Kris Vallotton on Becoming an Incarnation through Holy Communion

[UPDATE 02/26/2019: Vallotton’s site has been updated, but the article from which the quote below had been taken is still available: Digesting Jesus]

Kris Vallotton, Senior Associate Pastor of Bethel Church in Redding, CA (Bill Johnson is Senior Pastor), recently stated the following on his website:

When Jesus said we must eat His flesh and drink his blood, he wasn’t talking about cannibalism, but he was referring to ingestion that leads to incarnation. Christ is the Word that became flesh. It is important that we ingest the Word of God in a way that causes us to digest His life until Christ is literally formed in us. Ingestion without digestion will lead to feeling full but not being transformed. Digestion is more than just a taste test, it is the full meal of His presence that conforms us to His image. There is an old saying that is true in this case, “You are what you eat!

Many people ingest the Bible but they don’t digest the living, active Word of God. Religion fills their souls but never satisfies their longing for real life. Digestion requires assimilation, not just consumption. Truth was never meant to just be recounted, it was intended to be experienced. When we exchange the communion meal for a dinner commentary or a cookbook, we deprive ourselves of the privilege of abundant life, and relegate ourselves to a meager existence in the Kingdom. [Tuesday, July 16, 2013; emphasis added]

How do we interpret Kris Vallotton’s message?  The key is in the word incarnation.  Of course, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ occurred when the Word, the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).  This took place at the moment of the Virginal Conception (Luke 1:35).  But, do Christians become an incarnation?

While there are a few different meanings for the term incarnation, as it applies to Jesus Christ it implies preexistence, as in the preexistent, eternal Word, the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity took on a new mode of existence as the one, unique God in the flesh.  The fully God and yet fully man Jesus Christ IS the Incarnation.  And since, according to orthodox Christianity, humans are not preexistent, then humans cannot become an incarnation in that sense of the term.  (However, those who believe in the preexistence of souls affirm reincarnation – not a Christian doctrine, specifically deemed anathema at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, or Constantinople II of 553 AD.)

So what does Kris Vallotton mean?  Certainly, he’s adhering to the typical Word of Faith (WoF) doctrine of ‘new revelation’ (what Vallotton terms “living, active Word of God” above), or as Kenneth E. Hagin termed it, the “rhema” word.  According to WoF, these ‘new revelations’ are superior to Scripture, the written Word (Hagin called this the “logos” word).  But what does that have to do with becoming an incarnation?

The other modern day definitions for the term incarnation are used in a figurative sense, yet it’s clear Vallotton is speaking literally, as he states, “until Christ is literally formed in us”.  Taking the context of Vallotton’s message above, this seems similar to an old and oft-repeated quote by Hagin:

Every man who has been ‘born again’ is an Incarnation, and Christianity is a miracle.  The believer is as much an Incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.1

Hagin equates the Incarnate Word of God to the ‘born again’ believer.  Others have stated something similar, and here are two examples from Earl Paulk – one who taught explicit Latter Rain doctrine as well as WoF:

It was the quickening and bringing alive of the Word which was incarnate in Jesus ChristThat Word became incarnate in the Church. 

Jesus was the firstfruit of God’s incarnation, a man living out God’s perfect will.  Now He says, “…My people will bring forth life as they become the ‘incarnate Word’ on planet Earth”…the Church is the ‘ongoing expression’ of God.2

All things have been given to us, even to the point of allowing us to share the divine nature of Jesus.  Sharing His nature is a definition of the ongoing incarnation of God on the earth.  ‘Christ in us, the hope of glory.’  His inheritance is already ours3

While Vallotton has not gone so far as to declare the Church body “the ongoing incarnation of God on the earth”, he’s not very far off.  More important though is that if one reads the Vallotton quote carefully, one sees that the ‘believer’ becomes the ‘new revelation’ word made flesh.  Does this mean that, in the Vallotton quote, Jesus Christ was also the ‘new revelation’ word made flesh rather than the Word, the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity made flesh at the Virginal Conception as the unique fully God and fully man, as the Hagin and Paulk selections above seem to imply? 

To see that this interpretation of ‘believer’ as ‘new revelation’ word made flesh is indeed the correct understanding, we’ll go through the above Vallotton quote sentence by sentence.

When Jesus said we must eat His flesh and drink his blood, he wasn’t talking about cannibalism, but he was referring to ingestion that leads to incarnation

This means simply that partaking of Communion leads to “incarnation”.

Christ is the Word that became flesh. It is important that we ingest the Word of God in a way that causes us to digest His life until Christ is literally formed in us 

These two sentences are the most crucial as far as interpretation.   Here, we’ll have to make an initial hypothesis which will prove itself as we continue.  First, note the two uses of “the Word” above.  From a strictly orthodox perspective, the first sentence would be speaking of Jesus Christ as the eternal Word made flesh at the Virginal Conception.  But is this what Vallotton means?  We’ll return to this later.

Regarding the second, this could refer to either Scripture, or the ‘new revelation’ word.  However, in the second paragraph of the complete quote, Vallotton is clear that he’s referring to the ‘new revelation’ word, since he’s made a direct comparison between this and Scripture, with the ‘new revelation’ word the one to be “experienced”.  Therefore, for now we’ll tentatively conclude that this is the intended meaning here, as this Word “causes us to digest His life until Christ is literally formed in us”.

Ingestion without digestion will lead to feeling full but not being transformed. Digestion is more than just a taste test, it is the full meal of His presence that conforms us to His image. There is an old saying that is true in this case, You are what you eat!”  

Here “the Word” is personified as “His presence”.  Also, this implies that Holy Communion consists of the real presence, just as it does in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheranism, and only a few others within Protestantism.  The majority of Protestant churches deny the real presence in Holy Communion, seeing it as symbolic instead.  For Vallotton, “His presence”, that is, the ‘real presence’ in Communion, literally makes the ‘believer’ become that which was ingested: “the Word”.

Many people ingest the Bible but they don’t digest the living, active Word of God. Religion fills their souls but never satisfies their longing for real life.

The message in these two sentences is that reading (“ingesting”) the Bible results in “religion”, the term used pejoratively; whereas,  the “living, active Word of God” (“His life” and “His presence” in the first paragraph), i.e., the ‘new revelation’ word brings “real life”.  By positing this false dichotomy between the Bible and ‘new revelation’, this confirms the earlier working hypothesis that the ‘new revelation’ word was the intended meaning in the first paragraph.

Digestion requires assimilation, not just consumption. Truth was never meant to just be recounted, it was intended to be experienced.

Studying and memorizing Scripture is not the real goal.  The “truth” of these ‘new revelations’ is to be digested, experienced, assimilated.  This is the goal.

When we exchange the communion meal for a dinner commentary or a cookbook, we deprive ourselves of the privilege of abundant life, and relegate ourselves to a meager existence in the Kingdom.

If Holy Communion is viewed as symbolic, rather than the ‘real presence’ of “the Word”, i.e. ‘new revelation’, then we become a spiritual ‘have-not’ instead of a spiritual ‘have’.  Why?  Because it’s “important that we ingest the Word of God in a way that causes us to digest His life until Christ is literally formed in us.”  If we don’t “ingest the Word of God” in this way, then “Christ” will not be formed in us, literally. 

But, what does all this really mean?  The mystery and confusion evaporate when this is viewed from a Gnostic, or, more specifically, a Neo-Gnostic (New Age / New Spirituality) perspective.  First, we’ll need to provide a brief sketch of a basic Neo-Gnostic conception, keeping in mind that this is a perversion of Christianity.

In the Neo-Gnostic (New Age / New Spirituality) conception of deity, there is an eternal trinity consisting of the Father, the Holy Breath (sometimes Mother), and Christ (the logos, usually the offspring of the first two).  Christ is “the Word of God”, the “word” of Thought, Force and Love.  This “word” formed the entire cosmos, leaving a part of himself in all of creation, alternatively known as a seed, spark, Christ.  Therefore, the eternal word (third person of this false trinity, as opposed to second in orthodox Christianity) is the ‘Christ without’, while the internal seed/spark in everything is the “Christ within”.This is the doctrine of panentheism, that is, God is within all, yet simultaneously transcendent.

In the Gnostic understanding, mankind has two natures, one human and one divine spark/seed, or ‘Christ within’.  In order for humans to progress spiritually, the goal is to awaken the ‘Christ within’ (Christ in you, the hope of glory – a perversion of Colossians 1:27) via the “Christ without”, i.e., the “word” which provides “Thought and Force”,5 or ‘new revelation’.  As one increases in ‘new revelation’ knowledge, one progresses spiritually.6  This progression occurs over multiple lifetimes, as the spark/seed is then reincarnated into a succession of human forms.

Though “Christ” (divine seed/spark) was yet still latent in humanity, due to ‘selfishness’, most of the human race did not recognize this and, thus, was not progressing as it should.  This necessitated that the eternal Christ (of this false trinity), the “Word of God”, be made manifest in human form “by taking his abode in some pure person”.7  That “pure person” was Jesus of Nazareth.  This “Word of God”, ‘new revelation’ of “Thought and Force”, became flesh in the man Jesus at baptism, specifically when the dove (Holy Breath) landed upon him.  This is when the incarnation of the “Word of God” began.8

Once ‘the Word’ was “made flesh” in Jesus of Nazareth at baptism, Jesus became the model for all towards their own spiritual progression, for their own self-redemption.  The goal then for mankind is for each one to become his own ‘word made flesh’, to become his own incarnation, by recognizing the divine seed/spark within, and then begin its path towards actualization.9  This false Jesus instructs others: “Look to the Christ within who shall be formed in every one of you, as he is formed in me.”10  What was it that Vallotton wrote above?  “It is important that we ingest the Word of God in a way that causes us to digest His life until Christ is literally formed in us.”

Viewing Vallotton’s complete statement from a New-Gnostic perspective works well indeed.  Using Neo-Gnosticism as our lens with which to view this statement, we can see how to interpret “Christ is the Word that became flesh”, and this adds clarity to the entire Vallotton quote.

As regards Vallotton’s references to Holy Communion, we’ll compare to material on a Gnostic website.  Please note that there are many different flavors of Gnosticism, with each one borrowing from other religions and occult traditions.  This particular one incorporates Hinduism, Jewish mysticism to include the Kabbalah, Tantric Yoga, and others into its own mix of Gnosticism.  Also, as a side note, the reader may have recognized that Hagin referred to the ‘new revelation’ word as the “rhema”, while above (and below) it was used as the “logos” instead.  This is not unusual, as terms are not necessarily consistent, though concepts usually are.

Jesus says that man cannot live upon this bread alone, this bread of Moses.  In other words, the teaching that Moses gives is vital, it is important, but it is not enough; there is something else.  And that something else is the Word of God, as Jesus says.  But here we have to look deeper than the literal meaningSome interpret this passage as meaning that we need the scripture or the Bible in order to have life, but this is only a literal, superficial meaning of the phrase. The document from which the quote is taken was written in Greek, and in Greek, ‘word’ is ‘logos’…11

Just like Vallotton, we have to look beyond the literal meaning of Jesus’ words in John 6, we must “look deeper” for the mystical meaning, as per the Gnostic quote above, for if we don’t, then this will result in “not being transformed”, per Vallotton.  The Bible is not enough.

…In other words, man cannot live by bread alone…but by the Word of God, by the Logos, by the Christ.  So he is pointing out a very important mystery that we need to comprehend…. 

receive the blessed elements so they can take those atoms [of the Christ] into their bodies as assistance for their work.

…these elements which will house the forces of Christ (the Logos) so that the congregation can receive those forces.12

As Vallotton concluded his first paragraph, “You are what you eat!”  This is what he means by “His life” and “His presence” in the first paragraph.  But, whose life and presence is this really?  All this reminds me once again of the following Alice Bailey quote, only this time I’ll place other emphasis:

…[T]he church movement, like all else, is but a temporary expedient and serves but as a transient resting place for the evolving lifeEventually, there will appear the Church Universal, and its definite outlines will appear towards the close of this [20th] century…This Church will be nurtured into activity by the Christ [ED: the false Christ above, actually Satan/antichrist] and His disciples when the outpouring of the Christ principle [ED: spirit of the ‘new revelation’ word], the true second Coming, has been accomplished…

The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplishedThe church must show a wide tolerance…The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance [ED: occult/esoteric meaning]The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages.  Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.13

  

   1 Kenneth E. Hagin “The Incarnation” in The Word of Faith, (1980, December; #13) Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Tulsa, OK, p 14, as quoted in Russell Sharrock Covenant Theology: A Critical Analysis of Current Pentecostal Covenant Theology, 2006, Lulu Enterprises, Morrisville, NC, p 109.  Emphasis added.
   2 Paulk, Earl. Held in the Heavens Until…God’s Strategy for Planet Earth, 1985; K Dimension, Atlanta, GA, p 163.  Emphasis added.
   3 Paulk, Held in the Heavens, p 197.  Emphasis added.
   4 Levi Dowling The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ: The Philosophic and Practical Basis of the Religion of the Aquarian Age of the World, © 1907 Eva S. Dowling and Leo W. Dowling, © 1935 and © 1964 Leo W. Dowling, (11th printing, 1987), DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA, p 6.  Dowling is cited as merely one Neo-Gnostic text, but there are many others, with subtle differences in basic doctrine.  However, Dowling’s very closely matches the Vallotton quote, and hence, serves our purposes here.
   5 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, p 6
   6 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, pp 6-7
   7 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, p 7
   8 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, p 8.  The point at which this false incarnation begins is detailed: …Jesus was man; Christ was Divine Love – the Love of God; and after thirty years of strenuous life the man had made his body fit to be the temple of the holy breath and Love took full possession, and John well said when he declared: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”
   9 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, p 8
   10 Dowling Aquarian Gospel, p 8
   11 “Gnostic Instructor” “Sacrament of Communion” gnosticteachings.org website <http://gnosticteachings.org/courses/sacraments-of-the-gnostic-church/666-sacrament-of-communion.html>, as accessed 07/20/13, © Glorian Publishing, Brooklyn, NY; emphasis added.
   12 “Gnostic Instructor” “Sacrament of Communion”
   13 Alice A. Bailey The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, © 1957 Lucis, NY, 6th printing 1981; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY, pp 510-511.  Underscore from italics in original; other emphasis added.  While the book was not published until 1957, most sections within the book have corresponding dates of initial writing, or, more accurately, transmission.  The portion quoted here is from 1919, some of the earliest writings of Bailey/The Tibetan.

Biblical Literalism

Are we to read the Bible literally?  That is, are we to literally read all of Scripture literally?

Taking a strictly literal approach to Scripture reading is problematic. Jesus said, “I am the gate for the sheep” (John 10:7, 9); so, does this mean Jesus was the unique Word made flesh, while simultaneously a flat wooden object with hinges in order to allow woolly, bleating animals to enter? Even more troubling are the Apostle Paul’s words to the Galatians: “My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you…” (Gal 4:19, NIV). So, not only was Paul in labor to birth the Galatians, he had already birthed them previously! Talk about a miraculous conception!! Today’s varied and many successful attempts at conception have nothing on Paul, a man who self-conceived his many Galatian offspring – simultaneously. 

Obviously, Jesus as a gate is a metaphor, just as “sheep” represents true followers of Jesus Christ.  And Paul was only metaphorically ‘birthing’ the Galatians. The meaning of the verses in John can be easily gleaned by the context.  The Galatians passage is based on and adapted from a Jewish idiom: “If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this the same as though he had begotten him”1 (cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Philemon 10).  Therefore, Paul was making the point that he had previously taught the Galatians the Gospel, yet, as they were being influenced by Judaizers, he had to steer them back to the purity of the Gospel message, away from the Law (Gal 5:1-6).  Paul used an apparently well-known metaphorical expression, while adding some hyperbole (“again in the pains of childbirth”) to drive the point home.

Another good example of hyperbole is in the Sermon on the Mount: …If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away…And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away (Matthew 5:29, 30; NIV 1984).  Certainly, Jesus is not advocating self-mutilation!  He’s illustrating the seriousness of the sin of lust.

There’s also a metaphorical component to these verses: the “right eye” and “right hand”.  Craig Blomberg notes, “[A]s is characteristic of Jesus’ figurative and hyperbolic style, he commands us to take drastic measures to avoid temptations to sexual sin – to remove from ourselves anyone or anything that could lead us into scandal (‘causes you to sin’).”2  The right eye and right hand were viewed as more valuable3 and the right side more powerful than the left.4  Charles H. Talbert adds a bit more:

These two illustrations are hyperbole; they are not to be taken literally.  Together they call for a radical integration of the self.  Whatever does not fit into the self’s integration around God’s will is to be jettisoned, whether it be eye (intent) or hand (action).  The sentiment is reflected in Philo, Planting 36-38, where he says the soul needs to be cultivated, protected, pruned, and even have parts cut off if necessary in pursuit of moral development.  “The maiming that moral life requires will be a thousandfold repaid with the wholeness of selfhood and the life of God that comes with amputation.”5

The “maiming” and “amputation” are, once again, metaphorical, not literal.  This “pruning” is done with God’s help, as illustrated in the Gospel of John (15:2).

As evidenced by the three examples above, Christians cannot interpret all of Scripture literally.  Yet, this is a charge that comes from some liberals who try to demean “Christian Fundamentalism” – a term used pejoratively – by portraying all (or most all) orthodox Christians as foolishly reading and interpreting Scripture in an unsophisticated and anti-scholarly manner, thereby distorting the ‘real’ meaning.6  Of course, it’s these same liberals who distort Scripture by literalizing metaphors and interpreting texts meant to be taken literally as metaphorical instead.

True Biblical Literalism

On the other hand, conservative, orthodox Christianity adheres to a doctrine known as Biblical Literalism for Scripture reading.  So, what is Biblical Literalism if not reading the Bible literally? 

In the best application of the term, Biblical Literalism “Generally…seeks to discover the author’s intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense.”7  This means, among other things, that literal passages are taken literally, metaphors are interpreted as metaphors, and hyperbole is understood as exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

The following excerpt is from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition:

 Article XVIII.

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.8

The grammatico-historical method seeks to uncover the author’s intent by studying the grammar, syntax (sentence structure), literary type (narrative, poetry, etc.), literary devices (metaphor, hyperbole, etc.) and historical context.  Here’s more from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition, this time from the Exposition section:

…[H]istory must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.9

How Many Meanings?

An important aspect of the grammatico-historical method is that there is only one correct reading of any passage of Scripture.  This does not preclude a passage, or even a whole book, from being literal yet also encompassing an allegorical understanding when the context makes this clear, such as the book of Hosea in which the relationship of Hosea to his wayward wife Gomer is analogous to God’s relationship with Israel.10  There are also NT fulfillments of OT types such as Jesus as the manna from Heaven (John 6 / Exodus 16).  Moreover, this does not preclude the Biblical author from using double entendre (double meaning) as in Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus, in which John records Jesus using γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, which means is born from above/again (John 3:3).11

Yet, historically, there have been those who have claimed there are multiple meanings, or levels, of Scripture.  Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) was one such individual. 

It’s important to understand that Origen was influenced by Middle Platonism,12 teaching on the preexistence of souls (and some, as I, construe transmigration of souls / reincarnation as well).  Attendant with this belief was his doctrine of universal reconciliation (all will be saved – including the devil!)13.  Some of Origen’s works were later burned, and he may have been posthumously branded a heretic at the Second Council of Constantinople (553AD) for these beliefs, though scholars are divided on this issue.14

With Origen’s penchant for mysticism, resulting from his affinity for the philosophy of Plato, came his threefold interpretation of Scripture, with a preference for the allegorical, though he sometimes departed from his own triadic formula:

…According to Origen, the biblical texts have a literal meaning, another which is moral, and another which is intellectual.  This is parallel to the presence in humans of body, soul, and spirit, based on what Philo had previously said and done.  But Origen did not always follow this triple scheme; instead he frequently included only the allegorical sense, and at times found a multitude of different senses in the same text….15

In effect, Origen’s belief system created a two-tiered structure of Christians – the unenlightened and the enlightened: “For Origen, those who stayed only with the literal meaning of the text were unenlightened souls who had not realized that Jesus gave some of his teaching in the valleys and some on mountaintops.  Only to the latter disciples, those who could ascend the mountains, did Jesus reveal himself transfigured.”16

Origen was quite influential, even into Medieval times, as his method of extracting meaning from the texts (or variations thereof) continued, expanding to a fourfold (quadriga) sense: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical (personal foreshadowings, prophetic).17  However, some sought ‘only’ two meanings, while still others reached for seven.  The literal sense was typically viewed as the least important, while the allegorical retained its preeminence,18 a la Origen.

While most rejected or downplayed the literal sense, there were a limited few who gave priority to the literal:

…[Thomas] Aquinas made the other meanings of Scripture dependent upon the literal meaning and thus elevated it above them.  He said, “…all the senses [of Scripture] are found on one – the literal – from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory…” (Summa Theologiae, i.1.10)19

However, it wasn’t until the Reformation that Scripture was afforded the opportunity to speak for itself.  Quoting Martin Luther, “When I was a monk, I was an expert at allegorizing Scripture, but now my best skill is only to give the literal, simple sense of Scripture, from which comes power, life, comfort, and instruction.”20

Protestantism continued with this “literal, simple sense” of the Biblical text amidst a myriad of challenges in the ensuing centuries from Pietism, Hegelian historicism, Liberalism, the “Historical Jesus” movement, Form Criticism, Bultmann’s demythologizing the Bible, Structuralism (Biblical books as literature only), etc.21

Current Trends in Christendom

It seems that in the past 100 or so years, there’s been a shift in some of Protestantism (loosely defined) away from the literal, plain meaning of Scripture back to the allegorical.  Postmodern (or is it now post-postmodern?) thinking has provided an ‘anything goes’ method of understanding Scripture, with one’s own intuition or experience dictating meaning.  In some quarters, there’s a dichotomy between those who dismiss orthodoxy and scholasticism over against those who adhere to the more traditional form of Christianity, such that some in the hyper-charismatic and Emergent wings of Christendom (again, loosely defined) seem to be of the opinion that “my feelings and/or experiences trump your dogma”.  Mystical experiences and/or one’s own thoughts are shoe-horned into Scripture – a practice known as eisegesis (reading meaning into the text).

Sadly, those better equipped to deal with these problems – those who teach at seminaries or Bible Colleges – are mostly deaf to the issues, either by ignorance of these problems, or seeming apathy.  Of those at least somewhat aware of the issues, their silence may render them complicit.  This leaves the task of correction to informed laypersons, many of whom have been and are frantically trying to learn orthodoxy and proper methods themselves, most not having the financial wherewithal, or time, to attend Bible College or seminary, in order to instruct others.  As I see it, properly instructing new converts is the second part of Jesus’ command to make disciples:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [Matthew 28:18-20, NASB]

Just getting them in the door (like the so-called “seeker friendly” churches) is not enough; we must teach them to observe all that Christ commanded.  How can the average church-goer know what Christ commanded if they’ve not been given the teachings?  How can the hyper-charismatic or Emergent church attendee know what Christ commanded if they’re merely reading their own intuitions and experiences into the Bible?

The Way Ahead

What can we do now that instead of one wayward sheep out of a flock of 100 (Matthew 18:10-14; Luke 15:4-7), there seem to be 99?  (Assuming these are really sheep to begin with.)  Desperately needed is leadership that can properly instruct in order to correct these negative trends.  Basic interpretive principles must be taught, so that the average church goer can be truly made into a disciple of Christ, thereby becoming less likely to stray as a wayward sheep.

Before going further it needs to be mentioned that the true Holy Spirit indwelt Christian can read Scripture on his/her own, without external aids, by the leading of the Holy Spirit.  Nevertheless, proper instruction can help to enhance one’s reading and promote good reading habits.

It needs to be stressed that the initial step in understanding any Scripture (or any literary work) is to begin by extracting meaning from the text (exegesis).  Proper exegesis comes from reading a given passage in its larger context (rather than simply ‘proof-texting’ one verse or clause), taking note of metaphors and hyperbole, to include reading the entire book. 

For example, if one wishes to understand what Paul means by some preaching a “different gospel” in Galatians 1:6-7, one needs to read the rest of the epistle to see what Paul is referring to.  To make his case, Paul goes on to explain his position as an authority called by God (1:11-24), that he was accepted as an Apostle (2:1-10), and that he scolded Peter for preferring Jews over Gentiles out of fear, attempting to impose Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles (2:11-21).  The meat of this epistle then is an admonition to continue in the faith and not become slaves again to the Law.  This reverting back to the Law of Moses is the “different gospel” of which Paul speaks in the beginning of this letter.

Once the reader understands the point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, the reader is less apt to proof-text individual verses into meaning something entirely contrary to that which the writer had intended.  One who listens to Bill Johnson, for example, would dismiss Johnson’s teaching that Paul’s “another gospel” was one that would negate an ‘all must be healed’ gospel, for Paul’s message instead is clearly about the Judaizers who were trying to bring back the Law.  In fact, Paul himself speaks of an illness he endured in 4:13-14:

13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. [NIV]

This obviously shows that Paul was not preaching an ‘all will be healed’ gospel, as Paul’s illness brought a trial to the Galatians of whom Paul states “you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me” (v 15).  Surely, this would have provided a very bad example for the kind of “gospel” Bill Johnson is claiming.  That is, unless Bill Johnson wishes to claim that the Apostle Paul himself was preaching “another gospel” – a quite absurd notion.

Knowing a bit about the societal and cultural background in NT times is also quite helpful towards good exegesis.  Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and even some study Bibles, can provide this information.  For more on getting the most from your Bible reading, I recommend the Gordon Fee/Douglas Stuart How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.22 

It’s time the Church, most especially the Emergent and hyper-charismatic wings, came back to true Biblical Literalism  –  instead of engaging in eisegesis, thereby taking Scripture out of proper context in order to fit one’s own interpretation.  Teaching congregants how to apply proper exegetical principles will alleviate this sort of thing and bring forth Biblical literacy.  Any subjective experience or thought must be measured against the literal, plain sense of the Bible, and, if not found to be congruent with Scripture, it must be rejected as not of God.

     [1] Marvin R. Vincent Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Volume IV, 2009 (5th Ed, August 2009), Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, USA, p 147.  This is taken from the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, folia 19b (para 11) as found here: <http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_19.html>, Rabbi, Dr. I. Epstein (Gen. Ed.), n d, Soncino Press, London, as accessed 05/01/13.  While the Babylonian Talmud was not written until well after the Apostle Paul penned the Epistle to the Galatians, it seems very possible that this idiom was in the oral Tradition of the Jews at the time of Paul’s writing of the letter.  Cf. F. F. Bruce New International Greek New Testament Commentary: Commentary on Galatians, 1982, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, pp 212-213, though Bruce does not mention the Jewish idiom. 
     [2] Craig L. Blomberg The New American Commentary: Vol. 22; Matthew, 1992, B&H Publishing Group, Nashville, TN, p 109. Emphasis in original.  The Greek word rendered ‘cause to sin’ is (transliterated) skandalov, from which we obviously get the word “scandal”.  Donald Hagner renders this “cause to stumble” [Word Biblical Commentary, 33A: Matthew 1-13, 1993, Word, Dallas, TX, p 119].
     [3] Blomberg Matthew, p 109
     [4] Grant R. Osborne, (Clinton E. Arnold, Gen. Ed.) Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 1: Matthew, 2010, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p 196
     [5] Charles H. Talbert Reading the Sermon on the Mount: Character Formation and Decision Making in Matthew 5-7, 2004 (2nd pr. 2007) Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, p 76.  The portion in quotes at the end of the selected text is from Frederick Dale Bruner [The Christbook, A Historical/Theological Commentary: Matthew 1-12, 1987, Word, Dallas, TX, p 186] as cited in Talbert.  While this may seem like Talbert is stating that we do this through self-effort, the point is to submit to the indwelt Holy Spirit.
     [6] See G. K. Beale The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, 2008, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, p 21, for a brief mention of fundamentalism.  Cf. C. T. McIntire “Fundamentalism” in Walter A. Elwel, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984 (10th pr. 1994), Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, pp 433-435.
     [7] J. J. Scott “Literalism” in Elwel, ed. Evangelical Dictionary, p 643
     [8] Currently available online at <http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html>, © 2001-2012 Michael D. Marlowe, as accessed 04/28/13.  Also available as Appendix 2 in Beale Erosion of Inerrancy [pp 267-279].  Article XVIII is on p 273.
     [9] Beale Erosion of Inerrancy, p 277.  While Beale generally agrees with the Chicago Statement [p 24], he states in a footnote that he takes minor issue with some of the wording.  In the section as quoted above beginning with “Differences between literary conventions in Bible times…” and ending with “…that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed” he explains: This statement does not take into consideration that even some modern literary genres use non-chronological narration or nonprecise [sic] time or geographical measurements or approximations as an acceptable style.  Also, I would prefer not to speak of “apparent inconsistencies” in Scripture as “illusions” [ED: see last sentence in above quote]…but rather as phenomena that will one day be understood at the end of history, when we shall ‘know fully’ (cf. 1 Cor. 14:12).  This underscores the partial knowledge that we have in the inaugurated eschatological era in contrast to the ‘full knowledge’ that we will have in the consummated eschatological period (see 1 Cor. 14:9-12) [from footnote on p 267].  I would have to agree with Beale.
     [10] Leon J. Wood “Hosea” in Frank E. Gaebelein (Gen. Ed.) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Volume 7: Daniel and the Minor Prophets, 1985, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, pp 164-167.  Cf. Donald E. Gowan Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel, 1998, Westminster John Knox, Louisville/London, pp 47, 37-47, in which the moderately liberal Gowan seems unwilling to recognize that it’s Gomer referenced in both chapter 3 and chapter 1 of Hosea, though he sees chapter 3 as allegory: That it was intended to be symbolic, that is, representing in the prophet’s life what was happening in the relationship between God and Israel, is made evident by the comparison: “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes” (3:1).  Israel has been promiscuous, so the prophet must deal with some promiscuous woman the same way God deals with Israel…[p 47].
     [11] BDAG [Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, et. al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2000 (3rd ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL] defines the term as “at a subsequent point of time involving repetition, again, anew”, also noting that in the context of John 3:13 ανωθεν “is designedly ambiguous and suggests also a transcendent experience born from above” [p 92].
     [12] Andrew Louth The Origins of Christian Mysticism: From Plato to Denys, 1981 (1983, 1st pprbk), Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York/Toronto, pp 52-53
     [13] Justo L. Gonzalez “Origen” in Justo L. Gonzalez, Gen. Ed. (transl. Suzanne E. Hoeferkamp Segovia) The Westminster Dictionary of Theologians, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY, p 267; Chas S. Clifton “Origen” Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, 1992, Barnes & Nobles, New York, 105.
     [14] Clifton, Encyclopedia, a rather abbreviated source, states so definitively [p 105]; Gonzalez [Westminster Dictionary] is less straight-forward, though leaning in the same direction: Such theories were never accepted by Christians in general, and they were soon officially rejected by the church [p 267].  Contra John A. McGuckin “The Council of Constantinople II” in The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology, 2005 (2nd ed.), SCM Press, London: In Anathema 11 the name of Origen himself appears as a heretic.  Modern scholarship has since argued that the name was inserted as a later interpolation into the conciliar acts to justify the burning of his books (though many propositions from Evagrius and the Origenist monks of the desert were certainly condemned here) [p 84; bold in original].  Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok “Origen” in Who’s Who in Christianity, 1998, Routledge, London/New York, is confusing in that the phraseology could be construed as though Origen is branded a heretic at Constantinople II for his teachings on the Trinity; nothing at all is mentioned about his views on the preexistence of souls [p 227].
     [15] Gonzalez Westminster Dictionary, p 266
     [16] McGuckin “Origen” A-Z of Patristic Theology, p 244
     [17] J. J. Scott “Literalism” in Elwel, ed. Evangelical Dictionary, p 643; D. P. Fuller “History of Interpretation” in G. W. Bromiley, Gen. Ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Fully Revised), 1982 (July ’88 reprint), William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, p ii.865.  Hereafter ISBE.
     [18] D. P. Fuller “History of Interpretation” in ISBE, p ii.865;  J. J. Scott “Literalism” in Elwel, ed. Evangelical Dictionary, p 643
     [19] D. P. Fuller “History of Interpretation” in ISBE, p ii.865
     [20] D. P. Fuller “History of Interpretation” in ISBE, p ii.865; from Tischreden, 5285, Oct. 1540.  Cf. J. J. Scott “Literalism” in Elwel, ed. Evangelical Dictionary, p 643
     [21] D. P. Fuller “History of Interpretation” in ISBE, p ii.865-874
     [22] Gordon Fee, Douglas Stuart How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI

Misplaced Trust, part I

[Part II here]

“I would really render a service if I could show people how I became what I am from what I was. It might be useful to know how a rabid orthodox Christian worker could become a well-known occult teacher.” [1]

Alice A. Bailey relates the above from a friend’s letter who felt Bailey herself should write an autobiography.  Bailey (AAB) wrote, or more accurately, acted as a medium through which Djwhal Khul (Djwal Khul), also known as “Master D. K.,” “The Tibetan,” or simply “D K,” ‘dictated’ his books.  These books, all written between 1919 and 1949  (including her own Unfinished Autobiography), are distributed by Lucis Trust[2].  According to Constance Cumbey, these works provide most of the doctrine of the New Age / New Spirituality teachings of today:

“…The esoteric thrusts of the [New Age] Movement as well as the aims of its groups are largely derived from the Alice Bailey books.” [3]

Brief History of Theosophy

The Bailey material can be seen as an extension of the work begun by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB) who primarily formed the initial doctrine of Theosophy.  Blavatsky, along with H. S. Olcott and W. Q. Judge, founded the Theosophical Society of New York City in 1875[4].  Annie Besant was appointed successor to HPB, and, along with C. W. Leadbeater extended Theosophic doctrine[5].  AAB (and husband Foster Bailey) was initially involved in the Theosophical Society but later split with the group [6].  However, clearly, her work is in the same vein; and, Bailey/The Tibetan quotes from both HPB and Besant in her books.

The term theosophy comes from the Greek theosophia (knowledge of divine things; theos, god, and sophia, wisdom, from sophos, wise) and is defined:

1.      Any of various philosophies or religious systems that propose to establish direct contact with divine principle through contemplation, revelation, etc. and to gain thereby a spiritual insight superior to empirical knowledge.

2.      [often T-] the doctrines and beliefs of a modern sect of this nature that incorporates elements of Buddhism and Brahmanism.[7]

Definition 1 is a general definition for much of esoteric/occult doctrine, while 2 [Theosophy, with a capital ‘T’ – the one of Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, et al] is a specific sect.  Interestingly, the first definition seems to be applicable for Latter Rain [8] theology and some forms of modern Christian charismaticism with their inherent gnostic beliefs.

From Lucifer Publishing to Lucis Trust

In 1919, AAB hesitatingly began[9] her telephathically generated literary works emanating from “The Tibetan” (Djwhal Khul).  She would continue acting as a medium for The Tibetan until her death in 1949.  In the early 1920’s she and her husband Foster Bailey founded Lucifer Publishing Company as a vehicle to publish the books.  The name was changed in 1925 to Lucis Publishing Company which it remains to this day[10] and, as stated above, these books are all available through Lucis Trust.  The Baileys were:

“…serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring principle of mind to what was the animal-man.  In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer. [11] [emphasis in original]

Obviously, this is a mischaracterization of Lucifer/Satan according to orthodox Biblical Christianity and a redefinition of Revelation 12:3-4, 7-9 as well as Isaiah 14:12-15.  In addition, the Theosophic belief in evolution is exposed (“the animal-man”).  It’s quite interesting how Lucifer’s rebellion is changed to “an act of great sacrifice.”

Scripture is clear that Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” and that his servants will “masquerade as servants of righteousness” [II Corinthians 11:14-15 NIV] so, we shouldn’t be surprised by the infiltration of this type of thinking within the “Church.”   In fact, this is one of the stated aims of the New Age / New Spirituality as explained by AAB/The Tibetan:

“The Son of God is on His way and he cometh not alone.  His advance guard is already here and the Plan which they must follow is already made and clear….” [12]

  “[They are] already active in the form of the New Group of World Servers; they are as potent a body of forerunners as has ever preceded a great world Figure into the arena of mankind’s living…” [13]

The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished….” [14] [all emphasis added]

The “Son of God” and the “great world Figure” of the first and second quotes respectively are referring to the future antichrist.  While there are divergent views of the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11, I cannot dismiss the similarity of the above with one of the stated “prophecies” and goals of International House of Prayer’s “Forerunner Curriculum”:

“God is raising up a generation of end-time messengers like John the Baptist to prepare the way for His Son’s return by boldly proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom to all the nations” [15]

Regardless of one’s view of the Revelation 11 witnesses, it is clear in verse 11 that they are overcome by the “beast” rather than remaining part of the “victorious Church” contrary to Mike Bickle’s “Apostolic Premillennialism” belief system[16].

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the Day of the Lord [the time of judgment for God’s adversaries contrasted with blessings for His faithful], Jesus Christ’s return, will not come until the rebellion/apostasy occurs first (II Thessalonians 2:1-3) and the “man of lawlessness is revealed” (the antichrist).

9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.  They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  11For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
[II Thessalonians 2:9-12 NIV; emphasis added]

Compare this Scripture above with AAB as we pick up where the passage left off:

“…The church must show a wide tolerance, and teach no revolutionary doctrines or cling to any reactionary ideas.  The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance.  The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages.  Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.” [17] [underlining from emphasis in original; bolding added]

In taking this last quote and the II Thessalonians Scripture, it seems that healing could well be one of the “counterfeit miracles” of which Paul is referring.  Of course, this is not to say the True Church does not heal through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately, many in charismatic circles put an emphasis on the “power” of “the Spirit” as if the power is theirs’ to wield at will.  Yet Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit disburses gifts as HE determines [I Corinthians 12:11].

Bill Hamon, one of the recognized “fathers” of the “third wave” charismatic movement says:

“Every believer has the ability to manifest the supernatural in a miraculous way….

 “In my book, The Day of the Saints, I prophesied what would be many of the truths and ministries… …[including] every saint manifesting the supernatural… In the last several years, we have seen these things happening in the Body of Christ, such as through the increased emphasis of signs, wonders and miracles…” [18]

Who is bringing the “increased emphasis of signs, wonders and miracles?”  Is this the work of the Holy Spirit or is it man-induced?  If man-induced, then by what spirit?

The “Master Jesus” and the “Christ” of Lucis

According to the occult teaching of Theosophy, Jesus is also a “light-bearer” having attained the title of “Master” as a result of His extraordinary life and utilization of the “Christ” which was in Him.  His example is the one we are to follow in order to attain the status of “Master” ourselves.  “Christ” then is the inherent but not yet actualized divinity within all individuals according to the esoteric perspective.  This view of “Christ” should be kept in mind as explained in the following:

“There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus…” [19] [underlining from emphasis in original; bolding added]

I’m reminded of a quote from Bill Johnson’s When Heaven Invades Earth in which “Christ” is referred to as “the anointing”:

…The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine…” [20]

While “Christ” is inside individuals according to Theosophy, the meaning of the term “ the Christ” (and sometimes just “Christ”) can be different depending upon context and is explained in a footnote in the Lucis book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy:

“…The Tibetan has asked me [AAB] to make clear that when he is speaking of the Christ he is referring to His official name as Head of Hierarchy.  The Christ works for all men, irrespective of their faith; He does not belong to the Christian world any more than to the Buddhist, the Mohammedan or any other faith.  There is no need for any man to join the Christian Church in order to be affiliated with Christ.  The requirements are to love your fellowmen, lead a disciplined life, recognize the divinity in all faiths and all beings, and rule your daily life with Love.” [21]

To be clear, “the Tibetan” is not “the Christ.”  He (the Tibetan) is explaining that “the Christ” is the official name of the “Head of Hierarchy” [Jesus of Nazareth, now “Master Jesus,” was the previous incarnation of  “Christ” and He will be succeeded by the forthcoming “Christ” or, in actuality, the antichrist empowered by Lucifer].  Keeping this perspective of “Christ,” the “Christ” in the preceding and the following is actually the coming antichrist:

Christianity will not be superseded.  It will be transcended, its work of preparation being triumphantly accomplished, and Christ will again give us the next revelation of divinity…. 

“…Can there not be revelations of God utterly unprecedented, and for which we have no words or adequate means of expression?  The ancient mysteries, so shortly to be restored, must be re-interpreted in the light of Christianity, and readapted to meet modern need….” [22] [emphasis added]

And, with the substitution of “Christ” for antichrist (empowered by Lucifer), one can see how confusion can quickly develop as to who this “Christ” is to the unsuspecting true Christian.  Also, note how the Apostle Paul and theologians are denigrated:

“The wonder of that Life lived two thousand years ago is still with us and has lost none of its freshness; it is an eternal inspiration, hope, encouragement and example…. The words He spoke were few and simple, and all men can understand them, but their significance has largely been lost in the intricate legalities and discussions of St. Paul, and the lengthy disputations of theological commentators since He lived and left us – or apparently left us.

 “Yet – today Christ is nearer to humanity than at any other time in human history; He is closer than the most aspiring and hopeful disciple knows, and can draw closer still if what I here propose to write is understood and brought to the attention of men everywhere.  For Christ belongs to humanity, to the world of men, and not only to the churches and faiths throughout the world.”  [23] [emphasis added]

So, according to the Theosophic view, “Master Jesus” is part of the “Spiritual Hierarchy” along with Master D.K. (The Tibetan) among others with the forthcoming “Christ” (empowered by Lucifer) as the near-future “Head of the Hierarchy.”  The intent as evident in the title of the book, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, is to take the current “internal” spiritual hierarchy (in the spirit realm) and “externalize” it on the physical plane.[24]  In other words, the goal is to take the demons from the spirit world and bring them physically to earth ushering in the antichrist and the end of the age!

Some theologians are of the view that Revelation 12:3-4 and 12:7-9 are describing the same event: Satan’s initial rebellion and his expulsion from Heaven.  However, I hold these are separate and distinct accounts with verses 3-4 depicting the initial rebellion while verses 7-9 are prophesying a future event in which Satan and his demons are thrown from the heavenly realms and confined to earth during the Tribulation period.  Taking the esoteric views of the Bailey books in conjunction with Scripture, much like a negative to its corresponding photo, lends credence to this belief.  Further, passages such as Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2 and Ephesians 6:12 show that Satan had access to Heaven and still currently has access to the heavenly realms:

“12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” [NIV; emphasis added]

From Pisces to Aquarius

A central tenet of the Lucis books is the Zodiac.  Accordingly, we are currently in the Piscean Age (old age) which will very soon give way to the Aquarian Age (New Age).   The Piscean Age is referred to as the Christian Age[25] or “old order”[26]; so it follows logically that the Age of Aquarius – of “soul consciousness,” “divine awareness” and “capacity for abstraction” (idealism)[27] – will be the post-Christian Age.

With the Piscean Age coming to a close and the concurrent dawning of the Age of Aquarius, there are those who are fully on board with the New Age (although I believe most do not fully understand the implications) and those who are clinging to the old (I proudly call myself an old ager).  The Piscean Age is part of the “fourth kingdom in nature” while the Aquarian Age is the “fifth kingdom in nature.”  According to this esoteric teaching, this “fifth kingdom” is also the “kingdom of God on earth.”[28]  To enter the kingdom of God one must have the “over-shadowing” or be “soul-controlled” – in other words: be demonically possessed:

“Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection.  …man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…. …The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control. …The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….”[29]

I’m reminded again of the II Thessalonians passage in which God Himself will send a “strong delusion” to those who “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”

The Piscean Age is also viewed as one of selfishness rather than the “inclusiveness” of the Aquarian Age[30].  Therefore, individual salvation, for example, is viewed as being exclusivist and thus, an impediment to the New Age in which “group initiations” will be done en mass[31].   In fact, the only recognized “sin” by Theosophy/Lucis and New Age/New Spirituality is the “sin of separatism”:

“First, the active energy of loving-understanding will mobilise a tremendous reaction against the potency of hate. To hate, to be separate, and to be exclusive will come to be regarded as the only sin, for it will be recognised that all the sins as listed, and now regarded as wrong, only stem from hate or from its product, the anti-social consciousness….” [32]

“…Yet sin and evil do exist on Earth.  We are told by the Tibetan that the only true evil is the sin of separatism. [33]

Accordingly, the Aquarian Age will have no room for monotheistic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – as they are viewed as detracting from the furtherance of a one world religion and one world government since they are exclusivist by nature.  The Lucis works are also anti-semitic[34].  The Jewish race is seen as “perpetuating the Jewish dispensation” and thereby remaining in the Age of Aries rather than growing in the “Christian dispensation” – the Age of Pisces[35].

There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The “Holy Land” is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.

 The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but cannot conquer.The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in “the center where the Will of God is known,” at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the “door where evil dwells” and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation.[36] [emphasis added]

So, according to The Tibetan (DK), the “door where evil dwells” is in the “three dead and gone religions” of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Keep this in mind as you read the fourth stanza of The Great Invocation – the prayer of the New Age disciple:

From the centre which we call the race of men
            Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
            And may it seal the door where evil dwells.[37]

It has pompously been declared that The Great Invocation, “if given widespread distribution, can be to the new world religion what the Lord’s Prayer has been to Christianity and the 23rd Psalm has been to the spiritually minded Jew.”[38]  For more on the significance of The Great Invocation according to the New Spirituality / New Age see this section on the inplainsite.org website.

This war against the monotheistic religions will be fought with “mental weapons” and in the “emotional realm.”  Of course, we know that our enemy is not of flesh and blood but rather spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12):

“Years ago I said that the war which may follow this one would be waged in the field of the world religions.  Such a war will not work out, however, in a similar period of external carnage and blood; it will be fought largely with mental weapons and in the world of thought; it will involve also the emotional realm, from the standpoint of idealistic fanaticism.  This inherent fanaticism (found ever in reactionary groups) will fight against the appearance of the coming world religion and the spread of esotericism.  For this struggle certain of the well-organized churches through the conservative elements (their most powerful elements), are already girding themselves… …Fanaticism, entrenched theological positions, and materialistic selfishness are to be found actively organised in the churches in all continents and of all denominations…

The coming struggle will emerge within the churches themselves; it will also be precipitated by the enlightened elements who exist in fair numbers already, and are rapidly growing in strength through the impact of human necessity.  The fight will then spread to thinking men and women everywhere who — in a protesting revolt — have denied orthodox churchianity and theology.”[39] [emphasis added]

The goal of infiltrating the churches to destroy from within seems to be well underway.  As but one example, Rick Warren, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), on the advisory board of Tony Blair’s ecumenical Faith Foundation, and who is even recognized as a New Age guru among New Agers, has stated that fundamentalism will be:

 “…one of the big enemies of the 21st century.”

“Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they’re all motivated by fear.  Fear of each other.” [40]

I’m really annoyed when perfectly good words are redefined to further an agenda.  In my old Webster’s dictionary the word “fundamentalism” is defined:

1.      Orthodox religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., complete acceptance of the story of creation as given in Genesis and rejection of the theory of evolution) and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith.

2.      the movement among some American Protestants emphasizing this belief; opposed to modernism. [41]

Does Warren have a problem with that?  Well, obviously, he’s not opposed to modernism; but, it seems his use of the term “fundamentalism” is more one of extremism.  He’s bought into the negative stereotype of the term as portrayed in the liberal media.  Personally, I’m quite fine with both definitions above; but, I’m vehemently opposed to both extremism and modernism.  However, it’s apparent that Warren does not mind watering down Christianity in his bid for ecumenism; and, in so doing, he marginalizes the Faith.

[Part II here]

Added 03/26/13:

Below is one of a number of full page advertisements posted in newspapers around the world on April 25, 1982.  This particular one comes from the Los Angeles Times and is found on the back of Constance Cumbey’s book The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow (see 3rd footnote below for a full citation).

THE CHRIST IS NOW HERE ad

christ is now here

This obviously refers to the coming Antichrist, not Jesus Christ.

Endnotes:

[1] Lucis Trust website. About Alice Bailey. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/books/alice_bailey_books/about_alice_bailey> par 3; as accessed 12/05/10
[2] Lucis Trust main page. <http://www.lucistrust.org/> as accessed 12/05/10
[3] Cumbey, Constance. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. 1983, rev. ed., Huntington House, Shreveport, LA; p 55.  This resource is also available as a free download at <https://public.me.com/cumbey> “HIDDEN DANG…ND COVER.pdf” p 39
[4] Theosophical Society home page <http://www.theosociety.org/> par 1; as accessed 12/05/10
[5] Kazlev, M. Alan, Kheper website Adyar-Theosophy School.  <http://www.kheper.net/topics/Theosophy/Adyar.html> par 1; as accessed 12/05/10
[6] Lindsay, Phillip. Alice A. Bailey, H.P. Blavatsky and Helena Roerich.  <http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EAauthorEssays/AABHPBHR.htm>  copyright 2004; as accessed 12/05/10
[7] McKechnie, Jean L. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1983; Simon and Schuster; p 1893
[8] Wikipedia Latter Rain (post-World War II Movement), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Rain_(post-World_War_II_movement)>
[9] Lucis, Op.cit. About Alice Bailey.  par; as accessed 12/05/10
[10] Lucis Trust website. The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer.  <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer> as accessed 12/05/10
[11] ibid.
[12] Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ.  1948, Lucis Trust, 9th printing 1979 (4th paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 60
[13] Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy. 1957, Lucis Trust, renewed 1985, 8th printing 1989 (4th paperbook ed.) ; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 598
[14] ibid. p 510
[15] International House of Prayer website. IHOPU Forerunner Curriculum. <http://www.ihopkc.org/ihopu/schools/forerunner-curriculum/> 2013 International House of Prayer; bullet point 1; as updated/accessed 03/25/13
[16] International House of Prayer website; Forerunner bookstore. Apostolic Premillennialism (CD Single). <http://store.ihop.org/store/product/4236/Apostolic-Premillennialism-%28CD-Single%29/> Product Description; as accessed 12/05/10
[17] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 510-511
[18] Elijah List website; Hamon, Bill. 2008 is the beginning of the Third and Final Apostolic Reformation. <http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/6195> February 25, 2008; par 1, 2; as accessed 12/05/10
[19] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. P 592
[20] Johnson, Bill. When Heaven Invades Earth. 2003; Destiny Image, Shippensburg, PA; p 79
[21] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. P 558
[22] Bailey, Alice A. From Bethlehem to Calvary. Copyright 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 20-21
[23] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 592-593
[24] ibid. pp 593-594
[25] Bailey, Alice A. Discipleship in the New Age I. Copyright 1972 by Lucis Trust [1st printing 1944], 8th printing 1972 (paperback); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 611, 633
[26] ibid. p 785
[27] Bailey, Alice A. The Destiny of the Nations. Copyright 1949 by Lucis Trust; 5th printing, 1974 (2nd paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany NY; pp 112-113
[28] Bailey, Op.cit. Bethlehem. pp 184-186
[29] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. p 588
[30] Bailey, Alice A. The Rays and the Initiations. Copyright 1960 by Lucis Trust; 5th printing, 1976 (2nd paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 109
[31] Bailey, Op.cit. Discipleship. p 76
[32] Lucis Trust website. The Use and Significance of the Great Invocation. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/the_great_invocation__1/the_use_and_significance_of_the_great_invocation> as accessed 12/06/10
[33] Lucis Trust website. Descent and Sacrifice. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/descent_and_sacrifice> par 8; as accessed 12/06/10
[34] Bailey, Op.cit. Rays. pp 534, 548, 705-706
[35] ibid. p 548
[36] ibid. pp 754-755
[37] Lucis Trust website. The Great Invocation. <http://www.lucistrust.org/invocation/> 4th stanza; as accessed 12/06/10
[38] Lucis, Op.cit. Use and Significance.
[39] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 453-454
[40] Nussbaum, Paul The Philadelphia Inquirer. The Purpose-Driven Pastor  <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1555425/posts> last 2 par; as accessed 12/06/10
[41] McKechnie, Op.cit. p 742