A second of the three most obvious meanings of "world" is the planet Earth.  In daily language this is probably the most common meaning of "world".  I think this is the meaning of "world" where ACIM students tend to go astray and misapply the ideas that "we make (or made) the world" and that "God did not make the world".  Given the universal scope of ACIM, when we apply the idea that "we make the world", it doesn't make sense to limit the concept to our planet.  If we made Earth, then we must have made the Solar system, and if we made the Solar system, then we must have made the galaxy, and if we made the galaxy, then we must have made the entire universe of time, space, and matter.  I suppose that on some metaphysical level it would be possible to entertain the idea that the Christ, the united Self that we all share, could have made the universe of time, space, and matter; however, as far as I know there is no support for that concept in ACIM.

I've encountered cases that go farther afield.  It's one thing to entertain the idea that the Christ made the universe of time, space, and matter.  It's a much farther leap to promote the idea that the ego made the universe of time, space, and matter; however, that idea does circulate among ACIM students.  For example, quoting from the website of a prominent ACIM teacher, "So yes, the ego did make the cosmos of time and space."  The article gives no reference from ACIM to support that statement.  Similarly, at the CMC's online discussion group last year we saw a quote from a new book by a very prominent ACIM teacher and author which reads as follows:  "Having made time, the ego easily becomes a slave to time."  I challenged the entire discussion group to find any passages in the Original Edition or the Urtext that support the concept that the ego made time.  No one ever reported finding anything.  Their inability to find any support for the idea is significant because several members of that group have read ACIM cover to cover many times, at least one member teaches it cover to cover every year, and all of us had the ability to search the entire book electronically.

Although the idea that the Christ or the ego made the "world" of time, space, and matter may be interesting to some, as far as I can there is no support for these ideas in ACIM.  The best I can tell from ACIM is that 1) God made the universe of time, space, and matter, and 2) the "world" in this sense was made to be a classroom in which we could learn to heal the separation.  The Urtext is most clear on this topic:

"God created time so that man could use it creatively ..." (T.1.B.15 by the MIAP Urtext Manuscripts reference system)

In the Original Edition we read:

"The physical world exists only because man can use it to correct his unbelief, which placed him in it originally." (OrEd.Tx.1.93)

"The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone is only a matter of time. In fact, both time and matter were created for this purpose." (OrEd.Tx.2.47)

"...the law itself upholds the universe as God created it..." (OrEd.Tx.25.26)

"... the Holy Spirit ... knows the Son of God and shares his Father's certainty the universe rests in his gentle hands in safety and in peace. .... What is he, that the Creator of the universe should offer it to him and know it rests in safety?" (OrEd.Tx.20.44)

"No accident nor chance is possible within the universe as God created it, outside of which is nothing." (OrEd.Tx.21.17)

"The Creator of life, the Source of everything that lives, the Father of the universe and of the universe of universes and of everything that lies even beyond them would you remember." (OrEd.Tx.19.90)

"For it seems safer to attack another or yourself than to attack the great Creator of the universe, whose power you know." (OrEd.Tx.22.61)

My impression is that there is no shortage of passages in ACIM that tell us that God made the universe, and that the realm of time, space, and matter was made for our benefit.  I'm not going to analyze here the meaning of "universe" in ACIM, but I think it would be hard to find any definition of "universe" that does not include the realm of time, space, and matter, and by extension, the third "world" from the star we call Sun.  So this definition of "world" is not the operative definition when we say that "we made (or make) the world" and "God did not make the world".

The third of the three most obvious meanings of "world" is what a person is experiencing.  For example, my "world" is very different from the "world" of an orphan in Baghdad or from the "world" of the ancient Greeks.  To get examples of this use of "world", I ran a series of google searches starting with "the world of" and then adding one letter to see what google would offer me.  The offerings from google included:

A:  the world of animals

D:  the world of Dante

E:  the world of Epictetus

H:  the world of Harry Potter

In ACIM this meaning of "world" is used widely and with a special emphasis on visual perception.  I wrote on the topic of two forms of visual perception for the February and March 2012 issues of Of Course.  This is the meaning of "world" in cases where ACIM tells us that God did not make the world or that we made or make the world.  For example:

"you made the world you see".  (OrEd.Tx.21.26)  This is also the meaning of "world" in the cases where ACIM tells us that there are "two worlds".  For example:

"The world as you perceive it cannot have been created by the Father, for the world is not as you see it. God created only the eternal, and everything you see is perishable. Therefore, there must be another world which you do not see." (OrEd.Tx.10.69)

"The world I see has nothing that I want."  "Beyond this world there is a world I want."  "It is impossible to see two worlds." (OrEd.WkBk.128 - 130 lesson titles)

"Christ's vision is the bridge between the worlds. And in its power can you safely trust to carry you from this world into one made holy by forgiveness. Things which seem quite solid here are merely shadows there, transparent, faintly seen, at times forgot, and never able to obscure the light that shines beyond them." (OrEd.WkBk.159.5)

So the "world" that we are making, the "world" that God did not make, consists of events and circumstances that we are experiencing as well as a particular type of visual perception that requires the body's eyes.  "God did not make the world" does not mean He didn't make the planet or the cosmos.  Rather, it means He did not make wars, sickness, death, and disasters.  In addition, it means He did not make the form of visual perception that requires the body's eyes and in which we perceive each other as bodies.

I'll briefly mention two more definitions of "world" in ACIM.  One is "what the ego makes and perceives" (as opposed to what we make and perceive in general.)  This fourth definition can look like a subsidiary of the third, but there are passages that show us that only one of those two definitions will make sense, so in fact the fourth definition is unique and not a subset of the third.  For example:

"And if the Holy Spirit can commute each sentence that you laid upon yourself into a blessing, then it cannot be a sin. Sin is the one thing in all the world that cannot change. It is immutable. And on its changelessness the world depends. The magic of the world can seem to hide the pain of sin from sinners and deceive with glitter and with guile. Yet each one knows the cost of sin is death. And so it is. For sin is a request for death, a wish to make this world's foundation sure as love, dependable as Heaven, and as strong as God Himself. The world is safe from love to everyone who thinks sin possible. Nor will it change. Yet is it possible what God created not should share the attributes of His creation when it opposes it in every way?" (OrEd.Tx.25.50)

In this paragraph the only definition that can work here is the fourth.  Careful study will show that none of the other definitions will work.

A fifth definition of "world" in ACIM is "the collection of all the souls that are fixed on the desire to remain separate and are not engaged in the process of healing their minds".  In other words, this definition does not include the souls who still experience separation but are engaged in the process of healing their minds.  The fifth definition can look like a subsidiary of the first, but once again there are passages that show us that this is not the case.  For example:

"And nothing that the world believes as true has any meaning in His Mind at all." (OrEd.Tx.25.52)

If we studied farther we could probably find even more definitions of "world" in ACIM.  I'm not going to look farther because instead I want to focus on why understanding the definitions of "world" matters.  It matters, and profoundly so, for at least two reasons, both related to the idea that "God did not make the universe of time, space, and matter", an idea which arises from failure to understand the multiple meanings of "world" in ACIM.

We have seen that there are two alternative interpretations of the idea that "God did not make the world; rather, we made (or make) the world".  One of these is that God did not make the universe of time, space, and matter.  The other is that God did not make the events that we are experiencing and the body's mode of visual perception.  The first reason why understanding the definitions of "world" matters is that the two alternative interpretations of "God did not make the world" lead to DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE MODES OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ACIM IN DAY-TO-DAY LIFE.

If we adhere to the idea that we made the universe of time, space, and matter (and especially if we think that THE EGO made time, space, and matter as a means for maintaining the separation) then we can leap to the conclusion that the path set forth by ACIM consists of fixing our minds on the idea that it "is not real", or "does not exist", or "is a dream", or "is an illusion".  This leads to the idea that involvement with, or caring about, anything that we see in the illusion makes the illusion seem more real to our minds.  This means that involvement and caring should generally be avoided, although there may be cases where the Holy Spirit directs us to do so.  The result is an approach to life that is at best nihilistic and at worst solipsistic.  (I'll try to write about those philosophies at some point in the future.  Until then, I encourage those who aren't familiar with them to study them on the internet.)  I've seen this summed up by ACIM students and teachers as "matter doesn't matter".  In spite of the fact that there is no support in ACIM for the underlying idea that gives rise to this approach, and in spite of the fact that there are thousands of passages in ACIM that direct us to be actively engaged in the realm of time, space, matter, and bodies for the purpose of making it better, this nihilist/solipsist approach to ACIM seems to be very common.  ACIM does call the world a "dream" and "illusion", but it certainly does not proceed from that starting point to a nihilistic or solipsistic result.

On the other hand, if we adhere to the idea that God made the universe of time, space, and matter as a classroom for finding our way back to him, then we are going to engage with the classroom.  We can recognize that from the perspective of eternity it may be a dream while at the same time understanding that engaging with the other souls who are jointly experiencing the dream is the essence of the path set forth by ACIM.  As I said, this "active engagement because it matters" approach to practical application of ACIM is diametrically opposite to the "nihilist / solipsist / avoid making the illusion real" attempt at practical application that seems to be very common among ACIM students.  Our choice between these two diametrically opposite modes of practical application is inseparable from what we think "God did not make the world" means.  What we think "God did not make the world" means depends on whether we understand the multiple definitions of "world" in ACIM.

A second reason that understanding the definitions of "world" matters is because the idea that "God did not make the universe of time, space, and matter; rather, we made it" almost certainly alienates many prospective students.  They hear this concept represented as a doctrine from ACIM, it seems preposterous to them, and they never look any further into ACIM.  It would be one thing if the book actually supported the idea in question.  For example I'm sure we lose many potential students with the concept that "Jesus did not die for our sins because God does not require or accept sacrifice for sins."  But that can't be helped because the doctrine that Jesus' crucifixion was not payment for our sins is inherent in ACIM.  It's quite another thing to lose prospective students by promoting a doctrine that is opposite to what is written between the covers of the book.  ACIM students should consider this to be important, because the book sets forth teaching as a primary aspect of the path.

Bart Bacon

6/24/2012