In a new article in Canada’s national newsmagazine, Maclean’s, Ken McQueen tries to walk the journalistic tightrope between appreciation and credulity as he interviews New Age guru Eckhart Tolle.
Your servant is quoted in the article along with friend Prof. James Beverley, as evangelical critics. (Funny: I’m almost always described in mainstream Canadian media as teaching at “evangelical Regent College” while I never see a qualifying adjective attached to, say, the Vancouver School of Theology or the like.) Jim and I are quoted accurately about Tolle:
“He gives a certain segment of the population exactly what they want: a sort of supreme religion that purports to draw from all sorts of lesser, that is, established, religions,” says John Stackhouse, a professor of theology and culture at Vancouver’s evangelical Regent College. “In fact [he] so chops, strains and rearranges the bits that it borrows that it ends up as a nicely vague spirituality that one can tailor to one’s own preferences.” James Beverley, a professor of Christian thought and ethics at the evangelical Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, has read Tolle’s books “in gory detail,” and finds Tolle denies “the core” of Christianity by claiming there is no ultimate distinction between humans and God and Jesus. “From a Christian perspective, Tolle misquotes the Bible to assert his strange mix of Hinduism, Buddhism and New Age pop,” he says. “He misrepresents the teaching of Jesus about the self and ignores the clear claims of Jesus as Saviour, Lord and Son of God.”
It is telling how Tolle replies to this criticism in the next paragraph of McQueen’s piece:
“Yes, there is a certain interpretation of the Bible that people have where every word is literally true and anybody who doesn’t share that particular interpretation actually becomes an opponent,” he says. He calls it a throwback to the bloody Crusades of medieval times. “Five per cent of his beliefs are different so he’s evil, you must burn him,” Tolle says with a chuckle. “It’s completely insane and so we still have remnants of that, unfortunately.”
Wow. That’s quite a characterization of Professor Beverley and me, isn’t? Just work your way through the half-dozen ways he describes us and see if a single charge sticks. How could someone purporting to have mastered and transcended the world’s religions caricature such opponents in this obviously false and nasty way?
I’ve seen it with Karen Armstrong, with the Dalai Lama, and now with Tolle: All smiles, all “everything is beautiful,” all genial generality until someone raises a pointed objection. Then the smiles turn into grimaces, the soothing tones go harsh, and the wild countercharges fly.
Of course I agree with them in their distaste for religious extremism and for evils (such as sexism, racism, nationalism, and more) that wrap themselves in religious legitimacy. Of course I agree with them that we need more dialogue with people other than ourselves and to appreciate the genuine good that is in traditions other than our own. And of course I agree with them that much in my own tradition, Christianity, has been spitefully intolerant of any deviation from a narrow norm and sometimes violent in its repression of the merely different.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about serious, substantial criticism of Tolle (or Armstrong or the Dalai Lama) rendered by people who might be credited with knowing what they/we are talking about. This isn’t about “five per cent” differences and we are not calling for their deaths (good grief!) or even their repression. We’re simply taking them seriously as people who purport to have investigated the world’s religions (quite a claim) and found them wanting, who routinely subject those religions to withering criticism, and who then champion their own views as superior to all these alternatives. Well, Jim and I say, we don’t see it the same way and we think your views deserve a robust critique.
I’m still waiting, that is, for one of these “peace and light” types, who claim to have transcended all the horrible dogmatism and crazy feuding of the world’s established religions, to stay nicely and sweetly high above the fray when their dogmas are challenged.
October 22, 2009 at 9:45 am
Watching several different responses by Christians to challenges lately, I have to admit that we Christians do seem to project a kind of judgmentalism – I mean, if you step back and try to see it from the outsider’s perspective. And then that is so easily used, in Jujutsu fasion, to neutralize our critique. I wonder if it’s really worth saying anything, when it can be so easily marginalized? Maybe our focus should be not on saying “what is true” but on saying “what I believe”, not what is wrong, but what it means to be Christian. Just some thoughts on strategy, NOT theology. Is it OK to speak the language of the subjective even if we aren’t subjectivist?
October 22, 2009 at 9:46 am
Thanks for this, John
October 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Well said, John. Thanks.
October 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
John,
Your note on the ‘qualifying adjective’ used by the press strikes an important but gratifying chord. On a negative side, some may see the word ‘evangelical’ in a derogatory manner, like politicized religion etc.
On a positive side, at least people know Regent-College and Tyndale stands for something quite different from worldly values.
That said, it is how we handle criticisms that tells the world which side we take.
conrade
October 22, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hi John,
I read the article before I read your blog on it, and I was surprised because, at least the one aspect I’ve chatted with you about in person (the equality of women), you presented as exactly the opposite of one of the 5% difference -burning Christians (or at least what I imagine they’d be like). It’s a shame that Eckhart Tolle didn’t attempt to see the person (or even the reason) behind the statement, and instead resorted to a dismissal at best and personal attack at worst – implying that positive relational interactions are best withheld for those who buy your book.
Meera
P.S. I bought your book.
October 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
#1: Brother robahas, I’m going to keep trying to communicate with and through mass media since I think many reporters and their audiences really are sincerely looking for the truth. As for HOW we say it, I’m largely in agreement with your sorts of suggestions, and have made a number of my own in my book Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Thanks to the Whites, Ryan, and Conrade for their encouragements.
And as for #5: Ooo–good one, Meera!
October 23, 2009 at 6:44 am
What I found interesting about the Macleans article is that Tolle wants to put more and more of his online material behind a pay-wall. One would think that a spiritual man who is obviously financially secure would just want to share all that dogma-breaking enlightenment with the world. Apparently though enlightenment costs a monthly online fee plus whatever his books go for these days. This is money-grubbing on a level quite equal with the worst of the TV-preacher hucksters.
October 23, 2009 at 11:19 am
John,
Thanks for this. I don’t know Tolle nor did I read the article, but it seems that these ‘peace and light types’ are in the same boat as the rest of us in needing something deeply transformative beyond what they are espousing. Which, I suppose, isn’t surprising.
Then again… I suppose many Christian academics (evangelicals included) could fall into that category too!
October 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Great read, Prof Stackhouse – this and the Maclean’s article as well.
I’ve seen Tolle on tv a few times and those brief exposures were enough to convince me that the man was really beneath contempt – theologically, spiritually, philosophically, what have you.
I tend to be pretty knee-jerk with stuff like this, so I can only admire and envy your fortitude and alacrity in explaining why Tolle’s brand of New Age syncretism is so objectionable. I hope Maclean’s (or some other prominent publication) gives you a nice, roomy sidebar should they ever pursue a more thoroughoing expose.
And hopefully I’ll emerge from the end of my time at “evangelical Regent College” with like patience and precision in humble apologetics. I sometimes wonder if I’m really not one of those “completely insane” people who might encounter characters like Tolle and actually see fit to push him into something hot and unbearable.
I thought about deleting that last sentence, but it made me wonder if perhaps, phenomenologically speaking, Tolle’s charge against his insane evangelical critics might not be based on some kind of subjective truth – that in the face of clear-eyed scriptural and theological teaching offered by esteemable, conscience-driven critics, Tolle really does feel the threat of some kind of scourging, the lickings of some very intimate, internal fire.
In that case, I say, Keep pushing. Study the Word, make it sharp and sturdy in our hands, get in their face with it.
That’s it! It’s Friday afternoon, and I’ll stop now, before I fall into more clearly sinful and proud contemplation. Mercy, Lord!
Peace of Christ, everyone~
November 5, 2009 at 10:42 am
Great entry for your blog, John. It’s funny – I used to enjoy Eckhart’s excerpts in the Common Ground for many years. I found that in his writing about the mind-body connection and living in the moment, I found him particularly authoritative. However when he started using Jesus or God to describe his views on the metaphysical world, it was 85% inaccurate. Basically, he uses the Gospels or even the Bible to support his own views, never mind exploring the points of the Bible that may disagree with him. Also I noticed Common Ground stopped publishing excerpts a little after he hooked up with Oprah. Indeed we now have to pay, (which I don’t have a problem with).
November 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I’ve enjoyed the writings of Eckhart Tolle. His work, (esoteric, metaphor and myth driven) reminds me of The Nag Hammadi texts that provide fresh food for the journey of life. I think writers like him are contributing to a new evolutionary spirituality which the masses are hungry for.
Whereas Kierkegaard and Pascal argued that truth resides in the individual, occasionally the herd surprisingly develops “their own truth,” outside the institution. It seems as though people like Tolle, Versluis and Bloom provide food for us hungry Christians who feel the hermeneutic of literalism imposed on the Orthodox Canon has left us rather thirsty.
I think the “Babble,” is one small grain of sand on the seashore of sacred scriptures.
Sincerely Henry
November 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm
While I am not a fan of Tolle and definitely have no personal affinity for, or association with, the New Age movement, “stackstundent”’s comment has sufficiently moved me to make a brief comment here. His/her relishing the notion that Tolle will ultimately be suffering eternal hell-fire for his heresy/apostasy provides yet another reminder of why I cannot consider ‘Evangelical’ Christianity as a reasonable option deserving of my spiritual allegiance. Of course I may ultimately find myself cohabitating in Hell with Tolle for my failure to accept and align myself with the Brutal Truth you promulgate, but then again, maybe I won’t…
November 22, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “Brutal Truth,” Steve, and I have the feeling, don’t you, that “stackstudent” is uneasy himself about his feelings about Tolle.
But I’m pretty sure no one goes to hell merely for doctrinal disagreements with God. People go to hell for rejecting God. So the interesting questions are “Who is God and what does he want of me?” and “Am I doing what he wants me to do?” Get THAT wrong, and I guess we’d agree you’re in trouble, no?
November 23, 2009 at 5:18 am
John,
Thanks for your response to my comment. In truth I really didn’t expect anyone to reply to the observation and somewhat pointed statement that I made. Yes John, the profound mystery and question of who or what ‘God’ is and how we should best live our lives remains unanswered by me. Even if one cannot accord oneself with traditional, or non-traditional, versions of divinty (or the central ‘Truth’) that we encounter and explore, the void of understanding remains still unfilled. For the most part, knowing that I do not know, I tend to remain silent and not challenge the beliefs of others. Every once in a while, as was the case with my reponse to the comment left by ’stackstudent’, someones perspective seems so off-mark that I may interject a thought into a conversation. Was this the hope and teaching of Jesus that those who would profess to follow him would hold someone as innocuous or benign as Tolle as being “beneath contempt”? Clearly I have no orthodoxy to protect against Tolles’s heresy and can regard him, at worst, as an essentially harmless voice in the wide world of those who stand before humanity offering guidance as to what constitutes the ’spiritual’ life and how best to realize it. I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong in my assessment of the situation at large, and with that said, I would agree with you that I may be “in trouble”, yes.
While I am not at all certain that there is a God to hear and respond to my prayers, I do frequently pray for guidance as I make my way through this life.
By the way, it is not my ambition to establish more adversarial relations in this world. I think we have quite enough of those already. While I have perhaps voiced some challenges to what may be your perspective, I imagine that we have much more in common than not. I would like to think that if we were to find ourselves in a relationship with each other that it would be a friendly one.
Steve