The Universal Christ

Before beginning my review I want to say a few words about Father Richard Rohr.   First and foremost, he is a man with a brilliant mind and likely has an education that makes my own pale in comparison.   The language he uses when writing is clearly one of great philosophical instruction and depth.  That means that when reading this book you will be challenged to think outside of the box of what he calls “dualistic” thinking.   That is “black and white”, “right and wrong”, “good and bad”, and so forth.   In that aspect, you’ll find the book will introduce you to many ecumenical thoughts that simply address the enormity and beauty of who God is.   The image of Christ as the Universal, eternal God is one we should fit comfortably into as Christians.

Does that mean that I agree with the book?  I am not so sure I do.  I feel that he is correct in the idea that we often fall into dualistic thoughts and meanings when we begin to think of God.   God is so much beyond anything we could comprehend, with that in mind we can’t put him into a box of one idea or another.  A statement I’ve used in the past is God owns the Church, the Church does not own God.  I feel though that Father Rohr falls into dualistic thought all on his own with the idea that one can only either see God as beyond religion or see God as stuck in religion and limited by it.  As my favorite taco bell commercial declares: “Por que no los dos?”  Why not both?   Having a religion that proclaims the Ordinary Means revealed by Jesus Christ himself as the Incarnation of God does not limit God, it rather gives us a sure and secure means of receiving the grace and mercy of that God.

I’ll give an example of something from the book that illustrates my point.   At one point Father Rohr speaks of the moment before receiving communion in the Catholic Mass that we say “Lord I am not worthy.”   This is very familiar to us as we say it at every Mass.  Then we proceed forward to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.  Father Rohr makes the point that we have a dualistic thought that “we aren’t worthy” but then again we must believe we are because we go forward anyway.   What he leaves out (though he implies it later) is the simple statement that comes after I am not worthy, “but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”  You see, to me, Father Rohr seems to be stuck in the dualistic thought himself, that either we aren’t worthy or we are.  Rather than looking at the truth of that moment in which we are definitely not worthy, we’ve done nothing to deserve it.   Jesus Christ though is worthy and it is by the authority of His Word, handed down through the Church, that our souls are made clean.  It is through the Holy Spirit that we are able to receive, that we are given worthiness not our own, but the worthiness of God.

The other issue I have with this particular book is that it’s clear that Father Rohr is stuck in a very liberal mindset (again the very dualism he speaks of) by the verbiage and language he uses.   In a book about Jesus, he continually brings up ideas such as “white privilege,” colonialism, classism, and even the idea that the Western Church must have it wrong and the Eastern Church more properly has it right.  His disdain for American culture and the “patriarchy” is evident in his writing making it very hard for a “cisgender white male” to read the book and not see a bias (again the dualistic thought he condemns throughout the book).   Now, he does at one point refer to the Eastern and Western church as being hampered by being split, as if each side were breathing with just one lung.   That I think is a beautiful example of inclusive language.

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsɪˈdʒiːsɪs/) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. … Exegesis is drawing out text’s meaning in accordance with the author’s context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text.

I guess that is the primary thing that rubs me wrong about this book is its obvious use of eisegesis to prove the points that he already believes.   You see, Father Rohr believes very clearly in his own theory.   That should be commended.   It is a beautiful idea and should encourage thought.   What is also obvious is that Father Rohr is not looking to see what Scripture says, exegesis, (as in what it said to the people it was written to, based on who wrote it, when, and what the socio-economic and spiritual thought of the day was), but rather which Scriptures support the theory he presents of the Universal Christ.  It is what I have grown to call “cherry-picking” and is something that I have a great amount of disdain for.

All of this alone would not make me think the book was “dangerous” as some people proclaimed.  I, in fact, when recommended to read it by my spiritual director, wrote some letters to some trusted spiritual guides asking them if it was a good idea.   After much prayerful consideration I began to read the book and while it is full of beautiful ideas, challenging thoughts, and even some amazingly deep insights into the love and mercy of God; its very foundational ideas are expressed in a way that seems almost heretical.   I found myself having to make mental leaps and acrobatic movements just to see what was written like something from a Catholic and that in and of itself would be why others proclaim it dangerous.   The ideas here present a Jesus who seems to be just as present in a tree as he is in the Eucharist.   Just as present in you and me, as he was in the Incarnation.  While Father Rohr is quick to point out that he isn’t a pantheist, he then begins to write and express ideas as if he is one.  He suggests the idea that the Son was incarnate in the earth, in the trees, in the sky and the rocks, in the same way before the Incarnation, as He was in Jesus at the moment that God became a man.  Then goes on to suggest seemingly that we too can be the same kind of Christ, as if Jesus were just a human who figured it out, and if we do it too we will become Christ (or rather acknowledge the Christ that already is inside of us).

This indeed would be a Christ who transcends religion.  It’s also a Christ who transcends the Sacraments, making them unnecessary.   Father Rohr does make it clear that he is an orthodox catholic, but also in the same breath makes it clear it’s only begrudgingly and that his religion is beyond thoughts and words, and simply practice now.  That is a dangerous path.   So what do I rate the book?  Do I consider it dangerous?  If you are very well instructed with a well-formed conscience, the book could indeed be something that will increase your appreciation of the theological implications of God’s presence in and through all things.  I am not sure though that I would recommend it.  While the thoughts expressed in it are often deep and provocative, they are also surely confusing and at worst, yes, dangerous.