Ariel, I'm glad you included the groaning of creation. I was just reading through Romans 8 last night and wished I had said something about it in my previous post:

quote:

18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

I think this passage needs to be held in tension with those that speak of the destruction of the created order.

I think the possibility remains open that the whole created order will be renewed or transformed at the second coming of Christ so that what was before has continuity with what comes after. The corruption and corruptibility will be destroyed in the fire of His coming but the works of silver and gold will remain and have a place in the new heavens and the new earth.

Yes, I think we can hope for that--that God will redeem, not abandon, the work of His hands that He has allowed to take part in the fall along with us.

Jacques,

You did an EXCELLENT job in your response post – excellent in ferreting out those applicable scriptures.

In particular, I liked EZ 16:49, Is 58:6-12 and James 5:1-5.

EZ 16:49 seems to be more and more the American way for many folk – or perhaps much of western civilization’s way in a good measure. It brought to mind, for me anyway, the lavish and ever increasing need to expand lavish / gluttonous spending that I see and hear about with respect to the post-prom parties, bachelor parties, showers, sweet sixteen parties wherein every year the partying gets more and more extravagant – with folk travelling to Vegas, Atlantic City, and Mexican and Caribbean resorts to outdo the past year’s or the past person’s party. I’m speaking of middle class Americans not the very wealthy, whom I don’t know. I recently for example heard of a wedding shower that cost $16,000. Believe me, I like to dance and enjoy a party. God loves the prosperous as well as the poor; and if you are blessed you are blessed. But when one considers the poor and needy of the world and what they lack, when one considers that 68% of the world doesn’t know how to read and write, and that only 1% of the world has received a college education (I heard these statistics on a CD this evening and am assuming their correctness) then such excessive use of prosperity in the light of the poor and needy can truly be a travesty. And a travesty too, is the charging of such parties by credit card when the money is not at hand which further exacerbates American indebtedness. It brings your extracted scripture into clear focus. Admittedly, I have no knowledge about what goes on in your country, but when I read your Ezekiel scripture the above is what came first to my mind – probably because I see so much of that gluttony among relatives and friends.

* Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. *

Yes, there is much validity with respect to Christians’ lack of the orthopraxy you (and the Lord) desire to see regarding man’s considerateness and justice for his fellowman – his love for his neighbor. Much validity for non-Christians as well, since social justice is a natural-law issue that ethics requires attention to. Secular mankind regardless of religious affiliation is aware of the pertinence of justice, and must be challenged by its pertinence.

I have no issues with any of your scripture extractions. (How could I, really, anyway?) And I agree that as Christians we who should be at the forefront in these areas are very often negligent and often do not practice what we preach (our orthopraxy is not always evident). This is an area wherein we need to repent of our sins of omission. Most folk focus on their absence of sins of commission – if they think about their sinfulness at all. Though, without making excuses, it is also true, that the church has historically been at the forefront in bringing hospitals, orphanages and education for the masses into existence -- into an organized existence. Folk attack the church for being a large ‘imperialist’ organization, but that organization has successfully made, and continues to strive to make, substantial and significant and highly organized contributions to world civilization.

So post-moderns’ cognizance of our sins of omission (not that premoderns are not cognizant in these regards) is valid but would be a foolish reason to disown what is right and rightly working via the church. (For one example, pro-life issues are social justice issues. The fetus has a right to its continued existence).

Let’s not forget that Satan (the accuser of the brethren) is want to point out these very faults that the people of God are guilty of – and he points them out not for our repentance, but for our dismissal. So postmoderns need to temper perhaps any observance of obvious failures of the Christian churches in orthopraxy regards with calls for our repentance and not calls for the church’s elimination or dismissal (as secular mankind and Scratch are wont to promote). Cynicism is not a proper Christian response (albeit the worldview of many—Christians as well as secularists).

But none of the social justice issues and our omissions in their regard really contradict what I was trying to address regarding the attacks against Christian doctrine and Christian religious practice. The reality of negligence in various social justice regards in no way substantiates the attacks against the basic tenets of Christian faith in the authority and deity of Jesus Christ, His church, and His revelation – nor His desire for worshippers and His right to have that. *It is truly right and just that we always and everywhere give Him thanks and praise. * If one’s concern is justice – well, there’s justice in that ….. an ultimate and most basic justice.

The fact that I and my siblings are disobedient does not in any way mean that our dad’s authority and wisdom are not true and legitimate; nor would dereliction of duty by some soldiers imply that the general is not their legitimate authority nor that his orders to them do not evidence a sound tactical strategy.

So, yes, I certainly agree that (as you’ve written) the Lord cares deeply about social justice realities and we must as well. But too, He is most interested in our conversion – in our conversion towards love (which He is), towards our conversion towards love of Him and each other. He being the Divine Provider has a far diminished regard for our economic and political issues. It’s our wills and our conversion of heart that He desires. That’s what went wrong in the garden – there were no issues of social economics and politics in play – all was in harmony. Turning stones into bread is a fallout of our conversion when and where such conversion occurs. Conversion from selfishness and rebellion towards love and obedience is His goal (methinks).

As for your desire and hope that the kosmos remains in tact – well, many people would rewrite the ending to books in a way of their fashion; but it’s God’s book—the book of Revelation—why not let Him have its ending the way He wants. Maybe He has a brighter vision than even we can imagine, despite now having arrived here in the third millennium. Maybe we needn’t be so concerned about safeguarding the Kosmos. Perhaps God has it all under control somehow. Perhaps we just need to appreciate Him and each other and ourselves and leave the results to Him – after all He is the Creator of creators.

Pop-pop

p.s. I want to acknowledge that with respect to both you and Ariel I do realize that both of you are more conscientious in your pursuit of the Lord than are my own son and nieces and nephews and acquaintances from your meme-clan. I wish I could scrap with them as I here do with you.

p.p.s. Of course, if the general says that we should be at the LZ by 2100 hours with duffels packed because the choppers will be arriving for our EVACUATION ….. well

Don't have a lot of time right now for a full reply, but see Barnes' Notes on the Bible regarding the continuation of the created order even after the judgement:

http://bible.cc/revelation/21-1.htm

http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-13.htm

http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-10.htm

Ariel,

I more heard than felt the earthquake. My picture window rattled, which my daughter noticed more than I, but we thought it was a gust of wind. (and not feist, mind you).

As for Irene, I’ve been praying as previously. I have no real deep concern. I bought a candle and located my flashlight. I don’t believe that in my corner of the state this storm will be a big issue and I will be able to sing a Goodnight, Irene. Water in my basement could be an issue, but I just the other day heard the town installed a new pump where the local sink hole is. So hopefully I will not be hassled.

Your post on suffering and your stance was very well stated, I think. Suffering issues are definitely a hard nut, and terrible traumatic suffering and death is a hard hard hard nut. And your posture before that mystery is well put. There’s no way around and through it except as you’ve put it. The confusion and the lack of clarity you mention is the stuff of the darkness of faith we walk in and your * trying to use my small amount of faith in an obedient manner, while hoping someday all this beautiful mess of creation will cease groaning and sing an unmistakable song of praise...and hoping too that I will hear that song and see His face and be ashamed, in a good way, that I ever doubted His care*. is the stuff of hope that SJOC for one, says keeps us in an ideal posture for growth towards union with God.

Love alone makes sense, though. We know that. There's no escaping the fact that love is the answer, the remedy, the light by which we continue forward.

Like Peter said; Where else shall we go? You have the words...

Hope Irene treats you and all with a friendly regard. And that you sleep calm in the the midst of it -- in the bottom of your pennsy boat.

Pop-pop

I wonder what the other penny of your two cents might have revealed.

Pop-pop--

So far Irene has been pretty mellow here. The worst of looks to be on the way overnight, so I'll be up in my loft under the eaves listening to the rain, thankful for a sturdy roof. Hope you sleep well, too. Say some prayers for all those in harm's way.

While the author of the Barnes' Notes argues for the continuation of the created order he still has a rather narrow interpretation of what that will look like. The earth will be destroyed by fire, as per a very literal translation of 2 Peter, and the remaining elements of the created order will be renewed giving us the New Earth.

While I agree with his point regarding the continuation, I'm not convinced that the apocalyptic language needs to be interpreted so literally. Especially given that the last line of 2 Peter 3:10 has a disputed Greek word (heurethesetai vs. katakaesetai) which lends weight to alternate interpretations.

N.T. Wright sheds really relevant light on apocalyptic literature in general (and discusses postmodernity in the process) and G.Z. Heide has plenty of good to say regarding the same topic and it's relation to the New Heavens and Earth.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Apocalypse_Now.htm

http://www.etsjets.org/files/J...1-pp037-056_JETS.pdf

Interesting reading, Jacques. I'll have to finish it this evening.

Pop-pop--I hope you're all well. We had quite a storm, and lost power, but only for 24 hours.

Kansas missed out on Hurricane Irene completely. Wish we'd have some of its rain, however. We have another week of 100+ days coming up, which will break the record for most 100 days during the summer. Global warming? Maybe a little, but more likely La Nina. Look it up on wikipedia.

Great links, Jacques. And good to read this continuing discussion.

I finished reading the last couple of paragraphs (from "A Future Hope" on) of the N.T. Wright article, and I wish I had gotten that far this morning--how encouraging and beautifully stated they are.

I'll check into the freight cost to send you my full barrels of rain, Phil.

Pop-pop--how are you? My mom's power is still out. I hope you didn't have a flooded basement...if you do, maybe Snappy would like to move in with you.

Ariel,

I have now survived Kahoutek, Y2K, and Hurricane Irene! ( Perhaps I should have a T-shirt made). Thanks for your concern, mon amie.

My corner of Jersey was spared most of Irene’s clout. I did get some water in my basement, maybe a half inch more than what I might get in a heavy spring thunderstorm. Didn’t lose power. Thanks for offering Snappy. I would have taken him from you had it been worse, as it turned out -- he would have been bored. My g’daughter’s friend won’t have power restored until 4 Sept. I hope your mom fares better than that.

Poor Vermont!

Jacques,

I visited your links. The Bible comparisons link was neat –though nothing for the occasional RC bible reader. The N.T. Wright article didn’t do much for me; probably because, as for me, I don’t consider 2 Peter to be apocalyptic literature.

As for, the Heide article – lots and lots of discussion there, most of it the heady philosophy professor kind that I don’t enjoy really; I would qualify for what he has stated is a ‘wooden literal’ interpretation of 2 Pet 3. I believe Peter has simply been clear in what he wrote - and not wooden. Like beauty, wood can be in the eye of the beholder.

In any event, Ariel uses wood as a medium for her sculptures, so I have no disdain for things wooden. (And if I were you I wouldn’t either, she throws a mean snowball whenever she perceives the slightest whiff of disdain. You weren’t around last winter to observe my many peltings).

Pop-pop

Pop-pop---I'm glad to hear you came through the hurricane without much of a problem. My mom got her electricity restored yesterday afternoon.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

she throws a mean snowball whenever she perceives the slightest whiff of disdain.

Hey, now that's not true...and I'll toss a tomato at you if you say that again.

I'm not quite through with reading the Heide article. I thought it was good so far...more comments to follow.

Pop-pop and others-

It seemed to me that Mr. Heide's article was addressing, in part, the question of how to read 2 Peter 3 while keeping Paul's words in Romans 8 also in mind--and Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 65 and 66.

Leaving aside practical questions of how to treat the earth and non-human parts of creation for now, how do we understand the Bible in light of itself?---Paul seems to speak of a scenario of the present creation being liberated and redeemed along with us, as it's this creation that has innocently suffered. Romans 8 doesn't sound like annihilation to me. Isaiah 65, as well, uses the same "I will create a new heavens and new earth" language as 2 Peter and Rev. 21, but Is. 65 pretty clearly is not talking about eternity, but rather the earthly Jerusalem finally being the city of shalom. In Is. 65, people build houses and tend vineyards, die in old age, and have children. Isaiah 66:22 says, "as the new heavens and new earth I will create will endure before me..."---and, seeing that such language in Is. 65 doesn't appear to be about our final post-death immortality, how do you read all this?

So Pop-pop, keeping Romans 8 and Is. 65 in mind, I don't see it being the case that we have a clear path to taking the fire of 2 Peter to be literal annihilation. Maybe we can read it that way, but maybe not--it seems more complicated than that to me, and as such, I can't just jump on board with the idea of what Jacques has been calling an evacuation gospel. Don't beam me up yet, Scotty.

Ariel,

I like your post, mon amie. BTW sorry for slow response but I’ve been busy of late.

So … ‘how do I read this’ that you’ve mentioned?

Ok, recalling that I am just a man on the street (a blue – meme guy at that) and not a bible scholar. I read things as follows: as you point out -- *Is. 65 pretty clearly is not talking about eternity, but rather the earthly Jerusalem finally being the city of shalom. In Is. 65, people build houses and tend vineyards, die in old age, and have children.* Is 65 was fulfilled with the establishment of the New Covenant and the New Jerusalem, in which the least born is greater than John the Baptist; in which those accepting the wedding invitation of the Lamb via soliciting from the Bride of Christ baptism into the Body of Christ receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Such an indwelling was not available to mankind at the time of Isaiah (was not available to John the Baptist). Also not available at the time of Isaiah was Eucharist (we’ve discussed real presence in another forum) and the balance of the sacramental life. So we Christians who today build houses, tend vineyards, die in old age and have children -- are living in a different (a new) kingdom than was available in Isaiah’s day. Trinitarian life in the kingdom of God is now available to us! The kingdom of God is at hand (is here for the asking)! “What do you ask of the church?” is what those at the outset of the sacrament of Baptism are asked. The lifeblood and body of God himself are available for our consumption, for our spiritual and physical well being. Go forth and spread this Good News. (from the other forum post: Put your free token into the turnstile and take a step forward into the subway system that did not always exist but does now). The Spirit and the Bride say: “Come!”

So yes, *Is 65 is pretty clearly not talking about eternity* as you’ve noted; it’s talking about the current age – the age A.D.—the age in which we too now live.

Given you can agree with my read of Is 65, then the other scripture references may take on for you a different possibility of interpretation perhaps; but let’s continue as best I can.

You have written:* Romans 8 doesn't sound like annihilation to me.* It doesn’t to me as well – not explicitly anyway. In verse 18 Paul says he considers the sufferings of the present (and btw, our present sufferings [as were Paul’s then-present sufferings] make up for what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ) to be as nothing compared to the glory to be revealed in us. This ‘glory to be revealed’ occurs after the parousia when we will have the glory of resurrected bodies and be living in a resurrected heavenly life. That is, after the day 2 Pet 3 addresses —where we get to focus upon the annihilation stuff. Meantime we groan inwardly as we await the redemption of our bodies [8:23] (they aren’t yet fully redeemed so we are awaiting the parousia). [8:21] indicates that the world as well will be freed from its slavery to sin and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God. So, as you’ve noted this doesn’t sound like annihilation per se, but undoubtedly something has to give and change has to and will occur. So the issue becomes how that change in the world as we know it will come about. So, are there other scriptures that bear light on how this will come about?

And (here we go round the prickly pear) we read in 2 Pet 3:10 that fire will be involved, that the elements will be destroyed by fire and in 12 that the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the element melt away in a blaze. We read in 1 Thess 4:17 that the living will be caught up with the dead and will in the clouds meet the Lord in the air! Hot stuff, eh? -- perhaps a good place to relocate to in that moment of the Lord’s coming? (Kinda sounds like an evacuation almost). Time will tell of course. Meantime we can meme-clash!

The really good new as I see it? ...... no snowballs! Just a hot tomato!

I like you mon amie. LOL.

Pop-pop (blue-meme clan)

The concern of the original framer of the term ‘evacuation gospel’ and of his/her supporters is the potential for irresponsible stewardship over the creation God has gifted us with. Creation was affected by man’s fall from grace and by man’s continuing movements from grace whenever and wherever he neglects or abuses what God has brought into existence and continues to bring into existence. The environment is a raised and valid concern of secular mankind as well as religious mankind and well should be. I don’t contest that. ……. Nevertheless, imo, the world’s environment is more pertinently toxic to: the human fetus whose elimination is endorsed by law, the human female in countries where her mandatory sterilization is endorsed by law, the human female where sharia law endorses her abuse and denies her right to education, the persecution of practitioners of religion, the ignored genocide of whole peoples etc etc not to mention neglect -- of the poor, or the unjustly downtrodden.

Environmental concerns while valid are in fact …. culturally vogue. It’s easy for a Christian to adopt the cry of secular society – to get on its bandstand and assent to its righteousness. Certainly, there was some truth in Judas’ remark that Mary’s nard could have been spent on the poor, eh? And not wasted on the feet of – God? Judas was a practical guy; an attentive observer and critic. His priorities, including stealing from the purse, were a bit off the mark however. One perhaps might say he simply had a different ‘worldview’ than the other eleven. (Couldn’t resist that. [lol]. Readers now need forgive me only 65 times 7 times).

Good morning, Pop-pop

I'm thinking through your response--thank you for it...I was a bit concerned you'd unsaddled our mutual friend, my Aquila's virtual doppelganger, and sent him to make his way home to me through cyberspace.

"Slow as molasses in January" discussions are fine with me. Besides our various periods of being extra busy, sometimes things have to be mulled over. As for me, right now I'm being more "literal" than "wooden", as I'm working on some calligraphy and illumination assignments--so the last thing I want to do in my free time is more writing.

A response will be forthcoming. Does anyone still use molasses?

Hey, that sounds like a good way to make bran muffins, Mary Sue. I think people in my area use it for shoo-fly pie, too.

Dear Pop-pop, I'm guessing too much bran in muffins would turn you into something of a feist-dog, eh? I'll have to pm you with my dad's "Irish 239 bean soup" joke.

I can take a joke.

http://www.ronrolheiser.com/columnarchive/?id=672

I love Ron Rolheiser, this week he is talking about the Cosmic Christ...some of it touches on issues discussed on this thread

Jacques, check out threads L and M at the link below:
- https://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/frm/f/211107858

Jacques,

Well, you’ve been active. You’ve stuck in your thumb and pulled out a plum! You’ve found me an RC, indeed an RC priest at that (and by his photo a priest of premodern vintage) AND president of a school of theology even, to be somewhat uncomfortable with – me a mere RC lay man-on- the-street. Yikes! The next few posts could make for a bloody clash-a-rama. Meme-swords at ready ….. Worldviews: en garde!

Perhaps you and other readers (including your tag-team cowgirl) will see hereby however, that blue-meme-clan folk can and do question those in authority and can be skeptical as well. (But realize I’m not considering myself as being from a different meme-color nonetheless).

Yet before explaining my measure of discomfort (though I realize you and others might care less) perhaps you can help my understanding regarding what Fr. Ron means when he writes of “Jesus’ teaching about being normative”. What exactly did Jesus teach about being normative? What is Fr. Ron referring to … iyo?

Pop-pop

Thanks for the links Phil, I'll have a read through them

Pop Pop -

From Wikipedia

quote:

In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
For example, "children should eat vegetables", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.

I think, in light of this, that Fr Ron is saying that unless we enlarge our vision of Christ we are in danger of abandoning his teachings on what a normative spiritual life should look like.

quote:

Unless we understand the mystery of Christ as deeper and wider than what we can see visibly and historically, this quandary will invariably lead us to either abandon Jesus' teaching about being normative or lead us into an exclusivity that goes against God's universal will for salvation.

I don't think the first part of the sentence is addressing the committed Christian like yourself Pop Pop. Rather, he is perhaps addressing the postmodern Christian who is struggling with a narrow vision of Christ, but who would find it far easier to commit to Christ if he expands this vision to realize God's desire to see the whole universe renewed or restored.

The second part of the sentence however may be addressing the modern Christian who struggles to widen their vision of Christ to include issues that go beyond the explicit vision/mission of the church and incorporate the mission of the cosmic Christ.

Jacques,

Thanks for your explanations regarding normative and where Fr. Ron is coming from iyo.
They temper my thought somewhat, as well as inform.

Upfront, I want to be clear that I merely have some discomfort with the article of Fr. Ron’s that Jacques has pointed to with the link he provided us. I do not have any discomfort with Fr. Ron. I have not read any other articles or heard any other of Fr. Ron’s teachings. I do not say anything against him as man and priest. I do not say he is not a good guy or not holy, nor that he is a false teacher, wittingly or unwittingly. And I do not say I am more intelligent than Father is. I express in what follows herein, merely MY response to the article presented for review. (Is this not the way psychologists recommend that we dialog – using ‘I’ messages? Gotta love dem psychodiles – eh, Phil? / eh, Shasha?). That’s what I am striving to do – and I might add, something I am quite clumsy at in real-time verbal discussions. So, most of you -- realizing what a blue-memed old feist I am, -- can perhaps cut me some slack (if you haven’t by now moved on to another forum post).

That said, and focusing on the article at hand, the statement:

“If, by the mystery of Christ, we mean only the visible Jesus and the visible church, then we are caught in a dilemma with no answer”.

just leaves me cold.

Over the past twenty centuries the visible Jesus and the visible church has indeed raised the church (and western civilization -- by the church’s teachings, witness, and values) to where both have endured and progressed. And a good many have achieved saintly holiness under the spout of the church’s teaching and graces. There was not an apparent ‘dilemma with no answer’ that precluded us coming this far and for this long. So, for me anyway, while God is definitely in many ways mystery beyond the fullness of our comprehension, He is not and has not been so mysterious that He has been unable to be grasped in sufficiency to the point where we have been or are -- in any dilemma. Here I would say, in the same style as did God in Genesis: “Who told you, you were in dilemma?” Indeed, – dilemma with no answer? Can it truly be that without the embrace of Cosmic Christology we are lost? I don’t think so. And history substantiates that.

[Pop-popian thinking, anyway.]

Continuing --
Relative to the summary statement from the article: “In the words of Kenneth Cragg: It takes a whole world to understand a whole Christ.” -- (imo?): meringue.

The gospel is quite understandable. (Though some men love darkness rather than light.) And anyway, God is not looking for us to fully understand Him. (One does not need a whole world. I can only bring myself to Him). He is looking for us to love Him. He is looking for us to love each other. He is looking for us to give Him thanks and praise. He is looking for us to bring each other home. He is looking for our hearts, not our intellects; not the fullness of our understanding of His presence in the cosmos, but the awareness of our fallen nature and our conversion of heart.

He wants to cook us up some fish on the beach as He did post-Easter with His friends. He does not want us swallowing red herrings.

Continuing --
Here is the concern that is so often today voiced and which seemingly also drives Fr. Ron’s interest / heart as well -- since he has voiced it.
“So where does that leave non-Christians and other persons of sincere heart, given that at any given time two-thirds of the world is not relating to the historical Jesus or the Christian churches?”
How much cosmic theology does a disciple of Christ really need in order to be His disciple? Does a disciple of Christ have to believe in “the mystery of God becoming incarnate inside of physical creation”? (Btw, I think this statement of Fr. Ron’s is badly made. Christ is not incarnate inside physical creation. Incarnate implies in human flesh. Rocks don’t have flesh. Galaxies and black holes don’t have flesh. Water and air do not have flesh. Christ had two natures not myriad. Rocks are not made in God’s image and likeness. While without the Word nothing that is made would exist is correct, Christ’s being ‘incarnate’ within physical creation is funky. From reading Teilhard though, I believe I understand what Fr. Ron means)

Certainly, Christians have without all the ‘conceptualizing of Cosmic Christ and the material world’s structure, known loved and responded to Christ and have been led by His Spirit for 20 centuries.

Do we really believe that all those who now no longer attend mass or Sunday services, who sanction abortion, who decry religion as an opiate, who embrace pornography, avarice, self, vengeance, men having sex with men, personal and political power without responsibility to God and others, insensitivity to the needs of others, disrespect of parents and authority, marital intrigues, and shop till you drop; who involve themselves in the occult, who vandalize and terrorize others, who bully and murder those who worship God – would be transformed if we only had an answer to the fate of non-Christian religions and sincere believers?

Do we really believe secular society, militant atheism, and militant homsexuality would cease its attacks on religious folk and embrace God and religion if only we had an answer to the fate of non-Christian religions and sincere believers?

Do we really believe that understanding of the cosmic structure and theories of Christ’s incarnation and permeation in the cosmos is a key to evangelization or to precluding a mass apostasy – a mass apostasy already underway in western civilization?

Do we really believe that understanding that *Christ is also a structure within the physical universe, a path of salvation for the earth itself* is a key to Christianization and evangelization of eastern civilizations?
Fr. Ron says that two-thirds of the world is not relating to the historical Jesus. Do you believe that theories of Cosmic Jesus will result in a course correction? Aiyee!

Red herrings!

Better we should more faithfully preach and witness to the Gospel given us by the historical Jesus (and only Lord). Our God-given commission is to preach and witness to the Good News and let God who is the author of salvation work out the details of what happens regarding how he will judge non-Christians. God is a just judge. Evangelization and contemplation of the head of the Mystical Body (the head pierced with the thorns) does not require our compromising or adapting or diluting the Gospel message, but our adherence to it, our witnessing to it in the face of the spiritual warfare that is underway. It does not require a new and novel, deeper and wider cosmic theology. ‘Hold fast to what is good’! At the end of the Gospel of John, Peter asks Christ: what about John? Jesus essentially replies that Peter need only be concerned with what He had commissioned Peter to do. Similarly, we need to concern ourselves with our Christian commission to spread the good news and baptize in His name. And leave the results to God.

Fr. Ron’s article states:

“Unless we understand the mystery of Christ as deeper and wider than what we can see visibly and historically, this quandary will invariably lead us to either abandon Jesus' teaching about being normative or lead us into an exclusivity that goes against God's universal will for salvation”.

Essentially that sentence implies that the past 20 centuries of Christian understanding of Jesus (a 2000 year historical understanding of the historical Jesus Christ) was somehow inaccurate or ineffective and against God’s universal will for salvation! (Which implies that the Holy Spirit has been ineffective over these twenty centuries; has bungled His ability to guide the Church, His Bride). That sentence intimidates the reader into believing he / she must now embrace something new – wider – deeper. Methinks: WHO says ‘Unless’? Methinks (a la Genesis) God would say: “Who told you, you were in a quandary”?

So, in all honesty, this particular article of Fr. Ron … kind of discomforts me. I know Fr. is a president of a school of theology and a trained and ordained priest of my church. I know I have only read this one article of his and that I have no formal theological training.

As for cosmic theology, I have read and really enjoyed Teilhard’s books: The Divine Milieu, Matter, and The Future of Man. His works can really light you up.

They were controversial and because of bordering near pantheism they caused some trepidation within the church; and so, Teilhard was not fully accepted, though he was always obedient and docile toward his superiors and the magisterium.

My discomfort with Fr. Ron’s article stems from ‘my perceived’ slight of the historical teaching of the church and the historical Jesus in all His humanity, and upon the perceived pressure (I perceive anyway) and intimations that a deeper and wider cosmic theology must somehow now be embraced.

I think it is naïve (and I feel this with many Christian writers not just Fr. Ron) to believe that coming up with something new, evangelizing with new insights into the cosmos or into non-Christian religions will effect the conversion of hearts. Jesus was not fully effective in converting men’s hearts. John tells us that anyone whose heart is open to the truth will accept Christ’s teaching. Christ said the world ‘hates me because of the evidence I bring against it that what it does is evil’. Jesus didn’t deem it necessary to strive for conversion of heart by expounding on His presence in the cosmos. Deeper and wider theological concepts …… – somehow don’t do the trick for me.

Jesus did some deep stuff in His day if you think about it. He was rejected NOT because he was unconvincing – but precisely because he was convincing. When He raised Lazarus – wow. Those in authority knew he had to be silenced quickly.

Anyway.

Pop-pop (blue-meme clan)

We studied Fr. Rolheiser's book, The Holy Longing, as a staff at Heartland Center for Spirituality and I enjoyed it very much. His approach to things seems to speak to postmodern sensibilities, but I think a strong, solid commitment to the Christian mysteries came through in that book, at least. Since then, he's become something of a "rock star," along with Richard Rohr and a few others. There seems to be no end to the conferences at which one or the other is keynote speaker, with hundreds and thousands turning out to hear them. That's a good thing, on the whole, inasmuch as they are deeply rooted in the Christian tradition, though Rohr seems increasingly disgusted with evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity (not to mention Republican politics ).

Pop, I'm not reading into Rolheiser's words some of what you are, however. E.g., your response to “If, by the mystery of Christ, we mean only the visible Jesus and the visible church, then we are caught in a dilemma with no answer." The mystery of Christ does indeed go beyond those two most obvious and blessed manifestations of Christ's presence to us, as the scriptures and the teachings of the Church affirm. I hear Rolheiser speaking out of a Christological inclusivism that would recognize the Word at work in the creation of the world and His ongoing influence unto its final fulfillment. As Teilhard affirmed, the Incarnation and ongoing work of the Church are now at the heart of this transformative work, but Christ's influence goes far beyond. I don't think you'd disagree with this, but I'm guessing you're not hearing a strong enough emphasis or affirmation of the Incarnation and Mystical Body.

You write: Do we really believe that understanding that *Christ is also a structure within the physical universe, a path of salvation for the earth itself* is a key to Christianization and evangelization of eastern civilizations? Fr. Ron says that two-thirds of the world is not relating to the historical Jesus. Do you believe that theories of Cosmic Jesus will result in a course correction? Aiyee!

I don't think Fr. Ron is suggesting we give up on preaching the Incarnation in favor of some inclusive cosmic Christology. He's writing primarily to Christians already grounded in the basics of the Faith, and is attempting to educate them on an aspect of the Faith that has been sorely neglected.

Re. Christ "as a structure in the physical creation," I am reminded of Col. 1: 15-20 (Rolheiser quoted vs. 15-18 only):

quote:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Paul does not separate the Incarnation and ongoing redemptive work of the historical Jesus and his Church from his influence in the whole cosmos. He is suggesting something very profound: that the order of the universe and connection between created things is ultimately rooted in Christ. He doesn't go much into this cosmic Christology, as most of his letters seem to be about addressing issues in the various communities he had founded. The early Fathers did reflect deeply on this matter, however, and it would do us good to read and reflect on their works. . . along with Teilhard, of course.

Couldn't agree more Phil