against it," only applies to keeping the church free
        of all doctrinal error but does not appear to keep "the gates
        of hell" from prevailing against the living testimony of the
        most visible members of that church.

        Bob

    I don't believe we will have to wait 100 years to bear the fruit of Fr.
    Fox's beliefs; you may owe Karen an apology much sooner than that
    Patrick!  ;')
    
    Ro
    

    Patrick .60,
    
    I've taken no offense at any of your comments about Matthew Fox -- 
    and in all actuallity, I feel your questions are valid.  So from my 
    perspective an apology is really unnecessary, now or in the future, 
    though I do appreciate your offer very much.  
    
    Peace and blessings,
    
    Karen
    
    P.S.  I do feel that the fruit of Fr. Fox's work will be viewed
          by the Church someday as praise-worthy and that the label of
          heretic will be removed.

    
    "Maybe...my lifetime is dedicated to repairing the sins of my fathers."
    
    	-- Matthew Fox, stated in his appearance in the film "The Burning 
    	Times" (1990 Canadian film about what happened to the witches in the 
    	"Renaissance")
    

Recently I have been reading the writings of Matthew Fox, a Dominican who
is very popular for his creation spirituality and love of the environment. 
I agree with a great deal of his concerns.  But I notice this:  he
exaggerates creation above redemption; sin is treated as a rather tiresome
preoccupation of the Church, and what matters is mankind's abuse of
creation.  This is a distortion of Christianity, which never separates
creation and salvation in that way.

					-- The Most Reverend George Carey
					   Archbishop of Canterbury

    It is a wise person who realizes their redemption is never complete
    while they continue to abuse God's Creation.  
     
    You see, it's even more challenging than traditional Christianity 
    usually makes it out to be.  Salvation is not a "point-event."  It's 
    an on-going process.  As we continue to abuse Creation, we continue 
    to abuse ourselves and each other.  
    
    There is still so much to be redeemed.
    
    Karen                        

    
    	"That traditional Western spiritualities have not enabled their
    followers to mitigate or even to understand or protest the terrifying
    assault of American society on the natural world is evidence of a
    certain incompetence or lack of understanding in these traditions."
    
    		-- Father Thomas Berry, 
    		  _Dream of the earth_, 1988, (p. 113)
    
                                                      

    
    	In the West the prevailing view has been, at least implicitly, that
    the world and everything in it exist for our benefit.  As to life on
    it, it is usually assumed that, as the book of Genesis says, we "have
    dominion over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the air and over
    every living thing that moves upon the earth."  In short, we see
    ourselves as separate from and superior to everything on and in the
    earth, and we have misued this perspective to justify destruction of
    whatever stands in the way of our desires.
    
    		-- Dr. Roger Walsh, (1990, p. 255)
    
    	It might not be too much to say that our spiritual traditions not
    only provided much of the context in which this assault [against the
    natural world] became possible, but they also provided a positive, if
    often indirect support for this process.
    
    		-- Father Thomas Berry (1988, p. 113)
     

    re: .-1
    
    Woe unto Bambi

>    	In the West the prevailing view has been, at least implicitly, that
>    the world and everything in it exist for our benefit.  As to life on
>    it, it is usually assumed that, as the book of Genesis says, we "have
>    dominion over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the air and over
>    every living thing that moves upon the earth."  In short, we see
>    ourselves as separate from and superior to everything on and in the
>    earth, and we have misued this perspective to justify destruction of
>    whatever stands in the way of our desires.
>    
>    		-- Dr. Roger Walsh, (1990, p. 255)
    
    I agree that the assumption that we are separate from and superior to
    everything on and in the earth is common. I note that in the quote Dr
    Walsh does not dispute that that is a valid assumption. I think it 
    clearly is valid. That does not say I believe we can use that to
    justify distruction. However, I believe that preservation of the earth
    is justified if only by selfism motives. In other words, "can does not
    imply should."
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred .70,
    
    > I agree that the assumtion that we are separate from and superior 
    > to everything on and in the earth is common.  I note that in the 
    > quote Dr Walsh does not dispute that that is a valid assumption.
    
    Yes, it is a valid assumption, meaning an accurate and predominant 
    one.  Though valid, Walsh highlights its destructive aspects and 
    why it's an, overall, unhealthy and ultimately, profoundly 
    disasterous assumption...
    
    	"Though we have the resources to create a veritable heaven on 
    earth, we seem just as likely to create a veritable hell...for the 
    first time in millons of years of evolution, all the major threats to 
    our survival are human-caused....Problems such as starvation, 
    pollution and nuclear weapons stem directly from our own behavior and 
    the hopes and fears, phobias and fantasies, desires and delusions 
    that power this behavior.  The state of the world reflects the state 
    of our minds.  The insanity without mirrors the insanity within 
    (Walsh, 1990, p. 254-255).
    
    [And btw, Al Gore in his work and study of global environmental issues 
    drew a similar conclusion:  "The more deeply I search for the roots of 
    the global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an 
    outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for lack of a better 
    word, spiritual" (1992, p.12).]
    
    > I believe preservation of the earth is justified if only by selfism 
    > motives.
    
    I agree, Alfred.  You would think that the love and concern for our 
    children and their children's children would be all the necessary 
    motivation people would need to make the care and preservation of the 
    earth a priority.  Hopefully, at some point, we'll become stewards of 
    the earth, as God intends and waits for us to be, and our actions 
    will be inspired by deep reverence as well as practical 
    self-preservation.
    
    Karen
    

    Of course only if we believe we have power over the earth can
    be believe that we have the power to save it. Otherwise, if we
    do not have power over it, we could just as easily assume that 
    what we do doesn't matter so do what we please. To imply that
    we have responsibility for the world implies either authority
    or gross unfairness.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred .72,
    
    I think I may see things a bit differently here:
    
    > Of course only if we believe we have power over the earth can we
    > believe that we have the power to save it.
    
    The earth will save itself, meaning it will go on for a long time to
    come, regardless of what we do or do not do.  We just need to decide 
    if we want to be part of the solution, or erradicated as part of the 
    problem.
    
    > To imply that we have responsibility for the world implies either
    > authority or gross unfairness.
    
    The responsibility we have is to be good stewards -- to care for, not
    abuse, the earth, all life forms, and each other.
    
    Karen                                               

>    The earth will save itself, meaning it will go on for a long time to
>    come, regardless of what we do or do not do.  We just need to decide 
>    if we want to be part of the solution, or erradicated as part of the 
>    problem.

	If this is so, than it doesn't matter to the earth what we do. SO
	why not do what we want? The earth will recover and man will adapt
	or not. I myself believe that the earth will not save itself. 
	Animals that we wipe out will not return, the air will not clean
	itself, the water will get worse and all earthly creatures will die.
	If I'm wrong than why worry?

			Alfred

   Alfred,

   The question is will it be a barren rock in space for our folly or the
   home of generations yet to come?  The earth will go on no matter what
   is the obvious statment. 


   Peace,
   Allison

re .75

	Alison,

	Fortunately, God will not allow man to cause the earth to become
	a barren rock. A prophecy in Revelation 11:18 NWT indicates that
	God will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth." or as the KJV
	renders it "shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.".
	The prophecy indicates that man will not have ruined the earth
	but is ruining it when God steps in to put and end to this wanton 
	greed.

	BTW this prophecy is another indication that we are living in 
	what the Bible calls "the last days" 2 Tim 3:1-5. This is a 
	time when those hoping in Jehovah can look forward to him soon	
	bringing an end to this wanton destruction , as Psalms 37:34 NWT 
	reads "Hope in Jehovah and keep his way, And he will exalt you to 
	take possesion of the earth. When the wicked ones are cut off, you 
	will see [it].." 

	Phil.

    Alfred .74,
    
    You *really* know how to bring out the philosopher in me. :-)
    
    Essentially you're asking one of the greatest, most profound 
    questions in life.  It lies at the heart of our existence, for its 
    answer is what infuses our actions and lives with meaning.  And the 
    human spirit can survive under some extremely adverse conditions, but 
    a life without meaning -- that spells certain death. 
    
    So I've found myself thinking long and hard on your question "what 
    does it matter?" but the words that would contain what I feel still 
    elude me, but here's a story, perhaps a familiar one, that pretty well 
    points to what I'm feeling:
    
          As the old man walked the beach at dawn, he noticed a young man 
       ahead of him picking up starfish and tossing them into the sea.  
       Finally catching up with the youth, he asked him why he was doing 
       this.  The answer was that the stranded starfish would die if left 
       until the morning sun.  "But the beach goes on for miles and there 
       are millions of starfish," countered the other.  "How can your 
       effort make any difference?"  The young man looked at the starfish 
       in his hand and then tossed it to safety in the waves.  "It makes 
       a difference to this one," he said. 
    
    Gandhi also once said:  
    
       "What you do may seem insignificant to you, but it is still 
          important that you do it."
    
    Thanks very much for asking, Alfred.  Btw, how would you answer your
    own question?
    
    Karen

    RE: .77 I believe that earth is mans to destroy or maintain. A dead
    and lifeless earth is not earth. It is just an other ball of dust
    in the universe. I think it is a good thing to maintain the earth.
    I have a son and nephews and nieces and cousins who will be here 
    long after I am gone.

    I do not believe earth will repair itself if man makes too many bad 
    choices so it behooves me to work for its maintenance. But I don't
    see this as a religious thing. If there were other planets we could
    all move to leaving this one behind a polluted and dieing wreck would
    not be a religious or philosophical problem.

    The future of the earth is not a profound question to me. Just a matter
    of practicality. The meaning of ones own life, well, that is a
    different matter.

    		Alfred

re .78

	Alfred,

	We are all wise to consider, to whom does the earth belong?

	Some may say that it belongs to man to do with as he pleases.
	However the Bible shows "To Jehovah belong the earth and that
	which fills it, The productive land and those dwelling in it"
	Psalms 24:1 NWT. This shows that man does have an accountability 
	towards God on how treats God's creation and the productive land. 
	The job that God first gave Adam in the garden of Eden was "to
	cultivate it and to take care of it." Genesis 2:15 NWT. Seeing 
	that God gave Adam & Eve the commission to fill the earth (Genesis
	1:28), it would follow that God's original purpose was for Adam and 
	his offspring was to extend the boundaries of the garden of Eden.
	Adam & Eve's rebellion in the garden of Eden does not give mankind
	the freedom to do what ever they want to the earth. An illustration 
	to show this might be, an owner of some houses has to go abroad for a 
	few years. While he is away he allows tenants to live in one of his
	houses. These tenants really mistreat his property and show little 
	respect having caused alot of damage. What do you think he will do 
	on his return? Probably kick them out and repair the house no doubt. 
	One thing he certainly would not let them do, is live in one of his 
	other homes just for them to do the same.


      ;The future of the earth is not a profound question to me. Just a matter
      ;of practicality. The meaning of ones own life, well, that is a
      ;different matter.

	Seeing that God is the giver of life, as well as giving this beautiful
	earth for mankind to live in, our attitude towards the earth would
	indicate our appreciation for the gifts that God has given us. 

	Phil.

    > Seeing that God is the giver of life, as well as giving this
    > beautiful earth for mankind to live in, our attitude towards the earth
    > would indicate our apprectiation for the gifts that God has given us.
    
    Beautifully said, Phil, thank you.  Inspiring to read first thing in
    the morning. :-)
    
    Karen

    RE: 12.79
    
    Your note was inspiring.  It expresses the reverence that we should all
    show toward the earth as a gift from the Divine.
    
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

    Bravo, Phil!
    
    "All good gifts around us are sent from heaven above
     So thank the Lord, thank the Lord for all His love."
    
         ...to quote a few lines of a song from Godspell
    
    Nanci

re .80,.81,.82

	Karen, Patricia and Nanci

	Thank you for your kind words, however I don't think I should
	take the credit. If the things I write bring Jehovah glory, then
	it is he that ultimately should take the credit.

	Phil.

    Claus Westermann, Emeritus Profesor of Old Testament at Heidelberg 
    University, is one of the leading theologians in Biblical Studies.  
    His commentaries on Genesis, the prophetic materials, wisdom texts 
    from the Old and New Testaments, as well as his many other writings 
    are well known to pastors and students of theology.  His own work on 
    Creation and its indelible link to the blessing work of the Cretor 
    offers a substatitive biblical grounding for the ecologically-based 
    spirituality known as Creation Spirituality. The following are 
    excerpts from his recent commentary on Matthew Fox's _Original 
    Blessing_:
      
      	 Matthew Fox, in his work _Original Blessing_ looks at the 
      necessity of a fundamental transformation of the divine connection, 
      which he calls "spirituality," in view of the ongoing crisis in 
      ecology and global unemployment.  In a conscious polemic, 
      throughout his work he places two theological traditions in 
      oppostion to one another.  Since the time of Augustine, the church 
      has been determined by the one tradition which is primarily 
      concerned with sin and redemption, (which Fox terms "Fall- 
      Redemption" theology).  What is necessary now, in light of the 
      planetary and human crisis, is a tradition which is defined by 
      Creation and blessing -- the blessing activity of God, (which Fox 
      terms Creation-centered theology).
      
      	 In this beginning, and at the same time most crucial, point, one 
      must agree with Fox.  When he discusses the Western Church's 
      fixation which causes its piety and theology to be stirred up 
      almost wholly with the topics of sin and redemption, he articulates 
      that which may no more be challenged.  That the Bible speaks of the 
      blessing activity of God balanced alongside the redemptive work, is 
      no longer observed.  
      
      	 In the Augustine tradition there is such a comprehensive and 
      dangerous narrow-mindedness that a single correction may no longer 
      be able to help.  It must be asked and should be explained how this 
      shift in emphasis from what the Bible says of the blessing nature 
      of God could have occurred, and it must be publicly conceded that a 
      mistaken path has been taken here. 
      
      	 When Matthew Fox gives his the polemical title _Original 
      Blessing_, he thereby challenges the meaning of so-called "original 
      sin" -- correctly so, since the Bible knows no "original sin."  
      This is a construction of Dogmatic Theology.  On the contrary, he 
      rightly shows that blessing belongs with the beginnings.  This is 
      so, for the very first thing which the Creator does after creating 
      is to bless the Creation.
      
      	 Only a church which is ecumenical in the broadest sense of the 
      word is up to adequately meeting the challenge of the crises which 
      threaten.  The traditional church should understand itself then as 
      a branch of the Christian Church.  Arguments about rank or compe- 
      tition between individual denominations should then be absolutely 
      out of the question, along with all claims for domination or "right 
      position."
      
      	 I have discussed here only a little of _Original Blessing's_ 
      content and that only briefly...the work itself is much richer and 
      offers an abundance of suggestions which point in a new direction.  
      One need not completely agree with everything presented, nor do 
      I...but there is no difference in agreement with respect to the 
      basic challenge of a throrough transformation.  I consider the book 
      by Fox to be a forward-looking, arousing work, one which will, it 
      is to be hoped, provide much stimulus for the transformation of our 
      common life and work.
      
      	 	-- _Creation Spirituality_ November/December 1992. 

    Is "original blessing" meant to obscure "original sin"?
    
    If it were not for the separation from God that commenced in Eden,
    there would be no need of salvation, no need to seek God's favor (ie
    His blessing) and the Bible's only blessing would be Genesis 1:28 and
    the Bible would end in chapter 2, "and they were obedient to God
    forever."
    
    Separation from God is the reason we call on God for His infinite
    blessings and for His infinite mercy.

    Patrick,
    
    > Separation from God is the reason we call on God for His infinite
    > blessings and for His infinite mercy.
    
    Right on, brother.  There is no theologian I knew who doesn't agree 
    with this.  Fox, does (as do I, though I'm no theologian).
    
    Fox's treatise on original blessing is not meant to "obscure" original 
    sin.  Actually, his position is the doctrine of Original Sin is 
    not biblically valid, as Westermann agrees in .85:  "When Matthew Fox 
    gives his book the polemical title _Original Blessing_, he thereby 
    challenges the meaning of so-called "original sin" -- correctly so, 
    since the bible knows no "original sin.  This is a construction of
    Dogmatic Theology."
    
    In _Original Blessing_, Fox cites Robert Haag, former president of the 
    Catholic Bible Association of Germany and author of _Is Original Sin in 
    Scripture?_ who asserts:
    
    "The doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of
    the Old Testament.  It is certainly not in chapters one to thre of
    Genesis.  This ought to be recognized today, not only by Old Testament
    scholars, but also be dogmatic theologians....The idea that Adam's
    descendants are automatically sinners because of the sin of their
    ancestor, and that they are already sinners when they enter the world,
    is foreign to Holy Scripture."
    
    "No man enters the world a sinner.  As the creature and image of God, 
    he is from his first hour surrounded by God's fatherly love. 
    Consequently, he is not at birth, as if often maintained, an enemy of
    God and a child of God's wrath.  A man becomes a sinner only through
    his own individual and responsible action."
    
    Fox goes on to say "No one believed in original sin until Augustine. 
    Original sin is an idea that Augustine developed late in his life, and
    to his credit, it was not all that significant in his theology....[But] 
    it is well known that the Council of Trent insisted on the doctrine of
    original sin."
    
    Fox on the "originations" of original sin...
    
    Augustine's effort to find original sin in the scriptures was
    hopelessly flawed -- he actually mistranslated the Bible in his zeal to
    prove his hypothesis -- yet the doctrine still constitutes a starting
    point for fall/redemption spiritualities and fundamentalist theologies. 
    
    In Paul's Letter to the Romans he says "Therefore, as sin came into the
    world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all
    men _because all men sinned_.  Augustine translated this last phrase:
    "in whom all men sinned."  And using a faulty Latin translation which
    left out the word "death" he translates as folows"  "Through one man
    sin entered into the world and through sin, death, and thus spread to
    all men, in whom all have sinned."  
    
    Haag comments that Augustine's "interpretation, together with the whole 
    weight of his personal confession of faith, entered into the history of 
    Latin theology, and it lies at the basis of the Council of Trent's
    decree on original sin (pps. 47-49).
    
    Karen

    RE: .87  Karen,
    
    			Your information seems to go against traditional
    teachings on this subject and I'll need to look into it further before
    I could "buy" into it.  It would explain many seeming inconsistancies
    that I've been bothered with for some time like abortion.  Most
    Christians believe that the aborted fetus automatically goes to be with
    the Father and yet it is concieved in sin.  Thank you. :-)
    
    
    Dave

    Karen,
    
    Thank you for the information on "Original Blessings".  I have always
    thought the concept of Original Sin to be one of the most perverted
    concepts in the bible.  It is comforting to here that it was made up by
    the Church  FATHERS.
    
    
                                  Patricia 

    Patricia,
    
    You might also want to check out Elaine Pagels's book, "Adam, Eve and
    the Serpent", which discusses the origin and history of the doctrine of
    Original Sin.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Thanks.  I think I will check it out.
    
                    Patricia

    Dave,
    
    I understand and don't want anyone to just "buy" into the information
    Fox presents.  The best thing to do imo, is to explore the evidence 
    yourself.  I think it might also answer some of the inconsistencies/
    questions you've been pondering.  
    
    Imo, Fox's scholarship on the topic is convincing.  Personally, the 
    doctrine of original sin has never made a wit of sense to me.  Why would 
    God create souls and the moment they are conceived or born, they are 
    sinful wretched creatures?  Why would God birth souls at all?  If God
    wanted souls to glorify him, then just keep em all up in heaven.  
    
    My view of the doctrine of original sin is that it is and has been nothing 
    more than an albatross around Christian's necks.  One that has been far 
    more harmful than helpful in sharing the "good news" of Christ's message 
    and teachings.  
    
    Mike,
    
    If you've read Pagel's book, could you summarize any of the information
    you recall?
    
    Thanks, 
    
    Karen

    RE: .92  Karen,
    
    			I agree...it does make sense.
    
    
    Dave

    Ah, Karen, I was afraid you would ask me that!  I read the book when it
    was published, back in 1988 or 89, shortly after I moved to Colorado
    Springs.  A local bookstore did not have it in yet, or was out of
    copies, the first time I asked, and so I ended up checking it out of
    the Colorado Springs library.  As a result, it is not part of my
    personal library of religious books.  I can tell you that the book was
    very well researched.  As I recall, it discussed some interesting ideas
    about sexuality as a component of the doctrine of Original Sin, and the
    way the Adam and Eve myth was reinterpreted from having a positive
    message to a negative one.  This was very interesting to me, because,
    coming out of a conservative Christian tradition, I had taken the
    negative interpretation of this story for granted, not realizing that
    Judaism, for example, offers its own, differing, interpretation.  As a
    result I came to appreciate the Adam and Eve story as having more value
    than I had before.  Pagels also discussed Augustine's important role in
    the definition of this doctrine.

    -- Mike

    I guess you know me pretty well, Mike. :-)
    
    Everything you wrote corroborates Fox's research as well.  He indicated
    that around Augustine's time there was a growing movement that
    considered everything associated with the physical world as sinful,
    corrupt, and contemptible, sexuality included.  
    
    This is one of the reasons why native peoples were so easily slaughtered.  
    Their reverence and celebration of the blessings they received through 
    nature and the physical world, and their healthy acceptance of the 
    body and sexuality, were in direct contradiction to the Christian
    "sensibilities" which emerged during this time.  It's one of the
    reasons why women were oppressed so -- women epitomize in a very real
    way the blessings and abundance of the physical world through their 
    ability to give birth to new life.  
    
    Karen