New Age Theology: New Age Christology · Groothuis page 40, where he says, “Human reason and scientific innovation became the final authority for life and thought replacing God’s

Contemporary Theology II:

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 16

LESSON 19 of 24ST507

New Age Theology: New Age Christology

Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism

This is lecture 19 for Contemporary Theology II. At the end of our last lecture, we were looking at some key elements in New Age spirituality. I want to finish that off and then turn to the backgrounds of this movement and then toward the end of our lecture to begin laying out for you the New Age understanding of Jesus Christ. But before we come to any of that, let’s begin with a word of prayer.

Lord, we thank you for this opportunity to study. And we are reminded so vividly as we reflect upon New Age thinking of how much there is that spiritual vacuum in each one of us, that need for relationship with you. And we realize that in our day there are many people who are seeking that in a way that is different from the biblical prescribed path. Help us to understand what these people are thinking and why they are going in the directions that they are. Lord, we want to be informed, but we also want to minister to these people and to be able to show them the truth. To that end we commit this time of study to you. For it’s in Christ’s name we pray it. Amen.

We were talking at the end of our last lecture about the Eastern influence in New Age thinking, elements from Hinduism and Buddhism and the like. Let me mention a couple of other items that enter into New Age spirituality. One of them is how they interpret Jesus. He is reinterpreted, as a matter of fact, and He’s recast as an Eastern thinker whose teachings would of course echo the main thrust of New Agers. I’m going to elaborate on New Age thinking about Jesus Christ in just a bit, so I won’t say any more about that right now. There is one other New Age theme, however, that I want to point out. New Age spirituality also incorporates the notion of reincarnation. And here I quote from Groothuis page 150 in Unmasking the New Age. He says,

According to most Eastern thought, many lives are required to reach oneness with the One. Salvation is a multi-lifetime

John S. Feinberg, PhD University of Chicago, MA and PhD

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, ThMTalbot Theological Seminary, MDiv

University of California, BA

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.


2 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

process of progression or digression. If one accumulates good karma, positive benefits accrue in later lives. Bad karma produces future punishments. Eventually one may leave the cycle of birth and rebirth entirely through the experience of enlightenment. Redemption, if it could be called that, is a process of realizing the true self throughout many lifetimes. According to Madame Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society [Groothuis quotes her], “It is owing to this law of spiritual development that mankind will become freed from his false gods and find itself finally self-redeemed.”

In spite of this commitment to reincarnation, Groothuis I think very insightfully makes several comments about reincarnation as it is held in Eastern religions and compares that to the way that it is held in much New Age thinking. And let me share with you what he has to say. He says, “According to most Eastern thought, many lives are required to reach oneness with the One.” But then he says:

The Bible clearly rejects reincarnation as a doctrine of salvation. Man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). But there are also some logical inconsistencies in the doctrine of reincarnation. This growing belief sounds just and attractive at first blush, but something else lies below the surface. First, the doctrine as conceived in Hinduism and Buddhism involves all forms of life and is called “transmigration.” Westerners ignore this fact and color the idea with hopes for self-development. But according to the Eastern doctrine, one may come back as a dog, cow, or gnat, something decidedly less attractive than a more fully-realized human potential. Second, the idea that reincarnation insures cosmic justice breaks down. If one is being punished or rewarded in this life for deeds in a previous life without the knowledge of that previous life, it is difficult to see how this could be interpreted as just. How can one learn from or repent of sins which cannot even be remembered? Also because of its monism, Eastern thought does not provide criteria for judging what deserves punishment and what deserves reward. If everything is one, the two are identical, that is reward and punishment. Third, popular opinion to the contrary, Eastern views of reincarnation do not stress a



3 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

concrete soul or ego enduring through various lifetimes. The individual self is not real. How then can the system make sense if there is actually nothing to be reincarnated? And if something is reincarnated, then that something is impersonal.

Then a fourth comment that Groothuis makes says this.

Supposed evidence for reincarnation such as past life recall, testimonies of past lives extracted through hypnotism, and cases of people knowing information impossible to obtain in their lifetime can be explained without recourse to reincarnation. Hypnotic evidence is far from certain. It has been found that people will sometimes report events that never happened. The subconscious is not an infallible guide. A leading New Age newsletter entitled “The Brain-Mind Bulletin” reported that false memories induced by hypnotism “could limit the value of hypnosis in police investigations” according to a study conducted in Montreal. Some supposed instances of memories from previous lives can also be regarded as cases of demon possession in which supernaturally-given information is used for deceptive purposes.

Yes, when you begin to meddle in these kinds of trappings, anything is possible in terms of where the information might come from.

Let me turn now then to backgrounds to the New Age or if we can put this in the form of a question, How did we get to this? At least in American culture, several things seem to have contributed to the rise of New Age thinking. First of all, we begin with the 1950s and the 1960s counterculture. Perhaps you lived through that period. Perhaps you did not. But in the 1950s and the early 1960s there was a group of people who simply rejected and refused to live by the traditional values of society. Originally this was a rather small group of people. But eventually with the rise of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, with the rise of racial injustice, and problems with the economy, there were many more people who joined this movement. They rejected traditional values, a lot of them in favor of Eastern religions and in favor of



4 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

hallucinogenic drugs and the revival of the occult. Here I think Groothuis’s comments on this are very, very helpful. So let me read to you what he has to say. He says,

Stemming from the beatnik generation of the 50s, the counterculture questioned the traditional answers of American culture. Like their rebellious predecessors but in much greater numbers, those in the counterculture explored the options of an increasingly pluralistic society. As the beat generation had flirted with Zen and all things easternly exotic, so did the counterculture import Eastern religions and adjust them for the west. Hinduism came with a splash during the mid-1960s when the transcendental movement led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi began to propagate Eastern metaphysics in terms of Western psychology and science. Various sects and cults dotted the countercultural landscape setting up their own alternative altars. Hare krishnas chanted. Assorted yogis, gurus, and swamis promised enlightenment, and a generation became accustomed to non-Christian spiritual beliefs and practices. Both the sedentary spirituality of a dormant church and the materialism of an exhausted secular humanism were brought to account by a new consciousness. Other essential elements of the counterculture were hallucinogenic drugs and the revival of the occult. Following the lead of visionary intellectuals such as Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary, a generation sought to raise its consciousness through both organic and synthetic drugs. Rather than traversing the long road of ascetic discipline and spiritual mastery known for millennia in the East, modern Americans sought cosmic consciousness by way of a chemical expediency.

For the relationship of all of this to the New Age movement per se you might say, Yes, these things happen in society. But why do you think that leads to or has any connection to the New Age movement? Let me again share with you what we find in Groothuis. I think he draws the connections quite nicely. He says:

Marilyn Ferguson credits the psychedelic movement of the 60s as being pivotal in the later development of the New Age movement. Speaking of entry points into the New Age movement, she mentions the “intense alternative reality generated by a psychedelic drug” and the impossibility



5 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

of “overestimating the historic role of psychedelics as an entry point drawing people into other transformational technologies.” The Beatles for instance, influenced millions by fusing hallucinogenic experience, Eastern philosophy, and political dissent in the themes of many of their songs. The occult influence on the counterculture can be seen in its announcement of itself as the Age of Aquarius, an astrological term for the present age. Astrology is based on a monistic philosophy and is one of the most ancient occult arts (occult meaning secret or hidden). Forms of occult divination such as tarot card reading and the I Ching along with mediumism, psychic encounters of all stripes, and even Satanism all contributed to make the counterculture an occult hotbed. Parapsychology labored to give scientific credibility to supernatural or occult phenomena such as precognition, clairvoyance, telekinesis, and so on.

But as we shall see, the counterculture could never become the dominant culture and be so radical as what we’ve just talked about, be so strident as some of these people in the counterculture were in the 1950s and especially the 1960s. So what happened then? The counterculture became less radical and yet the main ideas remained, although they were expressed in somewhat different forms.

Another element in the rise of New Age thinking is the critique of secular humanism. Stemming from the Renaissance and its humanism which focused on both man and God, humanism progressively focused more attention on the glory of humanity to the exclusion of the glory of God. Rather than being theistic, humanism gradually became atheistic. Then I quote from Groothuis page 40, where he says, “Human reason and scientific innovation became the final authority for life and thought replacing God’s revelation. Humanity became autonomous.”

While such a view is appealing to many people, that is, life without God devoid of religion altogether and spirituality, it does tend to lead to a very pessimistic and a very hopeless view of human life and its significance. Humans become the mere products of chance evolution with this view. Morality is severed from an absolute grounding in God, and it becomes relativistic. And ultimately, all of life was seen as having no ultimate meaning or purpose. There are some people who thought that this was really good.



6 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

For example, let me share with you what Bertrand Russell, the twentieth-century philosopher, has to say by way of a positive reaction to these developments. He says:

Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving, that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental colocations of atoms, that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave, that all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried underneath the debris of a universe in ruins. All these things if not quite beyond dispute are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand. Only the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation be safely built.

In other words, all of these things are true of life without God, and Russell thinks that’s good. It’s only on these ideas that your soul can be positively and firmly built. In spite of the applause of such people as Bertrand Russell, there were many people and are many people who reject such results as the ones that Russell mentioned, reject them as very unappealing. As Groothuis says about secular humanism: “While it appeals to humanity’s quest for autonomy and crowns man the measure of all things, we find ourselves the lords of nothing, nothing but a meaningless universe with no direction, destiny, or purpose. Humanity becomes only an accidental upsurge of personality awaiting cosmic oblivion.”

Groothuis chronicles the counterculture’s complaint and critique against secular humanism. But as he shows, the counterculture did not as a result of this complaint turn back to Christianity. Because it also considered that Christianity was bankrupt, there was no reason to go back to it. Let me again read to you what Groothuis says about this:

Although Christianity and the counterculture share some of the same criticisms of secular humanism, Roszak indicts Christianity as setting the wheels of secularism in motion. He believes that Christian theism degenerated into secular



7 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

atheism because of its presuppositions about God, man, and the world. If God is transcendent and distinct from the world, Roszak argues, the world is consequently divested of spiritual significance.

We surely saw that kind of complaint when we discussed some of the God-is-dead theologies and when we heard what process theologians had to say in their critique of traditional Christianity. Then Groothuis says:

In Christianity nature is pronounced dead and desacralized. (This of course is according to Roszak). This implicit dualism alienates the world from God, man from God, and man from the world and other men. The organic harmony of all being which Roszak calls “the old gnosis” alias the One, is thus fragmented. The glories of the old, essentially magical worldview show a world pulsating with divine life and energy in which divine vitality is experienced within the self and is not dependent on faith or doctrine. Christianity and Protestantism in particular destroyed this harmony. Thus Christianity contains the seeds of its own destruction and is to be directly blamed for the development of secular humanism and consequently for many modern ills. Its God was so distant that man forgot Him entirely and was left to his own devices. Nature became a testing ground for man’s technological devices, and the door was opened to untold technological carnage, the dehumanization of man, and the pollution of the environment in particular.

Where did all of this lead us? That is, how did the counterculture and the critique of secular humanism lead to the New Age? Groothuis explains, and I’d like to read to you what he has to say. This is taken from pages 44 and 45 of his Unmasking the New Age. He says:

America’s religious freedom provides a fertile medium for alternative beliefs. The very presence of a dizzying variety of religious claims makes each claim more socially acceptable and at the same time makes each less comprehensibly credible. That is the belief in absolute truth is replaced by one’s religious preference. Although preference is not the



8 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

same as certainty if more and more of the myriad options of pluralism converge at the feet of the One, the religious preference for pantheism will sociologically solidify into a majority certainty. And as we shall see and as the New Age claims, there are many ways to the One. The radicalism and enthusiastic protest of the 1960s gave way to a more articulate and integrated view that developed in the 1970s. As the rest of the book will demonstrate, superficial extremism was replaced by a rethinking of the theoretical underpinnings of one Western intellectual discipline after another. The movement went from the streets to the libraries, studies, and university classrooms. In speaking of mass movements, Erik Hoffer says that they do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. [Then Groothuis says] Men of words are moving toward the One having been exposed to Eastern spirituality and philosophy in the 1960s, grown up hippies entering general culture often did not outgrow their pantheistic outlook. They simply accommodated to certain social conventions. Why worry about keeping long hair providing you can keep your worldview? In fact, why not join the culture and permeate it from within instead of trying to tear it down through violent protests? Instead of quoting the Buddha or the Hindu scriptures, why not write books and teach classes from an Eastern perspective? Instead of only practicing yoga or doing transcendental meditation yourself, why not try to implement it in the wider culture? Rather than dropping out like the beatniks or freaking out like the hippies, why not outthink the square or straight culture?

You see how this movement came from a sort of fringe of the culture to become much more respectable. As to the differences between the New Age movement and the counterculture, I think this is significant as well. I think it would be easy to think that the two are identical, but Groothuis is helpful here as well. He says:

No line can properly be drawn between the New Age movement and the counterculture, although differences can be seen. In other words, on the one hand it’s hard to differentiate between New Age thinking and the



9 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

counterculture thinking. But on the other hand, there are some differences. In addition to the fact that the New Age movement has become more sophisticated and has expanded its influence into the general culture, we can see that it is more than primarily a youth movement. People of all ages are involved. Second, many of those now involved in the New Age movement were not involved in the counterculture. Third, hard rock music is not as much of a rallying point as it was for the counterculture. In fact, a New Age style of music is developing which combines jazz, electric, and meditative elements. Representative musicians are Kitaro and Steven Halpern. Fourth, the emphasis on free sex has been somewhat tamed, although there has not been a return to traditional morality. Fifth, such practices as meditation and hypnosis are now used to alter consciousness rather than the more chemically severe hallucinogenics, LSD, peyote, and others. Nevertheless, the New Age apologetic and ideology builds on the counterculture’s foundation while substantially expanding its conceptual cogency. What began as a scattered revolt against Western secularism and traditional Christianity has matured into an elaborate and full-orbed assault on Western culture. But it is more than an assault. It is a proposal for conquest. New Age advocates believe that the failure of secular humanism and the rejection of Christian theism have left us with a crisis. The megatonage of nuclear terror threatens to vaporize us. Our politics are pathetic. Our spirituality is rundown and close to expiration. Our economics border on world collapse. Transformation is required, and there is no going back. We face a turning point.

Another reason for the move to New Age thinking is its appeal to hope for personal and social transformation. After all, we can look within and find the power within to change not only ourselves but also our societies and make a better world for everyone. And a lot of this can occur, the position of New Age thinking says, through challenging people’s worldviews and introducing them to new dimensions of reality that promise to make a difference in their individual and collective lives. Some of the other motivations that Groothuis lists that push people toward New Age thinking are concerns about ecology, what’s happening with the environment, feminism, and authority. And all of these things get factored into



10 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

this move to a New Age, a new way of thinking and being.

Then Groothuis notes that, in the midst of all of this, there is to be seen the rise of what he calls “cosmic humanism.” In spite of its critique of secular humanism, New Age thinking incorporates a lot of the ideas of secular humanism. But as you might suspect, it transforms those ideas; and it does so in a way that is giving rise to what Groothuis and others call “cosmic humanism.” Groothuis chronicles the connections between secular humanism and New Age thinking that are giving rise to cosmic humanism. And here I think it would be significant for us to hear what Groothuis says. Beginning with page 52 we read this. He says:

Manas, a New Age-oriented periodical, comments that “The heart of classical humanism is the joint principle of freedom and responsible self-reliance in the nature of man. Freedom meant freedom from Christian doctrine and from the idea that we need to be redeemed by a God external to ourselves.” Manas continues: “Man is no sinful worm but potential divinity.” Cassirer comments that reconciliation between God and humanity was no longer looked for exclusively in an act of divine grace. It was supposed to take place amid the activity of the human spirit and its process of self-development. This potential divinity, the one within, is the human nature that early humanism strove to actualize.

Then Groothuis says a bit further on, “Yet even denatured humanism has much in common with earlier humanism and the coming cosmic humanism.” First of all, he says:

Secular humanism and the philosophy of the One [that is, pantheism] affirm that there is but one reality. For secular humanism, all is matter and energy arranged by chance. Carl Sagan declares in his bestselling book Cosmos [which is also a television series] that the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. In essence, secular humanism has a monism of matter and energy. While cosmic humanism, the One, has a monism of spirit. All is God. Our salvation for the secular humanist comes through rational inquiry in the development of science. Humanist Manifesto II published in 1973 affirms that no deity will save us. We must save ourselves.



11 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

Groothuis tells us:

Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possess. Our hope lies in the nature of man and his potential. Saving ourselves for the signers of the first humanist manifesto in 1933 meant the complete realization of human personality. The new cosmic humanism essentially agrees but expands the territory. Man is not only the measure of all things, he is the metaphysical master. We are one with the One and thus have access to unlimited potentiality.

You get the picture here that there is a rise in cosmic monism and that that is getting us into this New Age spirit and mentality. Let me also read for you a few of Groothuis’s comments on the relationship of pluralism to the One. He says:

The god within is the one for all. But how in our pluralistic society can only One be for all? Doesn’t pluralism mean a variety of beliefs held in the same society at the same time? The situation may superficially appear more like polytheism, many gods, than monism, the One. Yet while the sheer number of philosophical and religious options in society serves to weaken the credibility of them all, how can we know which one is really true? A society filled with doubt will not stand without finding a new consensus. The pantheon of gods now reigning must fight for supremacy. Gods tolerate no equals, although a throng of gods comes rushing in to fill the void left by the decline of Christianity and secular humanism, more than a mere throng is needed for social stability and direction. As Mircea Eliade has said, “Secular man killed a god in whom he could not believe but whose absence he could not bear.” The pluralism we now experience is fragmented and confused. The rootlessness and ambiguity of modern pluralism may serve as a goad for a new unified and unifying consensus. Edward Norman speculates that pluralism is a word society employs during the transition from one orthodoxy to another. A society cannot remain permanently fragmented with respect to values. Our brand of pluralism may prove to be more of a provisional tolerance of divergent ideas than a permanent smorgasbord of beliefs. It may well begin to collapse as its inner tensions pull it apart. But what else may



12 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

emerge? Are we on the verge of a new orthodoxy, a new climate of opinion dominated by the one? Some fervently hope so, and some fear so. By inflating human potential to cosmic dimensions, cosmic humanism has captured much of secular humanism without being ensnared by its narrow, repressive elements. It takes the torch from the failing runner. Brooks Alexander puts it well. “Cosmic humanism has come in at an appropriate point to infuse and spiritualize secularism, catalytically transforming it into an agency for the transmission of ultimate values. In that way, it becomes a force of social cohesion rather than disillusion.”

So the point of all of this is that even though we are told that we live in a pluralistic society, and pluralism and tolerance of other views is the order of the day, that may just be something that is here for a period of time. And it may be replaced by another orthodoxy, to use the term that Groothuis quoted, namely, the adherence to the view of the one. As you well know, Scripture says that we are to test the spirits. And one of the major tests is to see what they think of Jesus Christ. If they deny that He is God incarnate, then they cannot be right. They cannot be God.

With that in mind, I’d like to turn now to look at New Age Christology. And I’m going to be using as a basis of much of this, not only the comments that we find in Groothuis’s Unmasking the New Age but more specifically what he has to say in his book Revealing the New Age Jesus. Let me make some introductory comments, and then we want to look at the main themes of New Age thinking in regard to Jesus Christ. Jesus is often times praised as the harbinger of the New Age. Self-realization, love, and world peace will break forth, we are told, when we reclaim a lost divinity and manifest our potential for healing our beleaguered planet. And where Jesus comes in is that Jesus taught these key truths of self-realization, love, and peace. And hence, He blazed the trail to the New Age. As an example of New Age thinking about Jesus, John White’s “Jesus and the Idea of a New Age,” that was published in The Quest summer of 1989, is I think very instructive. According to John White, “The Jesus of biblical orthodoxy is a misconception. Instead, Jesus should be seen as the West’s most familiar example of cosmic consciousness. And that cosmic consciousness is a state of awareness that is attuned to oneness of being and universal energy which releases vibrant evolutionary



13 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

forces.” White says about Jesus, and I quote him: “Jesus’ unique place in history is based upon His unprecedented realization of the higher intelligence, the divinity, the ground of being incarnated in Him.”

As to what New Age thinkers think about Jesus and His relation to sin and salvation, let me read to you from Revealing the New Age Jesus. Very, very instructive here to see what they have to say; Groothuis says:

White is but one voice in a growing chorus of New Age writers, teachers, and prophets who insist that the Jesus of biblical orthodoxy is the product of misunderstanding and spiritual immaturity. White strives to free Jesus from the shackles of orthodoxy and to rediscover His true teachings and identity. According to White, Jesus taught that sin is not the transgression of God’s moral law for which we deserve punishment. It is simply missing the mark by not hitting the bull’s eye of the God within us. The antidote to this error is not found in seeking forgiveness from God but in changing one’s consciousness. God does not condemn us for our sins, White insists, rather we condemn ourselves by our sins. And thus forgiveness by God is not necessary. It is there always as unconditional love the instant we turn in our hearts and minds to God. This in essence means turning our minds back to our own identity as God as Groothuis says.

When Jesus called people to repent, White avers, this had nothing to do with being sorry over sin but everything to do with going beyond or higher than the ordinary mental state. This means transcending self-centered ego and becoming God-centered, God-realized. To go beyond these self-imposed limitations is to become experientially aware that all is God and there is only God. This change of mind gives us the mind of Jesus when He said, “I and the Father are one.” And of course all of us need to realize that what is true of Jesus is true of the rest of us.

Jesus is praised then as the archetype of higher awareness and inspiring example of self-discovery, not self-sacrifice but self-discovery. But Jesus didn’t say that this higher state of consciousness realized in Himself was for Him alone for all time. He was the only person who could get this. New Agers believe that



14 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

others are supposed to attain to this as well. Our response then to Jesus should not be worship, but rather our response should be to follow Him on the path of enlightenment as if we were Jesus Himself, they say. Then what does the incarnation mean, the resurrection? What’s the significance of the incarnation and the resurrection doctrines? White says that the key is not that they teach “that Jesus was human like us but rather that we are gods like Him or at least have the potential to be.” White believes that it is more accurate to say Christ was Jesus than Jesus was the Christ, because he explains, that allows for other christs, you and me. “Jesus is not then the sole path to cosmic consciousness, but rather He is one of many evolutionary forerunners of a new earth and a new humanity including Buddha, Krishna, Lao-Tze, Moses, and Muhammad. All of these thinkers and leaders taught that thou shalt evolve to a higher state of being and ultimately return to the godhead which is your very self.”

Interestingly enough, there are New Agers who think that there are some passages of the New Testament that do tell us that Jesus Christ had New Age ideas. Though that may sound strange, let me share with you what they have to say. The first passage is Luke 17:21, where Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is within you.” At least that’s how New Agers are translating it, and John 10:22–42 and especially the part of that where Jesus says “You are gods.” Now as to the Luke passage, this is taken to mean that all people have the divine within them, the kingdom of God is within you. That means all people have the divine within them. But of course this ignores the fact that the kingdom is God’s rule in the world. It’s not their own divinity. And it ignores the fact that probably a better translation of that passage is that the kingdom of God is among you or, if you will, in your midst. It’s not talking about what’s inside of people but rather that it is right there. It’s present.

Now as to the John 10 passage, this is taken “you are gods” as an assertion again that all people are divine. However, that’s not to understand the context. You remember that Jesus in this passage is refuting the charge of blasphemy. He’s called Himself one with the Father, and His Jewish listeners have understood Him to be saying that He is in fact divine. They charge Him with blasphemy. And at that point Jesus says, I want to remind you of something. I want to remind you that your own Scriptures say “you are gods” in regard to some human judges who were very wicked judges. Now Jesus on that point is quoting from Psalm 82 and verse 6. Then Jesus says if it is not blasphemy for the Old Testament writer in that case to refer to these judges as gods because they



15 of 16

Lesson 19 of 24

had a position and a function of serving God even though they weren’t doing it too well. If there’s no problem to call them gods when they were doing that which was evil, why then when I come in the name of the Father and do good, why do you say that I am blaspheming when I call myself God? When you understand the context of what Jesus is saying and that the actual phrase in question is a quote of an Old Testament psalm, then indeed it’s very clear that New Age thinkers have taken this way out of context and have misunderstood, misinterpreted what Jesus is saying.

Undaunted by the fact that the Jesus of Scripture doesn’t quite square with their thinking, that is, in most of what it says apart from these other two passages that they think support their views, New Agers tell us anyway that the real truth about Christ is hidden in Scripture. Scripture shows that there was an eighteen-year period of Christ’s life that we know very little about from Scripture. It was prior to His beginning of His public ministry, but it began after His early teenage years or perhaps just before that. And we really don’t have an awful lot of information about what Christ was doing. Scripture says that the child grew in wisdom and knowledge and favor with God and with men. New Agers think they can fill in the blanks. They know what happened during that eighteen-year period. They tell us that Christ traveled to the East where He learned various esoteric mysteries and was somehow or other initiated into the one. Groothuis here I think is helpful in explaining this. And here I go back to his Unmasking the New Age. On page 145 he tells us what Jesus supposedly was to have learned on this trip, and what He actually taught. And of course these ideas that Jesus allegedly imbibed from His travels are said to square with and to foreshadow the basic doctrines of New Age thinking. Groothuis tells us:

In her popular autobiography, Shirley MacLaine [the movie star] reports a conversation with a friend in which he discourses about the true Christ who “became an adept yogi and master at complete control over his body and the physical world around him.” Christ “tried to teach people that they could do the same things if they got more in touch with their spiritual selves and their own potential power.” According to Western yogi Christopher Hills, Christ had trained as a great Sita Yogi with the powers of consciousness of a true initiate. The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, not an ancient gospel but one written from a vision given to Levi H. Downing, has Jesus saying, “The

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

16 of 16

New Age Theology: New Age ChristologyLesson 19 of 24

universal God is one, yet He is more than one. All things are God. All things are one.” Jesus came not to free people from their sin but to prove the possibilities.

Documents

New Age Theology: New Age Christology · Groothuis page 40, where he says, “Human reason and scientific innovation became the final authority for life and thought replacing God’s