Review: A New Earth
A new phenomenon has graced (or disgraced) the presence of popular television for the past few weeks. Oprah, the famous (or infamous) talk show host has endorsed a new book for her book club. Labeling this choice 'a bold move', Oprah decided that this book is different and deserves more time and effort than any of her other books that she has suggested for her book club. Therefore, every Monday night, for the past 8 weeks, Oprah has had a 'virtual class discussion' on this book, A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle.After receiving a youtube video link on a forwarded email, I decided that it may be beneficial to take a deeper look into this work. The youtube video has an obvious bias, and I do not like to take things at face value when they are critical of someone else's work, so I did my own research. Oprah has provided these class sessions for free on iTunes, so I downloaded the first hour and a half session and watched it.
Tolle and Oprah (it's interesting how we only use her first name when referring to her) talked to each other and to people from around the world about the first chapter of the book, A New Earth. One lady videoed in a question that asked, 'How can I still be a Christian and use this teaching? Is it possible to reconcile the two together?' The answers from Tolle and Oprah were very interesting, to say the least. Oprah proceeded to tell a story of why she left the Baptist church she attended for years. Her reason was because the pastor one morning said that 'God is a jealous God.' Upon hearing this, Oprah responded (at 27 years of age), 'What? God is a jealous God? Jealous of what? Jealous of me? I thought God is Love.' After this revelation, Oprah left the church.
Now, the answer, although not sufficient in my opinion, basically went like this: God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-present, and we cannot keep God 'in the box', so we need to be open to ANY means by which God relates to each individual (paraphrased by me). The bottom line is that Oprah believes that Tolle's methods are totally kosher with the Christian Faith and that his methods actually enhance our Faith in Christ.
Immediately after hearing this, I decided it would be worth a read. If it enhances Christianity, then I sure want to see what this is about, right? (please excuse the sarcasm) So I checked the book out of our public library and read it, in a very short amount of time, by the way. Here are some quotes I found interesting:
'Christ can be seen as the archetypal human, embodying both the pain and the possibility of transcendence.' (144)
'The possibility of such a transformation [of consciousness] has been the central message of the great wisdom teachings of humankind. The messengers - Buddha, Jesus, and others, not all of them known - were humanity's early flowers. A widespread flowering was not yet possible at that time, and their message became largely misunderstood and often greatly distorted.' (6)
'In Hindu teachings, this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation, and in Buddhism, it is the end of suffering.' (13)
And my personal favorite:
'Almost every woman has her share in the collective female pain-body (term used to describe the 'bad' which is in us), which tends to become activated particularly just prior to the time of menstruation. At that time many woman become overwhelmed by intense negative emotion.' (155)
These quotes just give a snippet of 'enlightenment' (pun intended) into the writing of Tolle.
Although this book is among a myriad of New Age material out there, I was particularly upset with Mr. Tolle and his academic integrity, or lack thereof. He uses Platonic philosophy mixed with Freudian psychology and he gives ZERO credit to either of them. He has an entire chapter dedicated to the concept of the 'ego' and says nothing of Sigmund Freud. And he talks about the 'Forms' and the images of the Forms but says nothing of Plato. This is not acceptable in academia and should be condemned as plagiarism.
Finally, Tolle's 'inspiration' for the title of the book comes from the Bible, where Jesus talks about 'a new heaven and a new earth'. He says, 'A new heaven is the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness, and a new earth is its reflection in the physical realm' (23). In Tolle's mind, and Oprah's voice, humanity is increasing becoming 'aware' of who we intrinsically are. This is done by being in the 'present state of consciousness' and not thinking of the past or the future, only the now (his former book is called, The Power of Now). By becoming aware of our 'presentness', what Tolle actually refers to as the 'I Am', we will be transformed into the higher state of consciousness, which will yield a new earth, which will be free of pain.
I thought it poignant to read and write about this book because of the extremely large influence Oprah has on millions of people in the world in general, and millions of Christians in particular. Tolle is a plagiarist, an author with no academic integrity, who also takes the Bible completely out of context with every passage he uses. This book IS NOT kosher with the Christian Faith, and SHOULD NOT be used to 'enhance' our Christian beliefs. It negates the person and work of Christ. It places I, me, my at the center of the universe, and it destroys any conception of original sin. Oprah may be a nice person, but her endorsement of this book as being something every Christian should read and use seems to be an act of a 'wolf in sheeps clothing'.
Oh, and by the way, Tolle believes in the Big Bang Theory, to which he adds: The world started as a big bang of the material. It is growing bigger and more complex every day. Eventually, however, it will get to the point where it begins to shrink down to nothingness again. At that point, another bang will happen and start the process all over again. Good one Tolle.
Peace to All,
Joseph
posted by Joseph | 10:11 AM
49 Comments:
thanks for the review, Joseph. funny how much this book and Oprah's endorsement of it, is creating all kinds of little ripples in pop culture and even within the church...I have some people crying out against it, others reading it and taking much of it quite seriously (but not with a very clear critical lens).
just wanted to ask: do you think there is a "danger" in Christians reading books like this (or others of this ilk, or novels like Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy or "the Da Vinci Code"), or do you think we should be educating ourselves about these kinds of cultural influences so that we can respond to them intelligently? Or does it depend on the critical acumen of the individual Christian reader, and their capacity to read something like this and NOT accept it all at face value as gospel, and NOT allow it to rock their faith? What do you think? I haven't read the book (and probably won't).
thanks again, brother. ~brannon
I think that Brannon raises an interesting question in his second paragraph. Is there a danger in reading non (or anti?) Christian books.
To a similar degree, I hear this debate all the time concerning the "witchcraft and evil" in the Harry Potter series. My general thought has been that if a student under my pastoral care is easily swayed by these books, then perhaps I have failed him/her as a pastor and teacher.
I think the heart of the issue is that too often the church settles for teaching its congregants what to believe, but we rarely delve into why we believe it. WE cripple young people but never allowing the space for them to wrestle with their own beliefs- to make their faith their own, as opposed to living off the faith/beliefs of the parent or pastor. When a person- teen or adult- is simply told what to believe, then their faith is only as strong as the next compelling argument found in Oprah's book club.
The reason I wrote this review, and even read the book, is because of the heavy influence Oprah has on her audience, which includes many Christians. If she is claiming to be Christian herself, and she is promoting material that denies many orthodox Christian beliefs, then I find it necessary for Christians, especially those in leadership, to be aware of what is possibly being read by the church folks.
I hate it when people get up and preach against things like Harry Potter and the Golden Compass and Da Vinci code without ever reading the material. Many things get blown out of proportion and people can miss out on some good literature, if it is taken as just that: literature, fiction.
But Tolle, on the other hand, is completely using and distorting Orthodox Christianity for his own purposes. In this case, it becomes an apologetic matter for the Church to respond.
Like I said, no none should be allowed to speak for/against a writing/teaching without actually reading/listening to the material themselves. This is why I read the book and produced a response. And as you have mentioned, mr./ms. youthpastor, it is important that we do not say 'bad bad bad, do not do not do not'. It seems to me to be better to say, 'Well, did you read it yourself? If so, let's talk about it.' An engaged, informed, conversation can yield much more fruit than complete neglect or blind acceptance.
joseph
Tolle is not distorting orthodox Christianity. There are many types of Christianity (e.g. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Mormonism, Quakers, etc.) and he is speaking primarily from an esoteric or Gnostic Christianity perspective. It may not feel right to orthodox, or in particular fundamentalist, Christians, but be quite valid to other Christians.
"but be quite valid to other Christians"
um...poor grammar aside...who might these "other Christians" be? There are not "many types of Christianity" - Christians profess "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" - there might be different traditions, different expressions (historically, culturally) that comprise the true Body of Christ, but there is but one Christianity, one orthodox Faith as expressed by the historic creeds and councils of the church, which unites these diverse expressions.
(And by the way, "esoteric or Gnostic Christianity" is not one of these expressions or traditions of the one Faith I'm talking about. The Church fathers decided long ago that gnosticism was inconsistent with the Christian belief in the Incarnation of God in Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. Whatever Tolle represents, it is at best a heretical position, according to the Christian faith.)
So, in sum: don't try to pull that "it might not be right for you, but it might be for someone else" crap on this blog, my friend, unless you're really ready to "go there" and hash this one out with us.
gnostic christianity is an oxymoron. Kinda like Christless christianity.......Deny Jesus as savior, but claim Christianity.
for 'csp', i have just one question: Have you read the book?
Is a criticism of grammatical errors related to this discussion?
So if I'm understanding you correctly all the expressions I listed are accepted by you as part of the one Christian faith? Who set(s) the criteria? How do you know the "church fathers" were not guided by self-interest and empowerment? What would you like to hash out?
As for whether ot not I've read Tolle? Yes, I've read all of his books and watched many hours of his videos.
i am glad to hear that you have read the book. because of this, we may have an informed conversation about Tolle. a few questions:
1. Tolle equates Christian Salvation with Hindu's Enlightenment and Buddha's End of Suffering. If this is the case, how does he deal with Christianity's claim that there is only one way to the Father, Jesus Christ?
2. Christianity has claimed that humanity is born sinful (original sin). Tolle says that we are born with an innate sense of goodness within us, we just have to be awakened to this goodness. How do you explain Tolle's neglect of this Christian teaching of original sin?
3. You mentioned that the Early Church Fathers could have been driven by 'self-interest and empowerment'. Are you suggesting that Tolle is not interested in either of these things himself? Keep in mind, he has just been hired by the richest, and arguably the most influential, woman in the world to promote his teachings to the entire world.
There are a few things we can hash out together.
joseph
1. Tolle recognizes that there is a Universal Wisdom that is at the heart of most world religions. Of course, these religions use different labels, language and symbols based on the time and culture within which they developed.
2. Tolle actually writes and speaks very clearly about "The Fall" and original sin. However, he also states that there is an aspect within each human being that is still connected to God, but of which we are not aware. Thus, for all intents and purposes we are currently separate from God.
3. I've watched and listened to Tolle very, very closely. I was very skeptical at first because, like Christian televangelists, people like Tolle can start with great intentions and then take a great fall. New Age (I hate this term, but for lack of anything better I'll use it) teachers are just as prone to this as anyone else. However, I have not seen empirically or intuitively any indications whatsoever of this trait or intention with Tolle. As a matter of fact he has spoken about this very danger, and in one instance said that it is very possible that if he every tried to start any kind of organization around himself that it could very easily turn in the wrong direction. As for his appearance with Oprah ... she contacted him and it is my understanding that he had very little reaction to her invitation, but only said "OK, that will be fine." He still lives in a very modest apartment in Vancouver and has little to no personal possessions. Essentially, he has been dragged into the public eye and really doesn't like it at all.
CSP:
With the exception of Mormonism, which maintains a heretical Christology (just to hit upon the major point of disagreement), I fully and absolutely accept the other expressions you listed (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Quaker) as part of the one Christian Faith.
As for who sets the "criteria," this is a more complex issue, as you must understand. There are biblical and historical criteria as to what delimits the Christian Faith. There are theological constrains on what is defined as orthodox, which were articulated by the councils and the Church Fathers, who (most) Christians believe worked under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and create doctrine - I'm just telling you what Christians believe, as there would be no way for me to "prove" that the Church Fathers operated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rather than out of self-interest or empowerment - that line of discussion reaches an immediate impasse.
There are of course theological nuances and distinctives articulated by the various traditions that comprise Christianity, but these could only be mis-understood as tenets of "orthodoxy" in the parochial or qualified sense of "X is orthodox for United Methodists" and "Y is orthodox for Quakers." But this is an unhelpful way of understanding the particular doctrines or convictions of particular Christian bodies (denominations, what have you) in light of the essential elements of Orthodoxy.
To go back to your original comment, it seems to me you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You defend Tolle against Joseph's accusation, stating that Tolle does NOT distort orthodox Christianity, and yet then (after listing a tradition that does not consist with Christian orthodoxy - Mormonism - along with several that DO) you make the statement that Tolle's views "may not feel right to orthodox, or in particular fundamentalist, Christians, but be quite valid to other Christians" - this strikes me as not even qualifying as a coherent statement! First of all "fundamentalist Christians" are not some particular sub-species of the broader category of "Orthodox Christians" - in fact, most self-described "fundamentalist" Christians fall way short of the standard of Christian orthodoxy, and I would place them outside the limits of the one true Faith as, if not more, quickly than I would Mormons! You're making an erroneous generalization by associating orthodoxy with fundamentalism.
Additionally, it makes no sense to defend Tolle against the accusation that he distorts orthodox Christianity and then claim that his teachings might not sit well with orthodox Christians but would be fine to "other Christians"...unless you're talking about other Christians who are not orthodox, to which I think many contributors to this blog, and most theologically astute Christians in general, would respond: the only Christianity that can be authentically described with the name "Christian" is - must be -Orthodox! Unless, that is, you're speaking openly about heterodox or heretical "Christians" - in which case we have no quarrel - that's all that anybody's saying here: aspects of Tolle's teachings are, from a Christian (which is to say "orthodox") perspective, nothing short of heresy.
Not that he isn't a decent guy...not that he doesn't have some good ideas and helpful things to say...not that we shouldn't read his books, even...not that his teachings are devoid of any truth whatsoever...just that his teachings must not be mistaken for Christianity. Some might be consistent - in fact, many might sit quite well with the Christian faith - but some do not, and these must be recognized and critiqued.
I tell you what bugs me, though - the very cult of personality that you say Tolle himself discourages seems to me to be reflected in your defense of not only the man's teachings but the man himself. Why the need to stick up and even speak for him? The proof's in the pudding, right? If there is a value in what he represents, it will bear itself out in the lives transformed by his life and his teachings. But your ardent defense, in light of "I've read all his books and watched many hours of his videos," smacks more of uncritical fanaticism than careful, critical discussion.
Also...anyone who produces videos and publishes books of their ideas and teachings is placing himself in the public eye. It's utterly disingenuous to then act like you'd rather be left alone. (Incidentally, I have this same problem with the kind of "tortured artist" archetype that someone like Kurt Cobain represents - as much as I loved Nirvana back in the day - but come on, man, you don't grab a guitar and form a rock band unless you want to be a rock star...now that you are one, don't act like you hate it, like "You all made me do this!" Give me a break.)
To clarify what I meant about Tolle not distorting orthodox Christianity is that he isn't claiming to speak about or from orthodox Christianity so thus he could not be distorting it. He is speaking from an esoteric and/or Gnostic Christian perspective.
I understand about the complexity of defining who is a true Christian and who isn't, but my personal feeling is that there was a politicization of Christianity in the 4th century to make it a state-religion in order to serve the means of those seeking to gain or maintain power (political and clergy). That's human nature, but unfortunately (in my opinion) it split Christianity into orthodox and heretical divisions that were (and have been) detrimental to the true message of Christ.
I agree also that his teachings should not be mistaken for orthodox Christianity. No argument from me. However, they are in line with esoteric and/or Gnostic Christianity, which as I've said, is also authentic Christianity.
Tolle would certainly laugh at my defense of him because it would fit his criteria for an engagement of the ego-mind. My defense is in particular of him personally, but only his teachings and whether or not they are in line with Christianity as I understand and experience it.
I've read his books and watched his videos not out of fanaticism, but for the insights into "mindfulness" that I find very helpful in gaining awareness of the trappings and conditioning of the mind. Also, I've had many, many critical discussion of his teachings both with supporters and detractors.
Lastly, he is reluctant to be so public, but non-resistance is part of his teachings and he is authentic in following this teaching. Thus, he is not hypocritical. Everyone has a different purpose and task in service to God. Some radiate his light in silence (he did this for some time) and others are to interact with the public. He never makes a big deal about not wanting to be so public, but only states that he prefers to be quietly at home. Nothing tortured about it at all.
You get busy for a couple of days and you miss the fun stuff. Great post Brannon and Joseph. I know I'm late to this conversation, so I won't spend much time on the originial question, which I thought was a very good one, except to say yes and maybe no too. I read the Da Vinci Code, for example and found it to be a very entertaining read. However, and I think "nazarene youth pastor" alluded to this, most people aren't equipped to read that sort of "stuff" and weed out the garbage. I'm in the same boat with him on the teenager issue. If my teens picked this stuff up they would end up in La La Land with heretical beliefs and practices. All that to say, maybe the best context to read those sorts of things is the same context we SHOULD be reading the Bible, in community.
Speaking of heresy, CSP, anyone who lumps Mormonism in with Christianity demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the Christian faith. What exactly is it that makes them Christian? Is it their belief in heretical texts written by a narcissistic teenager that makes them Christian? Their polythiestic concept of God as two glorified human beings? Their ideas about Satan and Jesus being spirit brothers? Or maybe it's their idea that Christianity is a false religion, as they seem themselves as the only true "church"? (Let me know when I'm getting warm.)
I love the accusation "How do you know the "church fathers" were not guided by self-interest and empowerment?" You have to be kidding. Those guys lived lives of poverty and were concerned with nothing else other than the Gospel. They were marginalized, persecuted and martyred for their faith. Of course, you would probably have to actually pick up some of their writings and read them to realize that. Tolle on the other hand sits atop Oprah's Book Club list and waits for the money to come rolling in. I think Brannon hit the nail on the head with the Cobain analogy, so I won't elaborate.
Here's the biggest problem with your defense of Tolle, CSP, you said "Tolle recognizes that there is a Universal Wisdom that is at the heart of most world religions. Of course, these religions use different labels, language and symbols based on the time and culture within which they developed." Actually, no it's not. Universal wisdom is not the goal of most world religions. It may be the case for Buddhism or perhaps Hinduism, but for the most part Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy. The three major world religions in particular do not have have "universal wisdom" as their goal. Each is concerned with either communion with God or eternal life in some sort of paradisical state. This is particularly the case with Christianity. The "goal" of the Christian is not wisdom. It would be idolatry for Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, to supplant God with wisdom as the telos of the faith. There is no seperate space or "theme" behind the faith that we are "really" talking about. What we are really talking about is God. To try and "boil down religion" to some sort of basic thread that somehow runs between them all, particularly Christianity, demonstrates a total lack of understanding about religion and once again the Christian faith in particular.
csp:
fair enough. I wasn't necessarily equating Tolle w/ Cobain or the "tortured artist" archetype...I have had very little exposure to his engagement w/ the media and the public eye and so have no real opinion about how he actually conducts himself...my comment was specifically in response to your defense of him as not liking being dragged into the public eye.
I'm still not sure how esoteric/gnostic "Christianity" can be conceived of as "authentic" expressions of the Christian faith. I think you'll have a hard time convincing any of this blog's regular contributors on this point. We are, in general, Christians who are committed to the orthodox Christian Faith as expressed in the particularity of the Wesleyan-Arminian/Holiness tradition, specifically the Church of the Nazarene (hence the blog's name). You can tell from previous posts and discussions that we all have a pretty strong ecclesiology and believe in the indispensibility of the Church to anything that we might call "authentic Christianity." We know our Church History. We've read a lot of theology. We believe (again, most of us, if not all) in the importance of the sacraments and the office of the ordained minister. We appreciate the concrete (i.e. material) aspects of our Christian faith - rituals, objects, gestures, texts - things you can grab hold of. We are not interested in disembodied spirituality devoid of or detached from a religious tradition. (This latter point, most significantly places us at irreducible odds w/ anything that would describe itself as gnostic!) It's important that you know your audience before you expend your energy debating with us.
Also, welcome to the conversation, Zack...great responses, too...after our spirited discussion of the emergent church, I knew you'd be all over this one once you saw it! :-)
For the last time. The early church fathers spent almost their entire lives denouncing gnosticism as a heresy. So, to quote myself, "you would probably have to actually pick up some of their writings and read them to realize that."
I wasn't necessarily lumping Mormonism in with Christianity, but was trying to discern who you included in your list of "true" Christians. Mormons consider themselves Christians, but I did not know if you agreed or not.
Actually, it was the Gnostic Christians that were marginalized, persecuted and martyred for their faith by the 4th century Church victors. Of course, this continued on from the Manicheans through the Cathars and subsequent Inquisition. Fairly substantial Gnostic Christian sects who were massacred by the ruling orthodox Christian church. They died for their faith in Christ.
Universal Wisdom/Doctrine is not a goal but a Truth. It can be found in Gnostic Christianity, the words of Buddha, Lao Tzu, Sufism, as well as the writings of the Lutheran Jacob Boehme. This is not a doctrine in the usual sense of the word (e.g. books), but is in its essence the living reality of God to which one can be ennobled to understand.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of the authenticity of Gnostic Christianity as being Christian per your definition, but only to say that Tolle is speaking from this perspective, which to Gnostic Christians, is relevant and accurate to our understanding and experience of Christianity.
let me guess, csp, you own and have read the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, and the Da Vinci Code?
another question: what tradition/religion to you adhere to?
The Gnostic Gospels yes, but the Da Vinci code no. Looked quite trashy to me.
I am a Gnostic Christian, but I'll keep the name anonymous so that no one thinks I'm an official spokesperson. I will say that historically and spiritually it is directly linked to the Cathars (Albigensians).
I do have to apologize for not recognizing that this was a blog specifically devoted to the Church of Nazarine and not a general Christian forum. I didn't mean to inappropriately participate in a discussion that was designed to be between followers of our faith. Again ... my apologies.
... oops ... "your" faith. :-)
CSP, you're not intruding at all. We welcome anyone to comment, or participate in the conversation. But, we are also going to be open and honest about what we think.
You certainly have the right to ascribe to whatever faith, tradition, etc. you choose. Our point, at least concerning the gnostic issue as it seems to be the central point here, is that despite what you might try to argue, Christianity rejected gnosticism from the very beginning and therefore it isn't christian. This isn't an opinion, it's a point of fact in the historical record. You can't show up at a basketball game with a bat and a glove and say "this is how i'm going to play the game" and it's the same way with the christian faith, or any religion for that matter. You can "label" yourself whatever you choose, but to use the term "gnostic christian" makes about as much sense as saying "jewsih muslim" or "hindu christian." What you or I consider to be christian "per our definition" is irrelevant. The church, whether orthodox, roman catholic, or protestant, has said in unison that certain things are christian and certain things are not, with gnosticism, along with mormonism, being near the top of the "not" list. Again, this is not an opinion, it is a matter of fact. So to say "your" faith would be correct, even though I'm sure you meant it sarcastically.
As you obviously have no regard for history or the profession of the orthodox christian faith, to continue arguing with you about the validity of a "gnostic christianity" would literally be like talking to a brick wall. So, I won't continue.
this IS a Christian forum for all traditions. the reason I asked was to get some perspective on why you believe the things you say you believe. once that is established, then we can have a more intelligible discussion.
now that you have identified yourself with a tradition, we can flesh out why we are in disagreement. what about the Albigensians do you find most attractive?
from what I have read of the abigensians, waldensians, and cathars all leads to one conclusion: denial of the fully divine/fully human Incarnation of Christ.
i, along with my cohorts, would agree that this truth cannot be denied if one is to be 'orthodox'/'authentic' Christians.
It's an open blog, and your comments/contribution to this discussion have certainly made it much more interesting than it would have been amongst a bunch of fairly-like-minded Nazarenes! There were only 4 comments before you came along, and now we're up to 20 in just a matter of a few hours, so we thank you for that, CSP.
Quite honestly, you are the first person I've never encountered who expressly identifies yourself as a "gnostic Christian" - and I did not realize that Tolle would put himself in the same category (am I understanding that correctly from your comments?) - so I, for one, am caught a little off-guard as to how to respond. As you know, gnosticism is a heresy from the perspective of Christian Orthodoxy.
I believe anybody can think Jesus was a groovy dude with some amazing, world-changing kinds of ideas, but this doesn't give one the right to identify him- or herself as a Christian (in whatever qualified sense) - the only thing that makes one a Christian, to draw upon the evangelist who preached for our church all week last week, is being sourced with the same creative Spirit of God that was flowing through Jesus and which points back to God the Father...being in-dwelled by the Holy Spirit, the comforter Jesus said he would send after he ascended to the Father.
See, none of this works when taken in some kind of a piecemeal fashion outside the framework of Christian Orthodoxy. You can't just dig what Jesus was about and call yourself a Christian - you have to believe he was God incarnate, full of the every resource of the Godhead, and you personally have to be filled with and transformed by that same Spirit that was in Jesus. This what the Christian religion - in theory (e.g. theology, doctrine) and in practice (e.g. liturgy, sacrament, ethics) - seeks to not just promote but in fact AFFECT in individual lives, through participation in the life of a particular community - that is, the Body of Christ called Church.
There are several posts to respond to so I'll go in chronological order.
I understand that orthodox Christianity rejected Gnostic Christianity, but I do not under any circumstances believe (or experience in my innermost being) that orthodox Christianity (as it is being defined) is the only true Christianity. I was born into, baptized and confirmed in the German Reformed Church. In my teens I took 1 year and read the Bible from beginning to end. When I finished I realized that what I understood to be said in the scriptures differed from what I was experiencing in orthodox Christianity and I began my search for the Christianity that I knew must exist and that spoke to the truth etched in my heart by God.
Next ... I wasn't being sarcastic at all about "our" vs. "your" faith. I was typing too fast and made a mistake. I hope I would never be sarcastic about such a serious topic.
Neither the Cathars, nor the Manicheans, denied the fully divine incarnation of Christ.
Tolle does not identify himself as a Gnostic Christian, but I recognize his teachings as being (for the most part) in agreement with Gnostic Christianity.
As a Gnostic Christian we do not in any way see Jesus as a "groovy" dude. We are serious as a heart attack about our beliefs surrounding Christ. As a matter of fact I have no argument with your statement "... being sourced with the same creative Spirit of God that was flowing through Jesus and which points back to God the Father...being in-dwelled by the Holy Spirit, the comforter Jesus said he would send after he ascended to the Father."
Again a statement like "You can't just dig what Jesus was about and call yourself a Christian" couldn't be further from the truth as a Gnostic Christian. I think you must be confusing us with some other religion, group or philosophy.
We believe in the triune nature of God (central to Gnostic Christianity, but actually quite minimized in the orthodox Bible canon) and would wholly agree with "...through participation in the life of a particular community - that is, the Body of Christ called Church."
I'll write later about your question concerning the Cathars, but have to take care of some other business this evening.
Okay, CSP, I'm intrigued. I was very careful in conceiving of the statements I made (the ones you quote) delimiting orthodox Christianity, and to be clear, I was by no means trying to make claims that I felt would exclude what you represent - so the fact that you are in agreement with what I wrote has me interested in what actually separates our theologies (other than your heterodoxy regarding other religious traditions and sects, which we've already discussed). I admit I could be mistaken in my preconceptions about the tradition you call Gnostic Christianity and with which you identify yourself, so I, for one, am open to hear more about where you're coming from.
Let's start with something specific: I understand gnosticism primarily in terms of two things I finally cannot accept as consisting with Christianity: 1) a claim to a special kind of "knowing" (hence gnosis) that some have and some don't - there is no basis for this in biblical literature or in the history of Christian doctrine, whereby some special knowledge or illumination is either reserved for some or in any way necessary for salvation, "life in Christ," etc; and 2) a denial of materiality, a disparagement of the physical body, a prioritizing of the mind and spirit - these tendencies seem to lead a denial of the incarnation of God in Christ and at least the possibility of several heretical christologies, which is why gnosticism was discredited by the Church Fathers. How do you address these concerns?
I'd also like to hear more about your "ecclesiology," your understanding of "the Church" - who/what is the Church, what is the Church's role in God's redemption of the world, what do YOU mean when you describe the Church as the Body of Christ, etc?
I'm a bit short of time today, but I'll start with #1 ... special knowledge.
That is an oft repeated definition regarding Gnostics, but doesn't usually include enough information to make it clear. In Gnostic Christianity there is a movement away from I-consciousness and toward spirit-soul consciousness. This involves, in simple terms, a reconnection between the reborn soul and the Holy Spirit which in turn transforms the I-consciousness into spirit-soul consciousness. As consciousness changes one is progressively ennobled to experience (and understand) the essence and reality of God.
I hope that helps. I'll try and answer the other questions later today.
csp,
is this where you get some of your Gnostic Christianity?
www.gnosticchristianity.com
if not, what are some books to read to gain more insight into your understanding? i, for one, am intrigued as to how you came across this teaching/learning.
thanks.
I don't want to be unfair to www.gnosticchristianity.com because I only skimmed through a few pages, but it appears to be quite different from Gnostic Christianity as I know it. Statements like "... understand a new theory of human nature that Jesus revealed because that theory justifies nonjudgmental rules of logic that empower us to reason in ways that are comparable to that of the logos of God" seem very strange to me and do not resonate. So to answer your question, no, I do not get any of my Gnostic Christianity from this site or organization.
A good place to start that is closer to our teachings would be the Gnostic Gospels and the writings of Jakob Bohme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Bohme
So I just had a second to glance over the link you provided CSP, thanks by the way, and I read this line "Where Böhme appeared to depart from accepted theology was in his description of the Fall as a necessary stage in the evolution of the Universe." So, if I am reading this correctly, and I can't see an alternative reading, Bohme is saying that sin is a necessary part of life? Where to begin with the consequences for that?
Without going into all the problems that ridiculous idea creates, like an evil side to God, if sin is a necessary part of life then you are saying that the holocaust, rape, etc. are necessary, even God ordained parts of life. This demonstrates a total disregard for suffering, if not altogether glorification of the most horrendous actions in human history. I find anything even implying that to be ABSOLUTELY disgusting.
No ... he didn't mean that at all. Couldn't be farther from the truth regarding Bohme's belief or writings. He meant (and I would actually disagree with him on this point) that The Fall was necessary, so that we would be allowed to seek divine grace as a deliberate choice.
My particular form of Gnostic Christianity defines The Fall as that part of the human life wave that diverted from God's Divine Plan through a narcissistic use of creative powers that were meant to serve God's will. We "fell" into the realm of space and time and lost the connection with God and our original realm of life. This is described symbolically in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil. Adam and Eve (original human life wave) working creatively in God's creation (Garden of Eden) deviating from the Divine Plan (eating of the forbidden fruit) and falling into the realm of opposites (good and evil).
CSP, you said: "We "fell" into the realm of space and time and lost the connection with God and our original realm of life." That statement is COMPLETELY incoherent to ANY concept of creation. God created the physical world and created us as physical creatures in the physical world of space and time. It's not until after we are created as such that the "fall" occurs. So your idea of falling into space and time from some original realm of life makes absolutely no sense because that is our original realm of life.
And he called the physical world GOOD!
I'm not denying the physical world or its being God's creation. We worked in the world of space and time, but did not live from it. We were "In this world, but not of this world." However, instead of surrendering ourselves in total service to God's plan we turned our gaze inward in self glorification. We were no longer serving the Kingdom of God, but seeking our own kingdom which resulted in our being cast out of the Kingdom of God and into the spatial world of dialectics.
csp, where did you get this sentence, 'We worked in the world of space and time, but did not live from it.', or did you come up with that on your own?
That was my phrase. For instance, "the kingdom of heaven is within" would refer to this phenomenon. Christ, as another example, lived in (form) this world, but from (essence) the divine realm.
Now I will respond to question #2 a few posts above.
Quote: "... a denial of materiality, a disparagement of the physical body."
Response: Some early Gnostic Christians, in particular the Manicheans, felt more strongly about this. These groups were very dualistic and divided the world into fallen nature (matter) and divine nature (spirit). Our Gnostic Christianity is also dualistic, but recognizes and does not resist the physical world or matter. We believe that one's salvation has to take place while we are in a physical body and will not occur after death or in some spirit, non-physical form. For us this would fall under an "occultic" or "mystical" form of spirituality that we do not adhere to.
when you say, 'Our Gnostic Christianity', who is/are 'Our'? do you have a church, do you meet with people regularly? how does this Gnostic Christianity work out in practice and worship? Or are you just a group of people who are only connected in theology and thought? you say you don't believe in the Apostle's or Nicene Creeds, so what is your response to the claim of 'we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church'? Or 'not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together'? i guess my question is, do you go to church? :-)
Did I say somewhere that I didn't believe in the Apostles Creed? I remember it was quite central to my upbringing in the German Reformed church, but in re-reading it I guess I would say that there are parts that resonate with me and parts that don't. It appears to me in reading it that is was designed to formulate a power hierarchy of some sort regarding the church, saints, etc.
I attend approximately three (3) church services per week. It is the Lectorium Rosicrucianum which has about 15,000 members worldwide with its headquarters in Haarlem, Netherlands. There are only about 200 members in North America with about 1/2 of those living in Montreal where I reside (I'm an American living in Canada). We have a temple in Montreal and a conference center and temple in Sutton (1.5 hrs east of Montreal). The Lectorium is the latest link in the chain of Gnostic Christian brotherhoods preceded by the Cathars and prior to that the Manicheans. As such, we consider ourselves to be members in the community and body of Christ.
in your church service, what happens? what is your liturgy? or is it just free worship/teaching/discussion, etc.?
No free worship, teaching or discussion. The temples are all white with a large gold cross on the wall behind the place of service. There is the reading of an opening (could include parts of the Bible and the singing of hymns) followed by a main address. At the end there is the reading of a closing (could be parts of the Bible again and the singing of a hymn). They can last anywhere from 30 minutes to 1 hour in length.
This has been interesting, from an informative standpoint. I've learned a lot from our new friend CSP, but I'm also sure that we've reached a point where everyone more or less realizes and respects that we're coming from different places and aren't likely (or even seeking, per se) to convince the other that they are in error.
Ironically, I kind of lost interest when CSP began expressing his beliefs in ways more in line with Christian orthodoxy - not a whole lot left to debate or argue about then, I guess! I'm glad to hear that there is some form of church/ecclesia/assembly and some concrete and identifiable practices that shape and constitute this faith.
While remaining mostly ignorant of all it's ins and outs, I still suspect it's heretical, but then again, I suspect Nazarenes are pretty much heretics on several points, in practice if not on paper/in doctrine (see the discussion of baptism over on the "Sacramental Nazarenes" blog if you don't believe me!).
That site Joseph linked to (gnosticchristianity.org) was certainly on the far side of heresy, w/ the founder claiming to be the Paraclete/Holy Spirit of the Fourth Gospel! But I'm glad CSP's "gnostic christianity" isn't as far out there as this. But he seems at least as convinced and well educated and thoughtful about his faith as we all are of ours, which is why the thread is losing steam.
Anyway, I really just wanted to say, thanks all, for an invigorating discussion - we haven't had a comment thread this long on this blog for a really long time (if ever!).
All the blessings of God to you, CSP (and the rest of you) - keep searching and seeking.
Thank you Brandon. I did some searching and reading on the Nazarine faith and was quite impressed with some of its tenants in particular ...
"God's Holy Spirit empowers Christians to be constantly obedient to Him. The Nazarene Church does not believe that a Christian will sin every day. Rather, the Nazarene Church does teach that sin should be the rare exception in the life of a Christian. Also belief in the doctrine of entire sanctification, which states that a person can have a relationship of entire devotion to God in which they are no longer under the influence of original sin. This means that through the power of the Holy Spirit, people can be changed so as to be able to live a holy life for the glory of God."
Very unique perspective, I think, amongst Orthodox Christianity.
Also ...
"The Church of the Nazarene has maintained a strong stance supporting total abstinence from alcohol and any other intoxicant, including cigarettes."
Excellent. We also abstain from alcohol, drugs, nicotine and meat.
Thank you very much for the very interesting discussions and respect you showed me and my faith.
Regards,
CSP
thank you all for the participation. CSP, feel free to stop by any time. and thanks for keeping us on our toes, and adding to my reading list :-)
Grace and Peace to All.
one more question, csp: how in the world did you find this blog?!
thanks.
I was doing a search for Tolle on blogs and saw this forum referenced. :-)
I actually have been following end time phrophecies on teh web and so has a friend. There is a video on a blog of mine that shows how Opra winfrey went from 300,000 to 2 million. went from believing christ as a baptist to new age. This book has a quote in it. "you don't need Jesus to get to heaven...there is more than one way to get to what Christians call God and some might call it light..."
Scary eh? the worst part is a lot of that 2 million left the Christian church to follow Oprah's belief.
But I emplore you to go to secondmileman.multipy.com the blog on the main page there questions is America really free? Check it out. Most of that is copied from other sites. None of that is my words. Just so you know.
John,
Can you give us some actual data or statistics on how many of the 2 million Tolle-Oprah viewers left the Christian Church as a result of their participation?
Thanks.
John's just trolling, CSP...don't sweat it. (And don't expect a response.)
In fact, I'd encourage our site administrator (is that still you, Scott?) to remove that comment. I'd prefer our humble blog to remain free of references to "end time prophecies" and such...besides, I think most of us have probably seen that silly, alarmist video.
Thanks Brannon. I was hoping he had some information, because I saw another blog where ex- or fringe Christians were actually coming back to the Church and Bible after hearing or reading Tolle. He gave them a different insight into the teachings of Jesus and it sparked a new interest in Christianity for them.
Don't want to lose your "egoic" sheep of this collective...this is truly a great book in all it's simplicity it lays the truth and foundation for real spiritual growth...love you examples of compassion, both shallow and transparent...you're not who you really think you are...ah...
Post a Comment
<< Home