The Universal Christ

Reviews and more on my blog: Entering the Enchanted Castle

I appreciate Rohr's emphasis on universal love and seeing God in all things, but this book had too much fuzzy logic, ungrounded assumptions and muddled references that undermined the argument, such as it was. Other reviews have pointed out some of the issues, like a misunderstanding of the nature of neutrinos and misquoting Richard Dawkins; others that I noticed were Rohr making much of a Greek word spoken by Jesus (who presumably spoke Aramaic, not Greek) and saying that the New Testament was mostly written by Jesus and Paul (Jesus did not leave any writings whatsoever). A good editor should have caught these howlers before publication!

Aside from that, I could not be so startled as Rohr seems to expect by the revolutionary new way of seeing Christ that he is proclaiming, perhaps because it is not new to me. Indeed it has always seemed obvious to me that the nature of Christ cannot be sectarian, or even limited to one religion, and a Christian path cannot be solely about individual salvation. Is it because I was not raised in any ironclad religious mindset that I don't find this a huge revelation? It seems to me that there are other writers and thinkers who have talked about the universal Christ in a much more lucid and cogent way, Rudolf Steiner being the one who has brought me the most coherent insights.

I'm sorry the message is marred by lack of intellectual rigor, because it is important, and Rohr is clearly very passionate about it and a person who wants to bring light and healing to many. There are some pointers here in the right direction, but also some that may lead off to false paths, I fear. Embracing a Christ who loves and is present for all humanity does not mean losing all sense of distinction and borders between ideas and phenomena, as Rohr does when he makes sweeping statements like “The whole world is Christ.” Some sifting and discernment needs to be done to discover what's what. No spiritual text should ever be swallowed whole and unthinkingly, but this one could have done with a bit more digestion before going out into the world.

One of the regular conversations I had with my Greek Orthodox friend was about how Protestants seemed to be confused about how to understand the connections and distinctions between the human person of Jesus and the eternal second person of the Trinity. He was a sort of “trouble-maker” so he would generally pose these question to his Protestant friends (mostly lay-persons):

Where is Jesus now?
Did Jesus exist before he died?
Is Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity?
Needless to say, this was generally an issue not given much thought by Christians, not just Protestants. Most laypersons, and unfortunately, most pastors rarely give much thought to this and may not recognize its importance. I don't raise those questions to try and answer them in this review, nor does Richard Rohr specifically list them or answer them in his book. I simply want to provide some context.

Richard Rohr addresses the idea of the “Christ” and why we should distinguish between the Christ and the person of Jesus. The question of why it makes any difference and why we should have conversations about it is central to the premise of the book. This idea is both a necessary conversation moving forward but it also is a historical conversation that isn't new. Hence Rohr's subtitle: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope for, and Believe.

Rohr is what is called a “panentheist.” Not a pantheist, but a panentheist.

To keep it simple, it is best explained by breaking down the etymology of the word. Panentheism is made up of three Greek words: pan, en, theos. “Pan” means “all.” “En” means “in.” “Theos” means “god.” So, Panentheism means “God in all,” or “in all God.” Panentheism is the idea that God is in all things and all things are in God. This is distinct from Pantheism which gets rid of the “in” and is the idea that God is all things and all things are God. Panentheism essentially is a bridge between Pantheism and Theism.

If you are a conservative Theist, you are already bristling which makes this the very book you need to read. The idea has roots in verses like Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesians 1:10 and the multiplicity of Pauline “in Christ/ἐν Χριστῷ statements.

If you are open to a way to look at Christ in a way that is unifying, both of theology and people, then this is a provocative read. Being “in Christ” is the key to living life to the fullest and both fulfilling and experiencing the life of God. Being human and experiencing what it means to be the image of God is Rohr's hope and life's work. This work expresses the very foundation for him. For Rohr a verse like Colossians 3:10-11 is key:

10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.11 In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!

(Col. 3:10-11 NRS)
My challenge with this review is that I listened to the audio book while driving on my way to record an audio book for a friend, which I will review in a few weeks. Finding quotes and relaying specifics is much more difficult. So I will not stress about those omissions from this review, although I do list important quotes below.

As far as the audio version is concerned, it is top notch. The book is read by Arthur Morey who reads very deliberately and slowly, which means you should definitely speed up the audio on your device. I don't like it too fast, so 1.10 gave it a near perfect cadence. If you are used to higher speeds then you can increase this, it cut down the listening time and I didn't even notice at 1.10.

Full review on my blog: https://thetempleblog.com/2022/02/07/book-review-the-universal-christ/

I love Richard Rohr. I had high hopes for this book. I took it with me on a spiritual retreat.

It is a lot of the usual, wonderful Rohr, with an emphasis on deep spirituality, on Christ's love, on Jesus as man plus Christ as God in one, on spiritual evolution.

But it just didn't work for me. Why? All I can pinpoint is my irritation at Rohr's focus on logic and words to explain spiritual ideas. It fell short somehow for me.