Matthew Fox's 95 Theses

[qos]

I'd say this was in honor of Easter, but I actually ended up finding these during a chat with _storyteller_ last night. . .

Matthew Fox, whose book Original Blessing outlines the fundamentals of "Creation Spirituality," posted his own "95 Theses" a few years ago. Storyteller and I were discussing theology, and I was looking up something good from Fox as a

Comments

[watcher457]

That is beautiful. That is a religion I could follow, though I disagree a bit in that love of death is not good. You shouldn't want death, as you have so much life to experience, but you certainly can have a greater appreciation for it than I feel he is suggesting.

[oakmouse]

I agree; I think that one could easily be misinterpreted or misused. Also, unreasoning terror of death and insistence on the preservation of life and youth at any cost is behind a number of the most severe problems in our society.

[qos]

His comment about love of death is a bit out of context here. He also wrote:

"The creation-centered spiritual tradition does not teach fear about death. In fact, the trust one learns about love, life, and ecstasy and the pain that accompanies every layer of ecstatic living carry through the death experience as well. Death too can be trusted. And in a real sense we are entrusted with death so that we ought to be reverencing that aspect of living as much as any other aspect. The hospice movement in our time is a movement of persons who are dealing with the truth of death in just such a wholesome way. The very awesomeness of death experiences unveils for us -- and for some people for the very first time -- the cosmic depth of our lives, the cosmic connectedness of our lives." (Original Blessing, p. 86)

What he writes in the theses about the love of death has more to do with a cultural embrace of violence, warfare, and destruction that are violations of spirit and a fundamental love for creation and humanity.

[watcher457]

Ah, I see. That is more acceptable to me. Lovely.

[wlotus]

#5 hit me hard. When I see the difference between whom I was when I worshiped a punitive God and whom I am becoming, I agree.

[qos]

If you haven't read "Original Blessing" I would strongly recommend it. It utterly transformed my perceptions about Christianity. I thnk of it as reclaiming the essence of the Christian message from centuries of organizational exploitation (both deliberate and inadvertent).

[oakmouse]

Most of these are quite good. It's not a form of Christianity that mainstream denominations can accept, but it's pretty well in keeping with some of the groups in the Independent Sacramental Movement. (To which you now have ties should you choose to use them, courtesy of your ordination.)

[qos]

I'm definitely interested in discussing the Independent Sacramental Movement in more depth.

I believe my OAG ordination can be located within that larger tradition, btw.

[oakmouse]

Yes, the OAG ordination is located within that tradition, but the OAG is defunct and Shadwyn didn't have apostolic succession. You now have links to a living church and you also have apostolic succession. If you're thinking in terms of practicing non-mainstream Christianity, that may make a difference in how you're received.

[amqu]

Several of his theses are very good. But on the whole, it's no wonder the guy in charge of doctrine kicked him out. Whatever you think about orthodox Catholicism, this guy is waaaay outside it.

[qos]

True. It's interesting to read Original Blessing and see the case he makes for his ideas being within the orthodox (small "o") stream of Christian tradition -- but it's also very clear that he is explicitly and knowingly challenging the dominant doctrines -- and culture -- of the Catholic church.

He was given the opportunity to recant and remain within the church, and he declined.

[amqu]

And while I found many of his ideas to be in direct contradiction to the Bible, this one is kind of out of left field: "Since angels learn exclusively by intuition..."

You don't say.

[qos]

That one made me go "Oh really?" as well.

[saskia139]

I think he's quoting the traditional scholastic theology that angels don't reason from point A to point B as we do; they don't have to deduce or think things out by gathering facts, they simply *know* by direct cognition, gnosis, insight, intuition, because they are pure spirit.

Now, as to *why* he quoted it, I have no idea....

[qos]

That would match Swedenborg's description of angels and other spiritual beings understanding by "apprehension" rather than intellect.