Having recently read and critiqued Richard Rohr's book, The Universal Christ, I spent some time with his Facebook group where the book was being discussed (see Book and Movie Reviews forum for more on that). What's struck me is how openly he is now promoting non-dual consciousness as the highest form of knowing. Readers of his daily emails have surely encountered this teaching, and noted, I'm sure, his indebtedness to Buddhism and Vedanta for "clarifying" this issue for Christians and "the West."

We've had a few discussions on this topic years ago, and my book, God and I, addresses it from another angle. Where I come out differs significantly from Rohr et al in several respects.

1. Their description of the Ego is idiosyncratic, ignoring what psychology has to say about the Ego and its development and natural openness to the deeper realms of the psyche. They also skimp on the reality of the Ego-God relationship, which is very real and ongoing. For sure, there is a "false self," an Ego driven by fear with an identity comprised of masks. But why call that the Ego? That's the disease! The Ego is a natural extension of the deeper subjective awareness we call Self to enable individuation and relationships.

2. They make few distinctions between mystical contemplation as understood in Christianity and the kinds of enlightenment states described in Buddhism. In fact, it seems that priority is given to Buddhist teachings on this topic -- like they are the real pros when it comes to non-dual consciousness. In one of his messages, Rohr even encourages the chanting of OM as a way to taste non-dual consciousness.

3. There is little discernment concerning the distinction between the natural, non-reflecting aspect of the Self and true mystical experience. Anyone can learn to be less reflective and nonjudgmental, to set thinking and analysis aside, and learn to "just be." It takes practice and ongoing work, but you don't need to be a Buddhist or even religious to do this. It's a natural aptitude, as Daniel Helminiak has demonstrated in his book on meditation. This is a good experience, to be sure -- a broader, more relaxed experience of being oneself in openness and vulnerability. One can learn to "tune in" to this background, witnessing awareness and recharge all through the day. This seems to be what Rohr and his staff mean by non-dual consciousness, but there's not, strictly speaking, a loss of perception of duality. One doesn't walk into trees and windows, for example, but I guess they just mean one isn't thinking or judging about what is perceived. Why not just call it simple awareness, however?

4. Duality is real! There are really other people and creatures besides us out there, and decisions to be made concerning present options that we encounter. Intellectual consideration is part of discernment; it's never really lost, but becomes a servant of the Spirit (gifts of wisdom, knowledge, understanding are infused). Even then, life sometimes is about right versus wrong, light versus darkness, sin versus love. If both/and solutions can be found, great, but often the reality is either/or, with difficult consequences both ways. Non-dual awareness will not eradicate these situations.

5. So what we need is an Ego that is somatically and psychologically integrated, healed, and surrendered to God. This situation is both dual and non-dual, simultaneously open to mystery and discerningly attuned to the reality of the present moment. The kundalini process under the direction of the Holy Spirit conduces toward this kind of consciousness, which I call God-Self-Ego. It's not a matter of dual versus non-dual consciousness (that's actually a dualistic set-up!), but a resolution of the pull of both.

Enough, then, of this imbalanced teaching on non-duality that one finds emphasized all over these days! And, especially, may the teaching that Jesus was a teacher on non-duality be roundly rejected! He taught about loving relationship that leads to union. Christian non-duality is about the "we" of communion with God, others, and the creation. Do we know our "I" to be part of "We"? You can't have "We" without "I." Christianity is, at its heart, profoundly affirming of both individuals and community, simultaneously, with neither advancing at the expense of the other.