Dear friends,

In march of this year, Phil wrote:
'I've been meaning for some time to start a thread on what I'm calling, here, the new, neo-gnostic Christianity. Stay tuned!'

I would very much like to see where this leads to! Certain things will unavoidably overlap with other threads here, but I cannot wait for this important issue to start.

I am only a small fish compared to some of you in these matters, although I have read a lot.
First I would like to see more clearly into the delineation of esoteric and (neo-)gnostic Christianity. Jesus is at present a Zen master, a Tao master, a Sufi master or an Enlighted Being but not the Universal Logos, the God-Man, the Master of the Universe.
There is a lot of fideism in the Church (at least in the circles I know) and too little intelligent thinking. I admit that certain Christian esoteric teachings are appealing to me because of the fact that they are aware of the existing intermediary worlds and states of consciousness. Therefore I like to read about the sophianic/wisdom traditions (f.e. the book http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-W...dition/dp/078796896X) and I am always struck by allegorical, depth-psychological, symbolical and esoterical/mystical interpretations of Bible texts: http://www.redroom.com/author/richard-smoley/bio, http://www.praxisresearch.org/, http://www.hurleydonson.com/nicoll.htm...).

Moreover I have noticed that the Catholic Church incorporates lots of these insights.
One example: http://www.medtarot.freeserve.co.uk/;
See also Renaissance thinkers like
Marsilio Ficino a.o.

I have been reading 'Everyting belongs' by father R. Rohr and then this article: http://www.catholicculture.org...ary/view.cfm?id=6819 I tend to agree with this author.
I sometimes don't even know what to think of so many other famous writers of today, mostly interreligious monks, along the same line as Rohr: Merton, Fox, Keating, Steindl-Rast, Panikkar, Lassalle, Griffiths ... and many others.
I have read about (some say the narrow mindedness of) the so-called too dualistic point of view in the Church of seeing God as too transcendent or out there instead of the Master in here, while old mystics and spiritual masters keep a sound balance of the notion of God as transcendent ànd immanent, merciful and righteous. (Post)modern writers seem to risk the danger to get trapped in the greatest trick of the Evil One to make people think that he doesn't exist or that it is all one big monistic, universalistic soup.

I think also that most Protestants and even Catholics wouldn’t agree with certain sayings of writers like Merton, Steindl-Rast, Rohr and many others on the topic of a panentheistic point of view (see f.e. http://frimmin.com/faith/godinall.php
versus http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=49100
and http://www.amazon.com/Panenthe...resent/dp/0801027241)
and this not always because they are fundamentalists!

One of the most troubling and difficult issues for a searching lay Christian as I am has always been that on the one hand God lives in every human being while on the other we cannot quench the unique salvific person and work of Jesus Christ in His incarnation, work, death, resurrection, glorification. There has to be a rebirth. The question is whether the Spirit of God is in us from birth on or does he have to come in us by baptism. As a former Protestant I have always believed in sola fide and thought with St. Paul that the historical redemptive role of Christ is of course central, but now I hear that Jesus Christ can be considered historical, contemplative-psychological, mystical ànd cosmical...

As we know, Justin Martyr, Clemens of Alexandria and many others throughout history were ‘inclusivists’. They spoke of genuine Christian gnosis and the so-called logoi spermatikoi in every spiritual tradition. But I don’t think they thought that Christianity doesn't have the full truth, while now in the point of view of a religious pluralism of people like John Hick, Paul Knitter, James Cutsinger to name a few, the different religions seem to complement each other. Christ is for many thinkers now foremost the Cosmic Logos and some sayings (I am who I am a.o.) seem to indicate that His person and work is not restricted to the historical Jesus.

So there seems to be a more universally oriented stress nowadays, especially among monks, on a Buddhist like spirituality of awareness, experience, the unknowability and cosmic impersonality of God (or extreme apophaticism), panentheism or monism or universal holism or any other 'ism' (in the name of religious pluralistic tolerance), a sense of Jesus as foremost a master alongside others (de Mello a.o.), a preference for ‘enlightenment’, criticism of the institute the Church and dogma’s, an excessive focus on this life rather than on life after death and much more … over against a traditional orthodox, theistic (another ism?) spirituality. This paradigm shift is everywhere and I am sometimes afraid of loosing Jesus in this jungle of ideas and thoughts.

On the other hand I am aware that I probably don't see clearly into these matters yet. I appreciate a lot of sayings of people like Steindl-Rast, Rohr, Griffiths , a.w. issues such as silence, unknowing, fouls of God, gratefulness, awareness... and maybe these are all just parts, segments of a much greater ungraspable diamant of truth.
I have pondered also over the issue of self-realization vs self-reliance vs self forgetness vs self denial vs self rejection...and felt that many Christians live in fear and not at all in the freedom of the children of God.

Of course I understand also that there is an evolution in everything, also in the knowledge of God, man and cosmos with the growth of social and natural sciences. There is an urgent need for integration of psychology and spirituality in an experiential way, an integration of the different aspects of a human person as emotional, intellectual and spiritual. But still then I wonder whether the desert fathers, those great psychologists avant-la-lettre didn’t teach it all without any need for let say Freud or Jung? Are Jesus and Mary not the great master psychologists without any need for any human psyhologist or therapist?

There seems to be a contrast between the religion of Jesus and the religion about or to Jesus. The former is all about the transformation of (the quality of) consciousness or the in-God-transformed-consciousness of Jesus (again saying that the Church is far too dualistic), the latter about devotion to Jesus, His' Holy Heart, His' Cross, His Blood, ...

Another issue is the saying of Rahner that theology is foremost anthropology. I am not ready with the different revelation models (Dulles) over against the mystagogy (see Socrates) in the early church. I have named before http://www.uitgeverijmeinema.n....php?productId=22409 as an important writer in these matters.

Recently I attended a 'satsang' with a famous so-called 'realized' advaitic master from the Netherlands Douwe Tiemersma. He is also a yoga teacher, philosopher and a quite intelligent man. I had been there before. It was all about Consciousness and the Cross as only a symbol, Mary as a form/manifestation among others... you know this talk.
At the same time, I am always amazed about the strength, calmth, discernment and love of these (certain?) advaitics.

Christianity and Zen/Advaita both evolve around surrender. The latter to God (many desert fathers and apophatic mystics like Dionysius Areopagiticus, Eckhart, Ruusbroeck, Tauler, Suso, Richard of St. Victor don't even seem to talk so much of the salvation in Jesus Christ but generally of God as Universal Father, the Universal Logos, Mystery, Cloud of Unknowing, struggle against the logismoi...or am I wrong?), while the former is about Universal Consciousness (Brahma). So I sometimes wonder myself whether it is, practically speaking, of such importance to distinguish between the two. In both cases the ego dies anyhow... Or are Eckhart and the like misinterpreted?

Yesterday someone sent me this good answer:

Dear Fred,
I am sorry for responding so late to your interesting message. I am too interested in dialogue with Zen (less with Advaita) as I work on a PhD thesis on Buddhist-Christian dialogue, mainly on the Kyoto School, which, as you know, is approaching Christianity from a Zen perspective.
I find Father Rohr’s views as very syncretistic. In fact all the names you mention in your list do not represent mainstream Christianity. What they follow is not the apophatic path in Christianity, but a projection of their syncretistic philosophy. Apophaticism itself is very risky when approached by liberal thinkers as they are, for there are elements that may be interpreted as confirming a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God, which is heresy. The fundamental question, when approaching apophaticism is ‘Why do I need it?’ Am I not satisfied with an I-Thou relationship with God? Who will help me interpret mystical experiences and how can I make sure I don’t get lost? The moment the historical Christ becomes obsolete is a proof that we are way out of the faith he came to reveal and die for on the cross. The thought that God is too transcendent can lead us to not seeing him at all, and to falling into views that flatly contradict our faith.
You are right, many of the modern writers have fallen to this trick of the Evil One and hold a monistic view of the world. Jesus in the Gospels, and especially Jesus on the cross, become irrelevant for them, and the conclusion is that we could have done well even without his incarnation, work, death, resurrection, glorification.
The ‘cosmical’ Christ is an illusion if he cannot be reconciled with the historical Christ. The Church Fathers of the 2nd -3rd century that you mention had a very different task ahead than modern advocates of religious pluralism. They (the Church fathers) needed to find a relevant language and tools for conveying the message of the Gospel to their generation, and therefore tended to assimilate everything from their culture that seemed of help. They pointed to Greek philosophy as being fulfilled in Christ, and by no means to get him lost among many other spiritual teachers (as modern pluralists do). World religions cannot be complementary if they contradict each other, as you cannot build a whole on parts that reject each other.
I hope you won’t lose the real Jesus in this jungle of ideas and thoughts. Remember that there can be no ‘greater ungraspable diamant of truth’ if it is built on contradictory bits of ideas and thoughts. We don’t need the experiments of Freud and Jung, at least if we want to follow the real Jesus. He wants us to be persons in a relationship with him, not explorers of his nature. This is why the right path is devotion and prayer, not experimentation in mysticism and introversion.
Therefore it is very important to discern between the two paths. You are right, in both cases the ego dies, but in the dualistic approach what dies is the self-centeredness of the person, while in the monistic Advaita approach personhood itself must die, which is a huge difference. We can be in relationship with God only as persons, or be absorbed into Brahman only if personhood dies. Eckhart was influenced more by neo-Platonism than by orthodox Christianity, and that is why he advocates the impersonal Gottheit as beyond the personal God as our true goal. And this makes him (and Bohme, with his Ungrund) so much appreciated by those who want to redefine Christianity today.
I hope my message will be of help, and that your faith in the Christ of traditional Christianity will not be lost. God bless you.
Yours sincerely,
Ernest

I realize I have repeated things here that I said before already. But it is a beginning...

PAX,
Fred

Via http://anamchara.com/2006/10/0...amanic-christianity/ I just came upon:
http://www.bruceepperly.com/books/
Who knows the author?
Fred

Fred---That was a good review from anamchara.

Dear Phil et alea,

This is a remarkable series on shamanism and christianity and reply by Carl Mc Colman and reply by Nic Paton:

http://soundandsilence.wordpre...n-the-new-testament/

see also:

http://mattstone.blogs.com/chr...s-practitioners.html

Fred