2020/04/07

A virus is haunting Europe - the vector is capitalism



A virus is haunting Europe - the vector is capitalism

A virus is haunting Europe - the vector is capitalism



Brendan Montague | 18th March 2020


The decision to defend capital has led to governments taking too little action too late to stop the spread of novel coronavirus.





The novel coronavirus is infectious, deadly and invisible to the naked eye. It spreads exponentially, has traversed the globe and today poses a threat to the very foundations of modern civilisation. All these properties it shares with capitalism.

David Harvey: Anti-Capitalist Politics in an Age of Covid-19

There are three primary ways in which capitalism has escalated the current coronavirus crisis: the transmission of the virus to humans, the spread of the virus globally, and the failure of governments and deregulated markets to contain the spread of infections.

The transfer of this coronavirus from animals to humans, the subsequent infection of populations in almost every country and the collapse of health services would not have been possible without the specific circumstances brought about by our current economic system. Covid-19 is the name we have given the disease. SARS-CoV-2 is the name of the virus. The vector is capitalism.

Infections

Scientists in China - the world’s second largest economy - are currently focussing their resources on containing the spread of the virus and finding treatments and vaccinations for its victims. But some information has already been established about the most likely beginnings of novel coronavirus.

The current most likely hypothesis is that Covid-19 or its predecessor originated in the bat population - which is known to carry a virus with a 96 percent match. The bat population was also believed to be the starting place for the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak in 2003. Covid-19 was then likely transferred to human beings through the sale of wild animals, perhaps slaughtered on site at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, in Hubei province, China.

The act of killing animals in the presence of the customer is not some uniquely Chinese practice, nor is “traditional” in the sense of being a custom that has been practiced for a long time. In fact, eating wild animals bought at a wet market is the product of a specific historic moment, related to the transfer of responsibility for meat production from the Chinese state to a new private sphere in the 1970s. It has now been made illegal in China.

The Chinese government claims to be Communist, celebrating Marx, Lenin and Mao, and in the United States and Europe this is broadly accepted and also understood to mean that the state with a population reaching 1.5 billion is non-capitalist. The state in China has throughout its current incarnation had a greater level of control over the production, distribution and sale of goods.

However, China has never been communist. There is some debate as to whether the Chinese revolution was a genuine attempt to create a communist state, but even assuming this was the direction of travel - the leadership never got there. China is state-capitalist. It is - like many countries - a mixed economy with some aspects of the production and sale of goods and services controlled by the government and some by privately owned companies and individuals. On this scale it has significantly more on the side of government control than the US or the EU.

Control

However, the level of state control has varied significantly both across time and space. There were decades where almost every aspect of economic life was controlled by the leadership, and provinces where this was tightly administered. But there have also been hot spots where a highly liberalised, deregulated market capitalism has predominated.

The Huanan Seafood Market is such a hot spot. The Chinese regime in the 1970s faced a fundamental crisis. Agricultural production was failing, the population faced famine, and unrest - perhaps leading to revolution - haunted the ruling regime.

As a result the Chinese government transferred the production of meat from state-owned enterprises to private individuals. It handed out land, changed the law and actively encouraged private companies to farm animals - the most popular at that time being chicken and pork - in a desperate attempt to drive up production.

The introduction of a kind of capitalism into the state run economy had some predictable results, predictable to those in China who had read and understood the communist political economist Karl Marx. The more profitable farmers began to dominate the market, benefiting from economies of scale and the division of labour. Farms and agricultural companies grew in size, forming cartels and monopolies.

The small independent farmers were soon driven out of the chicken and pork markets, exactly as they have been in the United States, and to a lesser extent Europe. These farmers needed new ways to survive. They began poaching, and then breeding wild or more “exotic” meats because these could be sold to wealthy customers on the luxury market for a significantly higher price.

Farming

The state was quick to observe and record this change of practice, but condoned and at times supported the new market in wild animals because it resulted in paid employment and money moving out into rural communities. The large urban markets where chicken and pork - and other mainstream meat products - began to host stalls selling a wide variety of animals. This practice was not universal or consistent across China, some wild meats found in the south were never found in Beijing.

The practice of selling wild animals grew, and farmers began to breed the animals in captivity. The conditions were often unhygienic and cruel. A parallel illegal market in banned animals evolved. At the same time, stall holders in the urban markets started slaughtering and butchering these smaller wild animals at the point of sale. This again commanded a higher price as it was popular with wealthier customers in the luxury market. The meat was considered healthier and fresher if the animal had been kept alive.

As the coronavirus crisis took hold in the UK, the reactionary newspapers like the Daily Mail sensationalised the practices in China that seemed so different to our own. This is dog whistle racism. It is also an attempt to blame ‘oriental’ and ‘foreign’ customs and practices for the current crisis, and in the process protect the common practice of consumer-driven capitalism of both China and ‘the West’.

The practice of selling live crabs and lobster is common in the UK. There are “wet markets” - a term used to differentiate butchers, fishmongers and greengrocers from hardware stalls selling mops and toys - in every town and city. We eat exotic foods from far away places. Butchers chop meat from sheep, cows, chicken, rabbit and other animals on the same block. We eat intelligent animals like squid from tins.

I have seen some British dairy and chicken farms up close. The animals were in pain and distressed; they were chained, kept in dark sheds on hot summer days; the cows limped and slid on concrete hidden under a dense layer of their own “slurry”. The UK practice of having mega farms of more than 1,000 cows creating reservoirs of stinking waste, and slaughtering all these animals in a few centralised abattoirs poses extreme health risks, albeit of a different specificity to those in China. The prolific use of antibiotics on US farms - alongside pesticides, hormones, bleach - is a global economic crisis in waiting.

Conditions

The novel coronavirus crisis is not the result of novel or unusual practices in China, it is the result of the capitalism that operates all over the world. The farmers and the market stall holders were “protecting jobs” and “responding to customer demand”. They were serving wealthy and high status Chinese customers.

Many of the earliest victims of coronavirus attended the Huanan market. In time we will find out if these were the staff working for wealthy households.

The fact that we could see unhygienic and cruel conditions in these markets may be a result of the fact the ultimate customer and consumer never visited these places, just as we can buy cellophane covered cuts of beef with no conception of conditions in the abattoir.

The conditions of the transfer of coronavirus from bat to human being were not “communist” nor uniquely Chinese. They were distinctly capitalist. They were specifically the outcomes from the decisions of the Chinese state to have less control, to liberalise the farming and agricultural industries and to let the “market” decide what meats were produced and under which conditions.

Spread

The response of western governments to coronavirus has been to defend and protect capitalism, at whatever cost.

This has been most pronounced in the UK. Boris Johnson and his relatively new Tory government successively attempted to protect capital in two ways. Firstly, the government tried to simply ignore the problem so that capitalism could continue to whirr and splutter. Johnson suggested one approach to the virus outbreak was to “take it on the chin” and do next to nothing.

We would develop “herd immunity”. What this meant is that we would continue to go to work, and the old and vulnerable would be shut into their homes and left to die.

When the evidence from Italy and then Spain was that this approach would lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths - and the scientists concurred - Johnson must have suddenly realised that his government would not survive.

This approach would have led to civil unrest. He performed an historic u-turn.

Response

Yesterday (17 March 2020), the British state pivoted to borrowing £350 billion and pouring it into the bank accounts of businesses large and small while suspending some taxes: capital would be saved, and workers would keep enough of their jobs to prevent a political earthquake. But the majority of the funding did not appear to go to the NHS, or directly to renters and those on benefits.

In the United States the Federal Reserve had already promised a $700 billion stimulus and rates cut to support the markets. These two countries alone had found $1 trillion to protect capital from coronavirus. But the initial response in both the US and the UK was to ignore the crisis, pretend it was not real, and just hope it goes away. People might suffer, but for business it would be business as usual.

To see clearly how the governments are protecting capital and not the people, it is worth contrasting how China - a capitalist economy with an interventionist state - compares to the EU and US. It seems at this stage that the primary reason Covid-19 was not contained within China was the fact the virus was not detected early enough, and that the authorities did not act quickly and decisively enough. But when the scale of the crisis became known and acknowledged, the Chinese state shifted billions of resources, and within a few weeks contained and slowed the virus.

This contrasts with how European capitalist democratic states responded to the crisis. These governments sought to protect the markets first, their populations second, and as a direct result the virus was able to spread to almost every country on the planet. The failure of “developed” states such as the United States and the UK to protect their citizens and subjects from the worst, deadly, impacts of the disease is also a direct result of capitalist economics.

The Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organisation on 31 December 2019 that there has been a handful of causes of pneumonia which doctors were reporting as being unusual, in the port city of Wuhan. It was quickly established that some of those infected worked on food stalls at the Huanan. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was shut down, sealed off and sanitised the next day. There were around 40 known infections at that time.

Emergency

A week later - on 7 January 2020 - scientists in China identified the cause of the pneumonia - a new virus that was named 2019-vCoV. A few days later - on 11 January 2012 - the first person died from contracting the disease. A 61-year-old man who had been a customer of the seafood market died of heart failure.

Just two days later the first case was reported in Thailand, and traced back to Wuhan. In less than a week cases had been reported in Japan, the United States, Nepal, France, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan. There were still fewer than 200 reported infections in China.

The seriousness of the novel coronavirus infection became all too apparent on 22 January when reported deaths leapt to 17 and the number of known infections had doubled to 400. The Chinese state acted quickly and decisively and initiated the effective quarantine of Wuhan on 23 January 2020, closing airports and train stations. The same measures were enforced at Xiantao and Chibi, in Hubei province. The Lunar New Year - due to start in two days - was cancelled.

The World Health Organisation declared a state of global emergency on 30 January as China reported 170 deaths and 7,711 cases. It was clear that this virus was spreading exponentially through the human population. A month after the seafood market was closed, the UK along with Spain and Sweden had confirmed its first case of novel coronavirus. The following day Australia, Canada, Germany, the US, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam had all reported new cases.

There were 16 days between 7 January, when scientists in China first confirmed that a new virus was the cause of the disease outbreak, and 23 January, when the entire city of Wuhan - with a population of 11 million people - was closed down. The time that will elapse between the first case in the UK - on 31 January and the ending of overseas flights is yet to be established as the major airlines continue at least some services. So far it has been 47 days.

As Paul Mason has pointed out, Johnson’s government did not hold its first COBRA meeting until 3 March and still then, “Britain did nothing”.

Preventable

The response in China to the virus was slow at first - but then decisive. As the US publication Business Insider reported, “extreme measures” were implemented rapidly. Trains no longer stopped at Wuhan; suspected victims could attend specialist fever clinics; tests were widely available and free; China built two new dedicated hospitals with more than 1,000 beds, the first in a week the second in two; whole wards and hospital entrances were made coronavirus only; all relevant technology was used in an attempt to trace every case; food was delivered to people’s homes; 40,000 medical workers were moved to the centre of the crisis. There were also some terrifying events, with critics of the government going missing.

On 7 March the New York Times was reporting that there were no new cases in Hubei outside its capital, and that the number of new cases had fallen from 2,000 to 99 in a day. The graphs all show that coronavirus is no longer spreading exponentially in China. It has for now been suppressed and contained.

New cases are from Chinese people returning home from the US, the EU and elsewhere, and not contracted in-country. Dr Gauden Galea, the China representative of the World Health Organisation, has stated: “[T]he natural course of the outbreak does not need to be a very high peak that overwhelms health services. This lesson in containment, therefore, is a lesson that other countries can learn from...” Western capitalist democracies are not learning these lessons.

The situation in the UK, the US and most of the rest of the world could not be more different. The UK has up until today refused to close schools despite the fact children are super-spreaders. Health experts expressed incredulity at the lack of government action.

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the highly respected, peer reviewed Lancet medical journal evidenced the fact the government ignored warnings from scientists. “This crisis was entirely preventable”.

Capital

Even as China was warning that the virus could spread exponentially and overwhelm health provision, countries in the West failed to act. The planes still today continue to take off, major racing events in the UK took place, theatres and pubs have not yet been ordered to close because the government is managing the crisis on behalf of finance capital, and not the elderly and vulnerable.

The response from Donald Trump as US president has been alarming. Jeff Tiedrich summed it up on Twitter: “Trump’s pandemic response, a partial list: lied; called it a hoax; blamed Obama; praised himself; muzzled the experts; snuggled up to CEOs; whined about bad press; told the sick ‘go to work’; tried to bribe German pharma co.; said it would disappear ‘like a miracle’.” We cannot dismiss Trump as a madman, he is US capital’s chosen representative on earth.

Grassroots organisations such as Protect the People sprung up demanding the government take serious action, such as closing schools and providing funding for the NHS. Johnson’s policy of allowing “herd immunity” and then forcing older people into months of “self isolation” have caused fury. The policy is an outlier - but not by far.

Italy allowed the virus to rage through its population before taking action. A large majority of EU countries have closed schools, shut down public venues and events, and closed borders. In every case, action was taken after the virus had infected populations and begun its inevitable exponential growth.

Bail out

The response to the coronavirus outbreak globally has not been dictated by public health - it has been hampered by concerns for the global market - for capitalism. As the reality of the coronavirus crisis became clear, stock markets around the world started to slide and collapse.

The prospect of millions of workers in each national economy taking leave - some estimates are that as many as 20 percent - has destroyed billions in value on the markets. The coronavirus has revealed the truth that entrepreneurs may dominate the narrative about the success of capitalism, but capitalism depends entirely on hundreds of millions of people turning up to work. The markets have crashed. As early as February, the US stock markets were reporting some of the largest falls since the 2008 economic crisis.

The United States has since announced a $700bn stimulus programme and its Federal Reserve cut interest rates to almost zero in a bid to keep dollars in circulation. Despite this, Donald Trump, the US president, admitted we are on the edge of recession, sending the markets into a second death spiral, with the Dow Jones losing 12.9 percent of its value in a single day.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor in the UK, last night announced an unprecedented £330 billion in cash to save British capitalism. The money will be poured into companies large and small, as loans and gifts. The state - as Johnson has made clear in his speech - has after a decade of responsibility discovered the principle of collectivity. “We must act like any wartime government and do whatever it takes to support our economy.”

The airline industry is in absolute crisis. In the UK there has been calls for a £7.5 billion rescue package. This is an industry that has fiercely resisted government policy on climate change by citing the logic of free market capitalism. It has globally avoided trillions of dollars in taxes because these companies threaten to refuel in low tax countries. It has told staff to take unpaid leave to subsidise its survival. And it wants the state to intervene in the market to save its billionaire owners and investors.

Crisis

The government money should be used by companies to pay their rents and wages to their staff - which in turn will ensure they can pay their own rents. The landowning class - the people Adam Smith dismissively called the rentier class - has been isolated from the economic crisis.

The banks have been persuaded to offer those with mortgages a three month holiday, ensuring the value of those loans is not undermined by defaults and missed payments. The government is also using this crisis as an opportunity to slash business taxes.

But what about those most in need? The Conservatives could not find a single magic money tree during the 2015 general election. Now we are lost in the forest. Magic money trees around the world are being felled to save capitalism from itself.

The Tories now realise they can borrow at extremely low rates and pass the cash directly to its own citizens. This comes after we have watched for a decade as the benefits regime has been sadistic, homelessness has more than doubled, schools are falling apart, hospitals cannot afford staff, and more and more old people die in cold impoverished loneliness.

The electorate just didn’t believe Labour could fund its manifesto - but look at all the cash now available as soon as capitalism itself is made vulnerable. Yet the chancellor appeared to ignore people who have to pay rent and the poorest in yesterday’s bailout.

Vaccine

Capitalism has been revealed to be red in tooth and claw during this crisis. Trump’s reported attempt to buy the patent of a potential new vaccine being developed in Germany was the unacceptable - but true - face of modern capitalism.

Global Justice Now has warned that pharmaceutical companies are looking to profit from the crisis.

Professor Robert Reich, the economist and former US Labour secretary, reported on Twitter: “Big Pharma got language in the coronavirus bill preventing government from limiting their profits on any future vaccines, even though many of the same drug companies are receiving funding from the government to combat the pandemic. Even in a national emergency, Big Parma wins.”

The novel coronavirus kills those who are already suffering from poor health. But the current crisis is going to be much worse because a virus-like malaise has already attacked our individual and social defences against sickness: and that sickness is capitalism itself.

The contagion has taken hold because our countries - our national governments, our public services, our emergency response capacity was also sick, and in some places dying. The United States, the richest country in the world, does not have a functioning public health service. There are 27.5 million Americans - 8.5 percent of the population - who do not have health insurance and cannot afford to access any health services. There are also millions of undocumented workers who are also denied access to life saving care.

Rights

A teacher who reported with coronavirus symptoms at a US hospital was given a $10,000 bill - despite not actually being tested for coronavirus during her ER treatment.

American working class people are scared to go anywhere near a hospital in case it bankrupts them. This can be fatal for the individuals, and too many Americans who get sick are financially ruined as a result. But as coronavirus now shows, it is also fatal for society.

The rich and famous in the United States can hide in their private health clinics, and we are beginning to get a sense of quite how many are able to access coronavirus tests and treatment which is completely lacking for working class families.

Bernie Sanders, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, was just weeks ago the only US presidential candidate to argue that health care is a human right, and that the US should not be spending twice as much as any other rich nation to support a health industry that accumulates unprecedented profits, but does not provide basic life saving support for the population.

The crisis of capitalism in 2008 was resolved by a historic transfer of trillions of dollars from the public sector to private individuals and companies in the private sector - the very people who caused the collapse by their reckless gambling on the housing market, subprime mortgages and complex (as in fraudulent) and novel financial products.

Austerity

Health services globally have been bled to death by unprecedented cuts in funding. In the UK this programme of defunding was given the chintzy name “austerity”.

George Osborne, the then treasurer, gleefully argued that “we are all in it together” and we needed to “tighten our belts” as local services were decimated, hospitals slashed budgets, local councils closed departments.

In the UK the NHS had received an annual increase in funding of 3.7 percent since it was founded. This was slashed to 1.4 percent on average after the crash (adjusted for inflation). “The rate of growth slowed during the period of austerity that followed the 2008 economic crash”, according to The King’s Fund. While the new NHS funding deal will ease current pressures, it is not enough.”

The amount spent on social care has also fallen, during a period when need has increased. The UK spent £21.3 billion in the year to 2018 - less than a decade earlier. During the same period councils had seen budgets cut by 21 percent. Wages for the overwhelming majority have stagnated, while capital and capitalists continued to accumulate wealth and increase profits.

The UK government stress tested the health service to see how it would cope with a pandemic flu crisis. Exercise Cygnus took place back in October 2016 to see how the country could cope. It established there was a chronic shortage of equipment, including “inadequate ventilation”, or a lack of ventilation machines for those who would have found it difficult to breath.

Without austerity, with proper funding, we could have been prepared. The same is true across Europe. The Italian health services could have had hundreds more ventilators and beds, and doctors would not have had to choose who would die from this new flu.

Precariousness

If the UK government had found £330 billion to fund public services during the last decade - and if other neoliberal, free market political parties had done the same across the EU and beyond - our economies would not have been sick to paralysis when faced with this public health emergency.

The global economy is now in an extremely precarious state. Johnson has bet his career on an assurance to the public that we can “bounce back” from coronavirus because the economy was otherwise sound. This is not true.

As Paul Mason has set out, world debt now stands at $250 trillion which is “three and a half times global GDP”. He states: “Growth is stagnant and will now collapse, albeit temporarily. And the long-term sources of growth are, as even mainstream economists now accept, meagre. This was bad news even before the coronavirus shock but is worse by an order of magnitude now.”

Capitalism - in the form of unregulated food production in China - was the primary condition for novel coronavirus infecting the human population. The decision to defend capital led to governments to take too little action too late to stop its spread. And when they did act, they acted to protect the markets, and not public health services.

Capitalism - the lurch to small state neoliberalism, the crash in 2008 and the decision to implement austerity - is why are are in no fit state to deal with the crisis.

Projections

These are just three of the reasons why the extreme public health crisis that the UK is about to experience is not down to Chinese shoppers, or to an inevitable and natural spread of a virus from the natural environment to the human population.

It is a direct result of the capitalist economic system which now dominates almost all aspects of our societies worldwide.

There are hundreds of other ways that the orientation towards profit making and returns on investment over the wellbeing and protections of populations has contributed to the crisis and made it much worse. Zarah Sultana, the new Labour MP, has argued that coronavirus has exposed “the worse features of a rotten system.

Indeed, capitalism itself is a deadly virus. It is a living organism - a system that processes energy and exergy to continue in existence. It is self making - demonstrating autopoiesis - which has been identified by scientists and the primary property of the living in contrast to the non-living. It survives in host organisms. It is highly contagious. And over time it kills its host.

We will begin to come to terms with the coronavirus. The infection will become part of everyday lives. Thousands around the world will likely die, as they do because of poverty, disease and the lack of basic sanitation. The crisis will fade into the background.

Revival

As it does, we will be told we must revive capitalism. Even more of society’s combined wealth will be diverted away from the majority of the population in suppressed wages and the public sector through cuts, and towards the pockets of a few hyper-wealthy investors and company owners.

We will be told that the state should further subsidies those companies that could not in fact survive actually existing capitalism. The politicians in the US funded by the fossil fuel industries - and let us include aviation - will sign away trillions of dollars.

But we simply cannot let that happen. We cannot continue to play host to the virus of capitalism. This is an economic system that makes the people who feed it sick, and destitute. It is taking its host - our planet and its biosphere - to the very brink of collapse. The coronavirus is just one of the crises of capitalism - alongside climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse and the destruction of our global farmlands.

James Meadway, a former advisor to Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnall, has argued at Novara Media that “coronavirus will require us to completely reshape the economy”. He warns that a recession is now inevitable. More than that, Covid-19 will produce an even bigger crisis than 2008 because “it threatens the most fundamental institution of all in capitalism: the labour market itself.” We have seen that the prospect of workers staying at home has destroyed the value on the world’s stock markets.

Workers need to defend themselves against the economic crisis. Trade unions and activists must fight for better sick pay, protection against redundancy, a fair benefits system at the very least and better still a universal basic income. We need a functioning National Health Service, we need to nationalise those useful corporations and industries that would otherwise go to the wall.

In the US, Sanders has called for $2,000 monthly payments for US households to deal with this crisis. Every one of these measures represents a return to health of the body politic, and the fighting back against the capitalist infection.

The solutions we need today are profoundly non-capitalist, perhaps the seeds of post capitalism. The solution is community activism. The primary example is the hundreds of mutual aid groups that arose simultaneously. A nation of volunteers organised through mutual aid groups are preparing to support neighbours - often strangers - during the hardest of times. There has also been a rapid political grassroots response to the crisis. And the climate movement continues, albeit online.

But we do have to go even further. Capitalism is the vector for coronavirus, but has itself become sick. But we need to kill it. If capitalism does survive, if it can revive, it will once again again drive climate breakdown, biodiversity collapse, the devastation of our croplands.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist.

2020/04/06

So Beautiful: Divine Design for Life and the Church: Sweet, Leonard: 9781434799791: Amazon.com: Books

So Beautiful: Divine Design for Life and the Church: 
 9781434799791: Amazon.com: Books

More than 50 years ago scientists made a remarkable discovery, proclaiming, "We have found the secret of life ... and it's so pretty!" The secret was the discovery that life is helixical, two strands wound around a single axis—what most of us know today as the model for DNA.

Over the course of his ministry, author Leonard Sweet has discovered that this divine design also informs God's blueprint for the church. In this seminal work, he shares the woven strands that form the church: missional, relational, and incarnational. Sweet declares that this secret is not just pretty, but beautiful. In fact, So Beautiful!

Using the poignant life of John Newton as a touchstone, Sweet calls for the re-union of these three essential, complementary strands of the Christian life. Far from a novel idea, Sweet shows how this structure is God's original intent, and shares the simply beautiful design for His church.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly


The prolific Sweet—author of articles, sermons, books—turns his vast knowledge of culture and faith toward what he calls the secret of life: an MRI church where 'M' = Missional, 'R' = Relational, and 'I' = Incarnational. He digs deep into MRI theology, calling it the only theology worth bothering with and offering leaders and laypeople a new paradigm for bringing Christ to the world. Sweet outlines the characteristics of each element: missional—The church is 'sent' to be Jesus; relational—Biblical truth... feasts on relationship and revelation; incarnational—The Incarnational life strikes it rich by multiple connections with community and context. Readers will find much to ponder, but they'll have to wade through Sweet's metaphor-heavy, rambling and jumpy writing style, plus his confusing, frequent use of quotation marks around words and phrases as if tweaking their meaning. His vision for following Christ individually and as the church is commendable; his presentation, however, is confounding. (Apr.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
About the Author



Dr. Leonard Sweet is the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of the Theological School at Drew University. He also serves as a consultant to many of America's denominational leaders and agencies. In 2006 and 2007, he was voted "One of the 50 Most Influential Christians in America." Dr. Sweet is the author of more than one hundred articles, over six hundred published sermons, and a wide array of books. To learn more, visit him at www.leonardsweet.com.




Product details

Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: David C. Cook; New edition (April 1, 2009)
Language: English
Customer Reviews: 4.1 out of 5 stars21 customer ratings


More about the author
Visit Amazon's Leonard Sweet Page

Follow

Biography
Len Sweet (www.leonardsweet.com) was born of a mixed marriage: his mother was a fiery Pilgrim Holiness-ordained preacher from the mountains of West Virginia and his quiet father a Free Methodist lay leader from the Adirondack mountains of upstate New York. After a deconversion at 17, when Len set about less sowing wild oats than planting prairies, he became an atheist intellectual and scholar dedicated to exposing the nincompoopery and poppycockery, if not tomfoolery and skullduggery of all religions. After this seven-year period of liminality, Len came back to the faith of his ancestors, where he has been ever since, exploring the "insterstices" and "semiotics" of religion, culture and history. He uses two words to describe himself: semiotician and interstitial. In other words, he is obsessed with two questions: "Where have you been?" and "Where are you going?"

----------------

David Phillips

5.0 out of 5 stars Unpacking the Missional Nature of the GodheadReviewed in the United States on March 23, 2009
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

Almost 3 years ago, I heard Len Sweet talk about the MRI Church during our first advance for my D. Min. program. In his new book, So Beautiful: Divine Design for Life and the Church, Len explores and explains the importance of this idea.

In the book, Len talks about the implications of practicing APC Churches: Attractional, Propositional and Colonial churches. APC churches create members, believers and consumers. However, the MRI Church (Missional, Relational and Incarnational) creates missionaries, disciples, and world changers.

The book is quite thick at over 300 pages. In addition, there are only five chapters, including the introduction. Each of the MRI topics are covered in an individual chapter, along with an introduction and epilogue. Each chapter, however, is broken up into sections that make it easy to take a break in the midst of 40-70 page chapters. I knew this book would be big back in September as Len told me at dinner that each of the topics were 100 pages each and his editor would have to get it down to a manageable size.

Despite it's size, however, it is not a difficult read. But you do have to put your thinking cap on. Len's verbal imagery is very real. He reframes word meanings based on origin and use quite a bit. It is will cause you to pause and consider how you use language yourself. In addition, this a book that draws from a great myriad of sources, as most all of Len's books do. You get a true education by reading Len's book, not just in ministry and life topics, but in science, literature, history, etc.

Content
In the book, Len calls on people and churches to blend together the three MRI strands into one beautiful life.

In Part 1: The Missional Life, Len speaks of God's "going". God is a God of motion, movement and mission. Mission is not an activity of the church but part of the character of God. He is a missionary God. Disciples of Christ are mission-shaped. Every vocation is a missionary vocation. In this section, he fleshes these concepts out in a clear and compelling way.

In Part 2: The Relational Life, Len describes a life where the primary reality is relations and relationships. All of life is about relationships: with God, ourselves, others and creation. In this chapter, he describes the primacy of Relational Truth over Propositional Truth. This is a particularly interesting and needed discussion. I appreciate greatly how he unpacks this concept.

In Part 3: The Incarnational Life, Len describes how instead of pulling people and concepts out of their context, we need to be entering other contexts and in doing so localizing the church within that context. One particular thought that I found very compelling and helpful was this: "Jesus was at home everywhere, but naturalized nowhere. The incarnational life pays homage to context by celebrating regionality, by honoring particularity, by domesticating the missional and the relational. God didn't choose to send us a Superman. God chose to send us an Everyman - `Joe, the Plumber,' `Jesus, the Carpenter' - one like ourselves in every way." (pg. 153) He speaks on how the genius of Christianity is its ability to integrate pagan customs with Christian faith and practice. It uses those customs to communicate itself through indigenous and local expressions of worship.

The final chapter, the Epilogue is practical. It gives you a mirror with which to look at your life and church to see if you are a MRI church. In the epilogue Len provides ten ways to know if your church is MRI. This is a strength of the book.

Additionally, the book is not anti-APC as much as it tries to note the primacy of the MRI over the APC.

Final Thoughts
In a world when most of the attention goes to large, attractional churches, who are by their sheer size considered successful, it is encouraging for someone with such influence noting the need for a different way of being the church. Len does a remarkable job in this book of reframing the idea of church and being vs doing church. It creates energy to infiltrate the world and the marketplace and be the church. It also creates the theological and practical energy for that as well.

Having gotten to know Len over the past 3 years, I admit a bias. But I truly believe that this is one of the best books on being the church and on being a church that influences the context in which we live. It would be a foundational book were I teaching a class on Missional Theology and Practice.
Read less

19 people found this helpful


Prudence A. Cole

3.0 out of 5 stars There are wonderful quotes and insights in this book but it is ...Reviewed in the United States on February 26, 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

There are wonderful quotes and insights in this book but it is tough going. Sweet has a writing style that can drive you to distractions. This book is a textbook for my seminary studies which is why I read it. And while it is true I have garnered a number of insights I am not sure it was worth the struggle.

One person found this helpful


Abide International

5.0 out of 5 stars Beautifully communicated!Reviewed in the United States on May 8, 2017
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

I am always impressed by Len Sweet's ability to make me more passionate about Jesus. His depth of understanding and research challenge me to keep growing. Bud McCord



SnowMan

5.0 out of 5 stars Great book. It's turned me on to more books ...Reviewed in the United States on December 2, 2015
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Great book. It's turned me on to more books by Len.


Roger

4.0 out of 5 stars Leonard Sweet is worth the read for any preacher just for ...Reviewed in the United States on September 17, 2015
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

If you wish to move from a church mentality of Aches, Pains and Complaints, to Mission, Relational and Incarnational this book is for you! Leonard Sweet is worth the read for any preacher just for his multitude of fresh sermon illustrations.


Agus Hendratmo
5.0 out of 5 stars Very GoodReviewed in the United States on April 29, 2019
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

Very good. Recommended seller


Nancy

5.0 out of 5 stars Such an inspiring book. Each page is full of ...Reviewed in the United States on September 12, 2014
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Such an inspiring book. Each page is full of wisdom.

rose
4.0 out of 5 stars Four StarsReviewed in the United States on July 1, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Very helpful book.


E. Morgan
3.0 out of 5 stars Too verboseReviewed in the United Kingdom on June 23, 2013
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

Like most American authors, Sweet tends to repeat himself to much and obfuscate matters with too many quotes. What he said is OK, but this could have been half the length and still make the point

Intelligent Design vs. Divine Design | The Sensuous Curmudgeon



Intelligent Design vs. Divine Design | The Sensuous Curmudgeon



The Sensuous Curmudgeon
Conserving the Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, science, and free enterprise.
Skip to content

HOME
INTRO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE CONTROVERSY
DISCOVEROIDS
CREATIONIST WISDOM
LIST-O-LINKS
HURRICANE LINKS
POLITICS
SITE MAP

← Creationist Wisdom #367: The Devil’s Gospel
Discovery Institute: Science is Worthless →

Intelligent Design vs. Divine Design
Posted on 16-November-2013 | 5 Comments


Are you puzzled by our title? This is a bit tricky and very theological, and theology is not a subject we know very well, but we’ll do what we can with an article titled Intelligent Design vs. the Argument from Design.

It appears at the website of the National Catholic Register, which describes itself as “America’s most complete and faithful Catholic news source.” Their website says that copying their material is ” strictly prohibited.” We wouldn’t want to bring their wrath down upon us, so we shall comply. Instead of giving you excerpts, we’ll merely describe what they say.

The reason we found this interesting is that they severely criticize the concept of intelligent design, which is so beloved by the Discoveroids. First, they start out by mentioning Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), a/k/a St. Thomas. Wikipedia says that he “is considered the Church’s greatest theologian and philosopher.” We’ve written before about his five “proofs” of God, each of which has been found fallacious (or at least unpersuasive), but many theologians and believers rely on them anyway.

St. Thomas believed in divine design, that is, he felt that the design of the universe was evidence for God’s existence. This, according to the National Catholic Register, is nothing like the “theory” of intelligent design, which they dismiss as nothing more than a God of the gaps argument. That’s exactly what it is, despite the Discoveroids’ strenuous denials — see Stephen Meyer: “I Don’t Use God of the Gaps”. The Discoveroids claim is that because we can’t understand something, it must have been the work of the intelligent designer.

In contrast, the National Catholic Register says that St. Thomas never used such an argument. Instead, he said that it’s because of divine design that we can understand the way things work. Unlike the Discoveroids, St. Thomas didn’t assume a supernatural designer because of our ignorance, but because of our understanding. He said that the evidence of divine design is that nature is lawful and the world makes sense to us. That seems to be his fifth proof, a teleological argument that claims because everything in the universe follows laws, it must have been created by God.

Whether you find that persuasive or not, it certainly tolerates science better than the Discoveroids’ do. The Discoveroids want to overthrow science. Do you doubt that? Then see What is the “Wedge Document”?

So the National Catholic Register doesn’t think there’s much to recommend the Discoveroids’ notion of intelligent design. They don’t specifically say it, but it’s obvious that they don’t think a God-of-the-gaps argument is good science. And it’s very clear that they don’t think much of it as a theological argument either. In fact, it’s clear that they don’t like it at all.

Our guess is that the only people who do like intelligent design are ignoramuses who imagine it means that science supports their religion, and primitive preachers who don’t know much of anything at all.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.



. . Permalink for this article

S.

5 RESPONSES TO “INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS. DIVINE DESIGN”
Charles Deetz ;) | 16-November-2013 at 11:01 pm |


Creator and God as a philosophical and faith-based issue. Terrific, some sanity.
Frank J | 17-November-2013 at 8:20 am |


The reason we found this interesting is that they severely criticize the concept of intelligent design, which is so beloved by the Discoveroids.”

One does not need to go anywhere near the jargon-infested subject of theology (a gold mine for wordsmiths) to find a simple, indisputable conclusion: Any religion that preaches “thou shalt not bear false witness” and means it will completely reject the modern ID movement.

The catch is that the leaders of such religion need to know the sleazy tactics that ID peddlers use. And they won’t if they only hear about ID from the media (“it’s creationism.” “it’s a religious view,” etc.)
AnOldScientist | 17-November-2013 at 8:55 am |


FYI. According to fair use, under the 1st amendment you can copy anything you want to as part of a commentary or critique http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
The Curmudgeon | 17-November-2013 at 10:52 am |


AnOldScientist correctly says: “According to fair use, under the 1st amendment you can copy anything you want to as part of a commentary or critique”

That’s true. But the doctrine of “fair use” isn’t a magic shield that lets us dwell in a blogospheric paradise. Suits alleging copyright infringement were recently rampant during the now-ended terror caused by the tactics of Righthaven. The experience of the blogger defendants illustrates that “fair use” is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement, which has to be demonstrated in court. If sued, one must decide to either fork over something to settle the thing, or fork over perhaps even more to fight the thing in court. Although justice ought to eventually prevail, it’s best to avoid such situations.
MNb | 17-November-2013 at 11:06 am |


“a teleological argument”
Science has thrown teleology out of the window some 200 years ago.

“it certainly tolerates science better than the Discoveroids’ do.”
In the end no. That same Thomas of Aquino adopted the cosmological argument, which relies on causality, which in our days of Quantum Mechanics is just as anti-scientific.

“Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a 20th century physicist who looked at the evidence that everything in the universe was moving away from everything else”
Likely after he had read an article in a German scientific magazine from the Russian commie Alexander Friedman, who had this idea several years before our Monsignor. But yeah, a catholic celebrating a commie ….

Charles D: just ask the most liberal catholic you know if Jesus’ Resurrection was a historical and physical event. Also ask him/her how his causal god relates to the probabilism of Quantum Mechanics.

“a philosophical and faith-based issue”
There is a reason catholics don’t like Kierkegaard.

Panentheism - Wikipedia

Panentheism - Wikipedia



Panentheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God")[1] is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time. 
The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheism of Baruch Spinoza.[1] 
Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] 
panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.
  • In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
  • While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] The basic tradition however, on which Krause's concept was built, seems to have been Neoplatonic philosophy and its successors in Western philosophy and Orthodox theology.

In philosophy[edit]

Ancient Greek philosophy[edit]

The religious beliefs of Neoplatonism can be regarded as panentheistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent God ("the One", to En, τὸ Ἕν) of which subsequent realities were emanations. From "the One" emanates the Divine Mind (Nous, Νοῦς) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche, Ψυχή). In Neoplatonism the world itself is God (according to Plato's Timaeus 37). This concept of divinity is associated with that of the Logos (Λόγος), which had originated centuries earlier with Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BC). The Logos pervades the cosmos, whereby all thoughts and all things originate, or as Heraclitus said: "He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus attempted to reconcile this perspective by adding another hypostasis above the original monad of force or Dunamis (Δύναμις). This new all-pervasive monad encompassed all creation and its original uncreated emanations.

Modern philosophy[edit]

Baruch Spinoza later claimed that "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."[5] "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner."[6] Though Spinoza has been called the "prophet"[7] and "prince"[8] of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[9] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God's immanence.[10] Furthermore, Martial Guéroult suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Yet, American philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism.[11]
In 1828, the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) seeking to reconcile monotheism and pantheism, coined the term panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in god"). This conception of God influenced New England transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The term was popularized by Charles Hartshorne in his development of process theology and has also been closely identified with the New Thought.[12] The formalization of this term in the West in the 19th century was not new; philosophical treatises had been written on it in the context of Hinduism for millennia.[13]
Philosophers who embraced panentheism have included Thomas Hill Green (1839–1882), James Ward (1843–1925), Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1856–1931) and Samuel Alexander (1859–1938).[14] Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations". Hartshorne formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.[15]

In religion[edit]

Hinduism[edit]

The earliest reference to panentheistic thought in Hindu philosophy is in a creation myth contained in the later section of Rig Veda called the Purusha Sukta,[16] which was compiled before 1100 BCE.[17] The Purusha Sukta gives a description of the spiritual unity of the cosmos. It presents the nature of Purusha or the cosmic being as both immanent in the manifested world and yet transcendent to it.[18] From this being the sukta holds, the original creative will proceeds, by which this vast universe is projected in space and time.[19]
The most influential[20] and dominant[21] school of Indian philosophyAdvaita Vedanta, rejects theism and dualism by insisting that "Brahman [ultimate reality] is without parts or attributes...one without a second."[22] Since Brahman has no properties, contains no internal diversity and is identical with the whole reality it cannot be understood as an anthropomorphic personal God.[23] The relationship between Brahman and the creation is often thought to be panentheistic.[24]
Panentheism is also expressed in the Bhagavad Gita.[24] In verse IX.4, Krishna states:
By Me all this universe is pervaded through My unmanifested form.
All beings abide in Me but I do not abide in them.
Many schools of Hindu thought espouse monistic theism, which is thought to be similar to a panentheistic viewpoint. Nimbarka's school of differential monism (Dvaitadvaita), Ramanuja's school of qualified monism (Vishistadvaita) and Saiva Siddhanta and Kashmir Shaivism are all considered to be panentheistic.[25] Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which elucidates the doctrine of Achintya Bheda Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference), is also thought to be panentheistic.[26] In Kashmir Shaivism, all things are believed to be a manifestation of Universal Consciousness (Cit or Brahman).[27] So from the point of view of this school, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Cit).[28] Thus, Kashmir Shaivism is also propounding of theistic monism or panentheism.[29]
Shaktism, or Tantra, is regarded as an Indian prototype of Panentheism.[30] Shakti is considered to be the cosmos itself – she is the embodiment of energy and dynamism, and the motivating force behind all action and existence in the material universe. Shiva is her transcendent masculine aspect, providing the divine ground of all being. "There is no Shiva without Shakti, or Shakti without Shiva. The two ... in themselves are One."[31] Thus, it is She who becomes the time and space, the cosmos, it is She who becomes the five elements, and thus all animate life and inanimate forms. She is the primordial energy that holds all creation and destruction, all cycles of birth and death, all laws of cause and effect within Herself, and yet is greater than the sum total of all these. She is transcendent, but becomes immanent as the cosmos (Mula Prakriti). She, the Primordial Energy, directly becomes Matter.

Taoism[edit]

Taoism says that all is part of the eternal tao, and that all interact through qi. Chapter 6 of the Tao Te Ching describes the Tao thus: "The heart of Tao is immortal, the mysterious fertile mother of us all, of heaven and earth, of every thing and not-thing."[32]

Christianity[edit]

Panentheism is also a feature of some Christian philosophical theologies and resonates strongly within the theological tradition of the Orthodox Church.[33] It also appears in process theology
Process theological thinkers are generally regarded in the Christian West as unorthodox. Furthermore, process philosophical thought is widely believed to have paved the way for open theism, a movement that tends to associate itself primarily with the Evangelical branch of Protestantism, but is also generally considered unorthodox by most Evangelicals.

Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]

In Christianity, creation is not considered a literal "part of" God, and divinity is essentially distinct from creation (i.e., transcendent). There is, in other words, an irradicable difference between the uncreated (i.e., God) and the created (i.e., everything else). This does not mean, however, that the creation is wholly separated from God, because the creation exists in and from the divine energies
In Eastern Orthodoxy, these energies or operations are the natural activity of God and are in some sense identifiable with God, but at the same time the creation is wholly distinct from the divine essence.[citation needed] God creates the universe by His will and from His energies. It is, however, not an imprint or emanation of God's own essence (ousia), the essence He shares pre-eternally with His Word and Holy Spirit. Neither is it a directly literal outworking or effulgence of the divine, nor any other process which implies that creation is essentially God or a necessary part of God.
 The use of the term "panentheism" to describe the divine concept in Orthodox Christian theology is problematic for those who would insist that panentheism requires creation to be "part of" God.
God is not merely Creator of the universe, as His dynamic presence is necessary to sustain the existence of every created thing, small and great, visible and invisible.[34] That is, God's energies maintain the existence of the created order and all created beings, even if those agencies have explicitly rejected him. His love for creation is such that He will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of annihilation, not merely imposing death, but ending existence altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is fundamentally "good" in its very being, and is not innately evil either in whole or in part. This does not deny the existence of spiritual or moral evil in a fallen universe, only the claim that it is an intrinsic property of creation. Sin results from the essential freedom of creatures to operate outside the divine order, not as a necessary consequence of having inherited human nature.

Panentheism in other Christian confessions[edit]

Many Christians who believe in universalism – mainly expressed in the Universalist Church of America, originating, as a fusion of Pietist and Anabaptist influences, from the American colonies of the 18th century – hold panentheistic views of God in conjunction with their belief in apocatastasis, also called universal reconciliation.[citation needed] Panentheistic Christian Universalists often believe that all creation's subsistence in God renders untenable the notion of final and permanent alienation from Him, citing Scriptural passages such as Ephesians 4:6 ("[God] is over all and through all and in all") and Romans 11:36 ("from [God] and through him and to him are all things") to justify both panentheism and universalism.[citation needed] Panentheism was also a major force in the Unitarian church for a long time, based in part on Ralph Waldo Emerson's concept of the Over-soul (from the synonymous essay of 1841).[citation needed]
Panentheistic conceptions of God occur amongst some modern theologians. Process theology and Creation Spirituality, two recent developments in Christian theology, contain panentheistic ideas. Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), who conjoined process theology with panentheism, maintained a lifelong membership in the Methodist church but was also a Unitarian. In later years he joined the Austin, TexasUnitarian Universalist congregation and was an active participant in that church.[35] Referring to the ideas such as Thomas Oord's ‘theocosmocentrism’ (2010), the soft panentheism of open theism, Keith Ward's comparative theology and John Polkinghorne's critical realism (2009), Raymond Potgieter observes distinctions such as dipolar and bipolar:
The former suggests two poles separated such as God influencing creation and it in turn its creator (Bangert 2006:168), whereas bipolarity completes God’s being implying interdependence between temporal and eternal poles. (Marbaniang 2011:133), in dealing with Whitehead’s approach, does not make this distinction. I use the term bipolar as a generic term to include suggestions of the structural definition of God’s transcendence and immanence; to for instance accommodate a present and future reality into which deity must reasonably fit and function, and yet maintain separation from this world and evil whilst remaining within it.[36]
Some argue that panentheism should also include the notion that God has always been related to some world or another, which denies the idea of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Nazarene Methodist theologian Thomas Jay Oord (* 1965) advocates panentheism, but he uses the word "theocosmocentrism" to highlight the notion that God and some world or another are the primary conceptual starting blocks for eminently fruitful theology. This form of panentheism helps in overcoming the problem of evil and in proposing that God's love for the world is essential to who God is.[37]
The Christian Church International also holds to a panentheist doctrine. The Latter Day Saint movement teaches that the Light of Christ "proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things."[38]

Gnosticism[edit]

"Gnosticism" is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems prevalent in the first and second century AD. The teachings of the various gnostic groups were very diverse. In his Dictionary of Gnosticism, Andrew Phillip Smith has written that some branches of Gnosticism taught a panentheistic view of reality,[39] and held to the belief that God exists in the visible world only as sparks of spiritual "light". The goal of human existence is to know the sparks within oneself in order to return to God, who is in the Fullness (or Pleroma).
Gnosticism was panentheistic, believing that the true God is simultaneously both separate from the physical universe and present within it.[citation needed] As Jesus states in the Gospel of Thomas, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all ... . Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."[40] This seemingly contradictory interpretation of gnostic theology is not without controversy, since one interpretation of dualistic theology holds that a perfect God of pure spirit would not manifest himself through the fallen world of matter.
Manichaeism, being another gnostic sect, preached a very different doctrine in positioning the true Manichaean God against matter as well as other deities, that it described as enmeshed with the world, namely the gods of Jews, Christians and pagans.[41] Nevertheless, this dualistic teaching included an elaborate cosmological myth that narrates the defeat of primal man by the powers of darkness that devoured and imprisoned the particles of light.[42]
Valentinian Gnosticism taught that matter came about through emanations of the supreme being, even if to some this event is held to be more accidental than intentional.[43][citation needed] To other gnostics, these emanations were akin to the Sephirot of the Kabbalists and deliberate manifestations of a transcendent God through a complex system of intermediaries.[citation needed]

Judaism[edit]

While mainstream Rabbinic Judaism is classically monotheistic, and follows in the footsteps of Maimonides (c. 1135–1204), the panentheistic conception of God can be found among certain mystical Jewish traditions. A leading scholar of KabbalahMoshe Idel[44] ascribes this doctrine to the kabbalistic system of Moses ben Jacob Cordovero (1522–1570) and in the eighteenth century to the Baal Shem Tov (c. 1700–1760), founder of the Hasidic movement, as well as his contemporaries, Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezeritch (died 1772), and Menahem Mendel, the Maggid of Bar. This may be said of many, if not most, subsequent Hasidic masters. There is some debate as to whether Isaac Luria (1534–1572) and Lurianic Kabbalah, with its doctrine of tzimtzum, can be regarded as panentheistic.
According to Hasidism, the infinite Ein Sof is incorporeal and exists in a state that is both transcendent and immanent. This appears to be the view of non-Hasidic Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, as well. Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification to a transcendent God, via the intellectual articulation of inner dimensions through Kabbalah and with emphasis on the panentheistic divine immanence in everything.[45]
Many scholars would argue that "panentheism" is the best single-word description of the philosophical theology of Baruch Spinoza.[46] It is therefore no surprise, that aspects of panentheism are also evident in the theology of Reconstructionist Judaism as presented in the writings of Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), who was strongly influenced by Spinoza.[47]

Islam[edit]

Several Sufi saints and thinkers, primarily Ibn Arabi, held beliefs that have been considered panentheistic.[48] These notions later took shape in the theory of wahdat ul-wujud (the Unity of All Things). Some Sufi Orders, notably the Bektashis[49] and the Universal Sufi movement, continue to espouse panentheistic beliefs. Nizari Ismaili follow panentheism according to Ismaili doctrine. Nevertheless, some Shia Muslims also do believe in different degrees of Panentheism.
Al-Qayyuum is a Name of God in the Qur'an which translates to "The Self-Existing by Whom all subsist". In Islam the universe can not exist if Allah doesn't exist, and it is only by His power which encompasses everything and which is everywhere that the universe can exist. In Ayaẗ al-Kursii God's throne is described as "extending over the heavens and the earth" and "He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them". This does not mean though that the universe is God, or that a creature (like a tree or an animal) is God, because those would be respectively pantheism, which is a heresy in traditional Islam, and the worst heresy in Islam, shirk (polytheism). God is separated by His creation but His creation can not survive without Him.

In Pre-Columbian America[edit]

The Mesoamerican empires of the MayasAztecs as well as the South American Incas (Tahuatinsuyu) have typically been characterized as polytheistic, with strong male and female deities.[50] According to Charles C. Mann's history book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, only the lower classes of Aztec society were polytheistic. Philosopher James Maffie has argued that Aztec metaphysics was pantheistic rather than panentheistic, since Teotl was considered by Aztec philosophers to be the ultimate all-encompassing yet all-transcending force defined by its inherit duality.[51]
Native American beliefs in North America have been characterized as panentheistic in that there is an emphasis on a single, unified divine spirit that is manifest in each individual entity.[52] (North American Native writers have also translated the word for God as the Great Mystery[53] or as the Sacred Other[54]) This concept is referred to by many as the Great Spirit. Philosopher J. Baird Callicott has described Lakota theology as panentheistic, in that the divine both transcends and is immanent in everything.[55]
One exception can be modern Cherokee who are predominantly monotheistic but apparently not panentheistic;[56] yet in older Cherokee traditions many observe both aspects of pantheism and panentheism, and are often not beholden to exclusivity, encompassing other spiritual traditions without contradiction, a common trait among some tribes in the Americas. In the stories of Keetoowah storytellers Sequoyah Guess and Dennis Sixkiller, God is known as ᎤᏁᎳᏅᎯ, commonly pronounced "unehlanv," and visited earth in prehistoric times, but then left earth and her people to rely on themselves. This shows a parallel to Vaishnava cosmology.

Sikhism[edit]

The Sikh gurus have described God in numerous ways in their hymns included in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of Sikhism, but the oneness of the deity is consistently emphasized throughout. God is described in the Mool Mantar, the first passage in the Guru Granth Sahib, and the basic formula of the faith is:
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1) in Punjabi — ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Punjabi in Latin script
Ik Oankar Satnaam KartaaPurakh Nirbhau Nirvair AkaalMoorat Ajooni Saibhan GurPrasad
English translation
One primal being who made the sound (oan) that expanded and created the world. Truth is the name. Creative being personified. Without fear, without hate. Image of the undying. Beyond birth, self existent. By Guru's grace~
Guru Arjan, the fifth guru of Sikhs, says, "God is beyond colour and form, yet His/Her presence is clearly visible" (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 74), and "Nanak's Lord transcends the world as well as the scriptures of the east and the west, and yet He/She is clearly manifest" (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 397).
Knowledge of the ultimate Reality is not a matter for reason; it comes by revelation of the ultimate reality through nadar (grace) and by anubhava (mystical experience). Says Guru Nanak; "budhi pathi na paiai bahu chaturaiai bhai milai mani bhane." This translates to "He/She is not accessible through intellect, or through mere scholarship or cleverness at argument; He/She is met, when He/She pleases, through devotion" (GG, 436).
Guru Nanak prefixed the numeral one (ik) to it, making it Ik Oankar or Ek Oankar to stress God's oneness. God is named and known only through his Own immanent nature. The only name which can be said to truly fit God's transcendent state is SatNam ( Sat Sanskrit, Truth), the changeless and timeless Reality. God is transcendent and all-pervasive at the same time. Transcendence and immanence are two aspects of the same single Supreme Reality. The Reality is immanent in the entire creation, but the creation as a whole fails to contain God fully. As says Guru Tegh Bahadur, Nanak IX, "He has himself spread out His/Her Own “maya” (worldly illusion) which He oversees; many different forms He assumes in many colours, yet He stays independent of all" (GG, 537).

Bahá'í Faith[edit]

In the Bahá'í Faith, God is described as a single, imperishable God, the creator of all things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe. The connection between God and the world is that of the creator to his creation.[57] God is understood to be independent of his creation, and that creation is dependent and contingent on God. Accordingly, the Bahá'í Faith is much more closely aligned with traditions of monotheism than panentheism. God is not seen to be part of creation as he cannot be divided and does not descend to the condition of his creatures. Instead, in the Bahá'í understanding, the world of creation emanates from God, in that all things have been realized by him and have attained to existence.[58] Creation is seen as the expression of God's will in the contingent world,[59] and every created thing is seen as a sign of God's sovereignty, and leading to knowledge of him; the signs of God are most particularly revealed in human beings.[57]

Konkōkyō[edit]

In Konkōkyō, God is named “Tenchi Kane no Kami-Sama” which can mean “Golden spirit of the universe.” Kami (God) is also seen as infinitely loving and powerful.

See also[edit]

People associated with panentheism:
  • Gregory Palamas(1296–1359), Byzantine Orthodox theologian and hesychast
  • Baruch Spinoza(1632–1677), Dutch philosopher of Sephardi-Portuguese origin
  • Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), English mathematician, philosopher, and father of process philosophy
  • Charles Hartshorne(1897–2000), American philosopher and father of process theology
  • Arthur Peacocke(1924–2006), British Anglican theologian and biochemist
  • John B. Cobb (* 1925), American theologian and philosopher
  • Mordechai Nessyahu (1929–1997), Jewish-Israeli political theorist and philosopher of Cosmotheism
  • Sallie McFague(1933–2019), American feminist theologian, author of Models of Godand The Body of God
  • William Luther Pierce (1933–2002), American political activist and self-proclaimed cosmotheist
  • Rosemary Radford Ruether (* 1936), American feminist theologian, author of Sexism and God-Talk and Gaia and God
  • Jan Assmann (* 1938), German Egyptologist, theorist of Cosmotheism
  • Leonardo Boff (* 1938), Brazilian liberation theologian and philosopher, former Franciscan priest, author of Ecology and Liberation: A New Paradigm
  • Matthew Fox (* 1940), American theologian, exponent of Creation Spirtuality, expelled from the Dominican Order in 1993 and received into the Episcopal priesthood in 1994, author of Creation SpiritualityThe Coming of the Cosmic Christ and A New Reformation: Creation Spirituality and the Transformation of Christianity
  • Marcus Borg(1942-2015), American New Testament scholar and theologian. Prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, author of The God We Never Knew
  • Richard Rohr (* 1943), American Franciscan priest and spiritual writer. Author of Everything Belongsand The Universal Christ
  • Carter Heyward (* 1945), American feminist theologian and Episcopal priest, author of Touching our Strength and Saving Jesus from Those Who Are Right
  • Norman Lowell (* 1946), Maltese writer and politician, self-proclaimed cosmotheist
  • John Philip Newell(* 1953), Canadian-born minister ordained in the Church of Scotland, spiritual writer, author of numerous books including The Rebirthing of God: Christianity's Struggle for New Beginnings
  • John Polkinghorne(* 1960), English theoretical physicist and theologian
  • Michel Weber (* 1963), Belgian philosopher
  • Thomas Jay Oord(* 1965), American theologian and philosopher

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b John Culp (2013): “Panentheism”, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
  2. Jump up to:a b Erwin Fahlbusch; Geoffrey William Bromiley; David B. Barrett (2005). The Encyclopedia of Christianity4. William B. Eerdmans. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8028-2416-5.
  3. ^ “Pantheism and Panentheism in non-Western cultures”, in: Britannica.
  4. ^ Whiting, Robert. Religions for Today. Stanley Thomes, London 1991, p. viii. ISBN 0-7487-0586-4.
  5. ^ Ethics, part I, prop. 15.
  6. ^ Ethics, part I, prop. 25S.
  7. ^ Picton, J. Allanson, "Pantheism: Its Story and Significance", 1905.
  8. ^ Fraser, Alexander Campbell, "Philosophy of Theism", William Blackwood and Sons, 1895, p. 163.
  9. ^ Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza, Wilder Publications, 2009, ISBN 978-1-60459-156-9, letter 73.
  10. ^ Karl Jaspers, Spinoza (Great Philosophers), Harvest Books, 1974, ISBN 978-0-15-684730-8, pp. 14 and 95.
  11. ^ Charles Hartshorne and William Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, Humanity Books, 1953, ch. 4.
  12. ^ Smith, David L. (2014). Theologies of the 21st Century: Trends in Contemporary Theology. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock. p. 228. ISBN 978-1625648648. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
  13. ^ Southgate, Christopher (2005). God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Companion to the Science-Religion Debate. London: T&T Clark. pp. 246–47. ISBN 978-0567030160. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
  14. ^ John W. Cooper Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the presentBaker Academic, 2006, ISBN 0-8010-2724-1.
  15. ^ Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1964) ISBN 0-208-00498-X p. 348; cf. Michel WeberWhitehead’s Pancreativism. The Basics. Foreword by Nicholas Rescher, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt am Main and Paris, 2006.
  16. ^ Nigal, Sahebrao Genu (2009). Vedic Philosophy of Values. New Delhi: Northern Book Centre. p. 81. ISBN 978-8172112806. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  17. ^ Oberlies (1998:155) gives an estimate of 1100 BC for the youngest hymns in book 10. Estimates for a terminus post quem of the earliest hymns are more uncertain. Oberlies (p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100
  18. ^ The Purusha Sukta in Daily Invocations by Swami Krishnananda
  19. ^ Krishnananda, Swami. A Short History of Religious and Philosophic Thought in India. Divine Life Society. P. 19
  20. ^ "Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta ," By William M. Indich, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1995, ISBN 81-208-1251-4.
  21. ^ "Gandhi And Mahayana Buddhism". Class.uidaho.edu. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
  22. ^ Wainwright, William. "Concepts of God"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  23. ^ Wainwright, William, "Concepts of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  24. Jump up to:a b Southgate, Christopher. God, Humanity, and the Cosmos. T&T Clark Int'l, New York. P. 246. ISBN 0567030164.
  25. ^ Sherma, Rita DasGupta; Sharma Arvind. Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons. Springer, 2008 edition (December 1, 2010). P. 192. ISBN 9048178002.
  26. ^ Chaitanya Charitamrita, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
  27. ^ The Doctrine of Vibration: An Analysis of Doctrines and Practices of Kashmir Shaivism, By Mark S. G. Dyczkowski, p.44
  28. ^ Ksemaraja, trans. by Jaidev Singh, Spanda Karikas: The Divine Creative Pulsation, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p.119
  29. ^ The Trika Śaivism of Kashmir, Moti Lal Pandit
  30. ^ Vitsaxis, Vassilis. Thought and Faith: The concept of divinity. Somerset Hall Press. P. 167. ISBN 978-1-935244-03-5.
  31. ^ Subramanian, V. K., Saundaryalahari of Sankaracarya: Sanskrit Text in Devanagari with Roman Transliteration, English Translation, Explanatory Notes, Yantric Diagrams and Index. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi, 1977; 6th ed. 1998). P. ix.
  32. ^ "Tao Te Ching (Daodejing) (translated Brian Browne Walker)". Retrieved 2018-12-12.
  33. ^ Nesteruk, Alexei V. (2004). "The Universe as Hypostaic Inherence in the logos of God: Panentheism in the Eastern Orthodox Perspective", in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Robert Peacocke. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 169–83. ISBN 978-0802809780. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  34. ^ St. Symeon in Practical & Theological Discourses, 1.1: “When men search for God with their bodily eyes they find Him nowhere, for He is invisible. But for those who ponder in the Spirit He is present everywhere. He is in all, yet beyond all.”
  35. ^ About Charles Hartshorne Archived 2007-11-14 at the Wayback Machine.
  36. ^ Potgieter, R., 2013, ‘Keith Ward’s soft panentheism’, In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi 47(1), Art. #581, 9 pages. https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ ids.v47i1.581
  37. ^ Baker, Vaughn W. (2013). Evangelism and the Openness of God: The Implications of Relational Theism. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock. pp. 242–43. ISBN 9781620320471. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  38. ^ "Light of Christ", churchofjesuschrist.org.
  39. ^ Smith, Andrew Phillip (2014). A Dictionary of Gnosticism. Wheaton IL: Quest Books. p. 186. ISBN 9780835608695. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  40. ^ Gospel of Thomas, saying 77.
  41. ^ “Now, he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests he says is the archont of Darkness, and the Christians, Jews, and pagans (ethnic) are one and the same, as they revere the same god. For in his aspirations he seduces them, as he is not the god of truth. And so therefore all those who put their hope in the god who spoke with Moses and the prophets have (this in store for themselves, namely) to be bound with him, because they did not put their hope in the god of truth. For that one spoke with them (only) according to their own aspirations.” And elsewhere: “Now God has no part in this cosmos nor does he rejoice over it.” Classical Texts: Acta Archelai, p. 76 ([www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Manicheism/Manicheism_II_Texts.pdf pdf online]). Cf. The Mystica an Dualism.
  42. ^ "But the blessed One [...] sent, through his beneficent Spirit and his great mercy, a helper to Adam, luminous Epinoia which comes out of him, who is called Life. [...] And the luminous Epinoia was hidden in Adam, in order that the archons might not know her, but that the Epinoia might be a correction of the deficiency of the mother. And the man came forth because of the shadow of the light which is in him. [...] And they took counsel with the whole array of archons and angels. [...] And they brought him (Adam) into the shadow of death, in order that they might form (him) again from earth [...] This is the tomb of the newly-formed body with which the robbers had clothed the man, the bond of forgetfulness; and he became a mortal man. [...] But the Epinoia of the light which was in him, she is the one who was to awaken his thinking. ([1])
  43. ^ https://www.iep.utm.edu/gnostic/. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  44. ^ Hasidism: Between Ecstacy and Magic, SUNY, 1995, p. 17 f.
  45. ^ Ariel, David S. (2006). Kabbalah: The Mystic Quest in Judaism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 184–85. ISBN 978-0742545649. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  46. ^ Diller, Jeanine and Asa Kasher (2013). Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 425–26. ISBN 978-94-007-5218-4. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  47. ^ Scult, Mel (2013). The Radical American Judaism of Mordecai M. Kaplan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-253-01075-9. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  48. ^ Minai, Asghar Talaye (2003). Mysticism, aesthetics, and cosmic consciousness: a post-modern worldview of unity of being. N.Y.: Global Academic Pub. p. 250. ISBN 978-1586842499.
  49. ^ Abiva, Huseyin. "Bektashi Thought & Practice"Bektashi Order of Dervishes. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  50. ^ Murphy, John (2014). Gods & Goddesses of the Inca, Maya, and Aztec Civilizations. New York: Rosen Education Service. ISBN 978-1622753963. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  51. ^ Maffie, James (2013). Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. ISBN 9781607322238. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  52. ^ Solomon, Robert C. and Kathleen M. Higgins (2003). From Africa to Zen: An Invitation to World Philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 51–54. ISBN 978-0742513495. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  53. ^ Russell MeansWhere White Men Fear To Tread (Macmillan, 1993), pp. 3–4, 15, 17.
  54. ^ George TinkerSpirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation, 2004, p. 89. He defines the Sacred Other as "the Deep Mystery which creates and sustains all Creation".
  55. ^ Earth's Insights: A Multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1994. p. 122. ISBN 9780520085602. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
  56. ^ The Peoples of the World Foundation. Education for and about Indigenous Peoples: The Cherokee People, retrieved 2008-03-24.
  57. Jump up to:a b Smith, Peter (2000). "God"A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p. 116ISBN 978-1-85168-184-6.
  58. ^ `Abdu'l-Bahá (1981) [1904–06]. Some Answered Questions. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. 202–203. ISBN 978-0-87743-190-9.
  59. ^ Smith, Peter (2000). "creation"A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. pp. 164–165ISBN 978-1-85168-184-6.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Ankur Barua, "God’s Body at Work: Rāmānuja and Panentheism," in: International Journal of Hindu Studies, 14,1 (2010), pp. 1–30.
  • Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacock (eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being; Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, Eerdmans (2004)
  • Bangert, B.C. (2006). Consenting to God and nature: Toward a theocentric, naturalistic, theological ethics, Princeton theological monograph ser. 55, Pickwick Publications, Eugene.
  • Cooper, John W. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, Baker Academic ISBN 9780801027246
  • Davis, Andrew M. and Philip Clayton (eds.) (2018). How I Found God in Everyone and Everywhere, Monkfish Book Publishing ISBN 9781939681881
  • Thomas Jay Oord (2010). The Nature of Love: A Theology ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5.
  • Joseph Bracken, "Panentheism in the context of the theology and science dialogue", in: Open Theology, 1 (2014), 1–11 (online).
  • Marbaniang, Domenic (2011). Epistemics of Divine Reality. POD. ISBN 9781105160776.

External links[edit]