Richard Rohr?

[Rianon]

Hello!

 

I didn't quite know where to place this. I'm curious if there might be others who'd be interested in a conversation about the spirituality expoused by Richard Rohr. I'm no expert. I'm only learning.

 

Cheers!

Rianon

[VickySGV]

Fr. Rohr is actually a Catholic Priest but I have found that his spiritual outlook is greater than any one path way

[Ivy]

I had never heard of him.    Looks kinda interesting.  I do have a kinda pantheistic view of god myself.

[Marcie Jensen]

He's...interesting to say the least.  I've read some of his work, and he has some very good points, but in all fairness I'm not a fan of his "alternative orthodoxy." I understand it, but don't agree with some aspects of it. One of the most significant disagreements I have with his theology is his teaching that one doesn't have to follow Jesus for salvation. As a Calvinist pastor, I find that to be in direct contradiction to Scripture specifically John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I say this because if Jesus is not the sole means of salvation, His work on the cross and subsequent resurrection are meaningless, salvation is universal and the entirety of Christian Faith is a lie. I apologize if anyone finds this offensive. However, to be frank, Christianity has never taught that universal salvation is valid; in fact, I've heard it cogently argued that the concept itself is borderline heresy and blasphemy. I know this is not something most people want to hear, and again I apologize for any offense given. 

 

Fr Rohr is also a self described pantheist who has commented that this position as the true positions of Jesus and the apostle Paul, which is problematic in mainstream Western Theology (ie: outside of Eastern Orthodox tradition.)  All of that said, Fr Rohr's work on justice and compassion are well worth reading and discussing.

 

I would also recommend reading Douglas Groothus' commentary on Fr. Rohr's work. Groothus makes a number of valid points that are varied and insightful.

[Ashley0616]

IMO I don't really follow Catholics. Mary was just vessel nothing more and nothing less. Saints are special people but again IMO just people vessels. The pope just another guy. The only three I truly care about are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. 

[Ivy]

2 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Fr Rohr is also a self described pantheist who has commented that this position as the true positions of Jesus and the apostle Paul, which is problematic in mainstream Western Theology

Yeah, I don't get this from the gospels or Paul either.

Of course at this point I confess I am not familiar with Fr Rohr.

 

I am kinda hesitant to post here on this Christianity forum since I no longer consider myself a "Christian" though I did so for many years.  But I guess the fact that I am still interested says something.

[Marcie Jensen]

@Ivy, Fr Rohr is kinda obscure, and his views are not mainstream, so there's no reason you should be familiar with him. His theological point off view is an interesting one, and he is a big proponent of social justice and compassion.  TBH, based on what you've posted, I think you might enjoy his writings.

[Vidanjali]

3 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

One of the most significant disagreements I have with his theology is his teaching that one doesn't have to follow Jesus for salvation.

 

The name Richard Rohr is vaguely familiar, but I don't recall how I heard of him. I just read his wiki page to familiarize myself. I will share my thoughts and perspective for the sake of discussion. I do agree that one does not have to follow Jesus for salvation. 

 

3 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

As a Calvinist pastor, I find that to be in direct contradiction to Scripture specifically John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

I ask, who is the "I" and the "me" who Lord Jesus refers to in this verse? Jesus the body? The name? The individual personality? Or Jesus Self-realized as Christ? Christ is That which is all-pervading, unchanging, indestructible, beyond time, space & causation. Christ, being omnipresent is in each of us & I believe our destiny is to be unified with Christ as Christ is truly our essential identity. So, the meaning this verse has for me is that to realize enlightenment, or salvation, one must endeavor to realize one's true essence as One with Christ. I believe Jesus the man was a Self-realized enlightened being - completely identified with Christ and therefore God the Father as they are essentially One and the same. Further, I believe that Truth is One & is understood by many names and forms. All spiritual paths are essentially the same path as they all ultimately lead to Union with Christ - they can't not as Christ is the all-pervading One Reality behind all names and forms. 

 

3 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I say this because if Jesus is not the sole means of salvation, His work on the cross and subsequent resurrection are meaningless, salvation is universal and the entirety of Christian Faith is a lie.

 

Respectfully, I don't see how it follows that if salvation is universal then Jesus' work and resurrection are meaningless. Lord Jesus has inspired millions of humans who seek to follow his teachings and pursue a spiritual path. If it is the case, as I believe, that paths are many, and that Christ-identified enlightened beings existed in the world before Lord Jesus assumed a body & continue to come into existence in the world to teach and uplift humanity - then that does not make the life and example of Lord Jesus invalid or any less profound. 

 

3 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I apologize if anyone finds this offensive. However, to be frank, Christianity has never taught that universal salvation is valid; in fact, I've heard it cogently argued that the concept itself is borderline heresy and blasphemy. I know this is not something most people want to hear, and again I apologize for any offense given. 

 

Please rest assured that I am not offended. Again, I hope my sharing of my beliefs does not offend you or anyone else. And, I share all of the above neither in an attempt to compel anyone, nor to defend what I believe. It's what rings true to me along my quest to know God. I believe however we come to know God is right for each of us. 

 

53 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I no longer consider myself a "Christian" though I did so for many years. 

 

Same with me. As I've experienced profundity via pantheist perspective, I have necessarily realized an authentic relationship with Christ, the depth of which I never experienced while I was a Catholic, then a Christian. 

[Dillon]

4 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Fr Rohr is also a self described pantheist who has commented that this position as the true positions of Jesus and the apostle Paul,

Paul a pantheist? That's a surprising piece of theology. I haven't read Richard Rohr because the books I looked at, just via amazon descriptions, are based on 12 step programs. At least that's how it reads to me. 12 step programs are wonderful and life-saving, but they can't be universally applied to everyone. However, that is what people try to do to me, and it's not my path of healing. Not sure I expressed myself clearly. If this is a strong factor in what he offers, I am not interested.

 

But I do like the idea of a discussion thread about a Christian spiritual writer.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

4 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

One of the most significant disagreements I have with his theology is his teaching that one doesn't have to follow Jesus for salvation. As a Calvinist pastor, I find that to be in direct contradiction to Scripture specifically John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I say this because if Jesus is not the sole means of salvation, His work on the cross and subsequent resurrection are meaningless, salvation is universal and the entirety of Christian Faith is a lie.

 

I hadn't heard of Rohr before this thread, but that part was all I needed to see.  No need for Christ = not a Christian.  John 14:6 is a fundamental and unavoidable point of doctrine.  I believe that a position contrary to that Scripture is heresy (and that belief is shared by a number of Christian groups and denominations.)  IDK about the Catholic Church...but in my faith community, promoting a belief system denying the necessity of Jesus would mean excommunication. 

 

No offense meant,  everybody's views may vary, just a statement of my opinion and an example from my community...and I am not a religious teacher of any sort. (standard dislaimer 😉)

[Marcie Jensen]

@Vidanjali, Sadly, there is no short answer to any of the points you raise--particularly your comments on how Jesus identified himself when on this earth. Without going into the theological weeds, so to speak, and understanding you are not a Christian, my answer regarding the self identity of Jesus in John 14:6, He was speaking as the Word made flesh; the son of Man; the Christ; one with God and Son of God--fully human and fully divine--all at the same time. In the first verse of John's Gospel, we are told that "in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was,with God and the Word was God. This is echoed through all the Gospels and the Old Testament prophets. In John 3:16 we are told "for God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son," which clearly identifies him as unique as opposed to an "enlightened being.

 

As to why the pantheist position doesn't work for Christians, it means that when taken in conjunction with the other related portions of Scripture, to advocate for universal salvation means that everything Jesus taught, preached and went to the cross for is not only a lie but was totally unnecessary. If you would like o discuss this further, please PM me. 

 

I am aware that this makes Christianity appear exclusionary, but that's another topic for discussion. I would point out that Catholics ARE Christians despite what many protestants believe; just one denomination among many.

 

I am not trying to push my faith on anyone here; merely offering a theological explanation, albeit from a Christian perspective. I would also like to point out that from a Christian theological perspective, salvation comes from faith in Christ alone. You can't buy it, you can't work your way into it nor can it be obtained in any other way, despite what any of us may feel. I'm not suggesting anyone agree with me nor am I trying to convert anyone. As a Calvinist, I am convinced the TULIP doctrine is correct.

I hope this explanation is both helpful and makes some sense.

[Marcie Jensen]

20 minutes ago, Dillon said:

Paul a pantheist? That's a surprising piece of theology.

That's why it's heresy and borderline blasphemy. Sorry about the harsh wording, but there isn't any other way to put it. Frankly, given the Catholic doctrines and high regard for Paul, I'm a bit surprised Fr Rohr isn't excommunicate. 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

9 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

That's why it's heresy and borderline blasphemy. Sorry about the harsh wording, but there isn't any other way to put it. Frankly, given the Catholic doctrines and high regard for Paul, I'm a bit surprised Fr Rohr isn't excommunicate. 

Indeed. 

 

Non-Catholic Western Christianity (Calvinist, non-Calvinist, and otherwise) refers to the principle of the 5 "Sola's" articulated during the Reformation.  Christians are saved by by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed by Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. 

[Marcie Jensen]

For anyone interested in a brief, yet thorough explanation of the five solas, here is a link to Concordia University's article on the subject:

 

https://www.concordia.edu/blog/five-solas-of-the-protestant-reformation.html#:~:text=The five solas state that,the glory of God alone.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

Yes, I agree with @Marcie Jensen.  The Christian faith is definitely exclusionary.  By which we mean to say "exclusionary in BELIEF."

 

Jesus Christ is the center of the faith. He is our hope, and he is the reason that all people can approach the throne of grace and receive the benefits of salvation.  The New Testament makes it clear:

 

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Galatians 3:28 (NKJV).  Jesus is the bonding agent in the faith...all people are one through Him.  What do we have without Him????

 

^"Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."  (Acts 28:24-35)  In the context of preaching the Gospel to a Roman centurion, Peter affirms that God doesn't show favorites, and that belief/trust (fear) and wanting to have a proper relationship with God is enough to be accepted.  No discrimination by race, gender, etc... it is belief that makes you part of the family. 

 

Back in ancient times when slavery was the foundation of Rome, when Jew/Gentile distinction divided Palestine, when rich/poor determined your status and worth, and when male/female determined your rights - Christianity was a REVOLUTION and the forefront of equality in a way that no nation or government system has been able to replicate.  Jesus was and is revolutionary in His actions and teaching.  His sacrifice and resurrection pave the way for our eternal life.  To have some sort of Christianity without that is unimaginable for me. 

 

Again...No offense meant,  everybody's views may vary, just a statement of my opinion and an example from my community...and I am not a religious teacher of any sort. (standard dislaimer 😉)

 

 

[Dillon]

8 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I'm a bit surprised Fr Rohr isn't excommunicate. 

I think they just put them under some kind of censure these days, where they aren't allowed to teach or administer sacraments, but I could be wrong. Tolerance for comments that are pantheistic in nature might be based on two things: the RCC's embrace of Teilhard de Chardin and the legalistic way RCC writers/teachers can get around doctrine by avoiding certain words. BTW, I am not taking a position on de Chardin either way. I like his concept of God pulling us forward from God's future, but the rest doesn't interest me enough to form an opinion.

 

 

[Dillon]

Looking back at the original post to see what @Rianon has requested as the topic of discussion, I'm going to step out of this thread to make space for people who have expressed a positive interest in discussing Rohr. It looks like there are several. (I enjoyed hearing everyone's views, though and having a chance to express mine.)

[Rianon]

3 hours ago, Dillon said:

Looking back at the original post to see what @Rianon has requested as the topic of discussion, I'm going to step out of this thread

Smiling from earlobe to earlobe, me too, Dillon, I'm also stepping out of this thread. The weight of some of posts reminds me of why I quit heavily systematized religion in the first place. My love to you all, but, if you'll excuse me, I'm going for a walk in the woods. 😁 ––Rianon

[VickySGV]

We have gotten this one off the rails from what I think was originally intended myself.  I have quite a collection of Memes of Fr. Rohr's quotes which I find on point in the practice of my daily life.  Discussion of theology is well and good in its place, but this was not really the topic for that.  

[Ivy]

I was studying some Torah & commentary awhile back, and ran into the idea that "Creation" is an ongoing thing, that we participate in.  Of course this would be at variance with the idea that Creation was completed on the 6th day (literally or symbolically) so I assume it would be incompatible with Biblical Christianity.

 

19 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

I apologize if anyone finds this offensive. However, to be frank, Christianity has never taught that universal salvation is valid; in fact, I've heard it cogently argued that the concept itself is borderline heresy and blasphemy.

Yeah, I realize this.  And I am certainly not offended.

From what I've seen here, and the very little I've seen now online, I would think that from a Christian standpoint Rohr's views would be considered heretical.  But that in itself doesn't bother me much.

In the end this all seems to hinge on belief or faith and there are no answers outside of that.  And so I find myself asking why we believe what we believe.

[VickySGV]

2 minutes ago, Ivy said:

And so I find myself asking why we believe what we believe.

 

This would be a good as a topic all by itself   Best Forums -- Other Faiths or even Non-Deistic Spirituality.