…so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. Eph. 4:14-16
The Talk
This article offers further thoughts on a talk given by Tim Mackie, dated Oct. 10, 2022 (I was unable to find the original video dated Oct. 7, 2022). I also found another video of this talk but I am not sure the videos are exactly the same since they could have been edited.
I wrote about concerns I had with this talk in this CANA article and it might be helpful to read that in conjunction with this one, since this present article attempts to explain further why a view of reality based on Scripture is paramount.
The first part of this article discusses comments made in a video (no longer online) about Mackie’s talk because in listening to those parts of Mackie’s talk again, I had fresh thoughts and explanations for my concerns.
Part 2 is a follow up about why Mackie’s statements about reality are not biblical, and Part 3 offers thoughts on the use of the term “consciousness” and reality from a bibical perspective.
Other concerns regarding Tim Mackie related to influence from Open Theist Gregory Boyd and others are in this CANA article and in this one specifically on Boyd.
Part 1: The “Rediscovery of Prayer” and Another Reality
In a brief video (apparently no longer online) but which plays clips from the Bridgetown talk, the host points out that Mackie wrote the Foreword to Tyler Staton’s book, Praying Like Monks, Living Like Fools (Staton became pastor of Bridgetown Church in Portland, Oregon, after John Mark Comer stepped down).
A clip is played in which Mackie makes three points about prayer. In hearing these portions again, I noticed things I did not notice before. In the video, Mackie states that he has had
“a rediscovery of prayer and the presence of God in a way I knew about as a set of ideas and it is becoming for me a set of experiences that are reframing how I see everything.”
Becoming a Christian will reframe how one sees everything, especially if one becomes a Christian as an adult. However, once a person is a Christian, it should not be the case that something causes one to reframe how they view everything unless one has fallen into false teachings. Gaining insight, yes; a deepening understanding, yes; changes in perspective, yes, but not reframing how one sees everything. This implies a change in worldview. (This article will give more evidence for such a change and an advocacy for it by Mackie).
The ”rediscovery of prayer” is likely a reference to Mackie’s statement in the Bridgetown talk that he learned about prayer from Thomas Keating. Thomas Keating (d. 2018) was one of the three Trappist monks who founded the modern Centering Prayer Movement (see CANA critique).
This reframing appears to indicate a major change in how Mackie views reality.
According to Mackie:
“Apparently, Jesus and Paul and the biblical authors have a really, really different way of seeing reality. Apparently, Paradise in the Bible is a symbol, an image. But it is a way of describing something fundamental to how Jesus and the biblical authors saw reality, and that imaginative picture of the world is this: that somehow there is a truest, most foundational, most fundamental dimension of reality that is actually undergirding and making all the rest of reality possible. But that reality is not perceptible to our five senses and it is not perceivable in the four dimensions that we inhabit….(snip)…it’s more real than anything else, it’s a person.”
Mackie then states that Jesus is Paradise and is the “eternal now.” Mackie expresses that he wants by “habit formation” to adopt the way of seeing the world that Jesus did. Concerns about this idea are explained in the following sections, “Paradise” and “The Eternal Now.”
Paradise
Is Paradise a symbol or an actual place, meaning to be with God? Jesus himself referred to it in his words to the thief on the cross:
“I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
Paul refers to it in Second Corinthians 12:4 and Jesus speaks of it in Revelation 2:7. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses the word paradise to refer to the Garden of Eden.
Is Jesus Paradise? One could say that paradise must have Jesus or it would not be Paradise, but it seems to be a stretch to claim that Jesus is Paradise, especially when for Mackie, paradise seems to be another reality.
Mackie said in the talk that he must “open himself” using
“practices that are very ancient and that go back to the prayer habits of Jesus, then I can open myself to Paradise now in ways that will break your vision of reality.”
Mackie is referring to what are called the Spiritual Disciplines. Practicing these will “break” one’s “vision of reality.” Mackie has been promoting these disciplines (also part of what is called Spiritual Formation) as in this video where Mackie promotes practices such as Lectio Divina.
Were what are called the Disciplines the “prayer habits of Jesus?” I contend they are not and have not found biblical support for that view. Scriptures given for this claim have the idea of the disciplines read into them; the disciplines are not properly exegeted from the text. That issue is discussed in several CANA articles such as this one, and this one.
And why is breaking a Christian’s vision of reality a good thing? And why would God desire that? To alter perception of reality is the purpose and trademark of spiritual esoteric beliefs.
The Eternal Now
Is Jesus the “Eternal Now?” (Frankly, this reminds me of Buddhism because a major idea in Buddhism is that all that exists is the now — be in the present).
Linking Jesus with a concept such as “the eternal now” does not seem helpful and is confusing. Words about Jesus found in Scripture, such as Redeemer, Savior, Shepherd, Judge, Bread of life, King, the Lamb, and so forth, are more accurate and far more edifying. Let Scripture give the picture of Jesus, not an abstract rather undefined concept that seems linked to Buddhism or perhaps to some man-based philosophy.
A Different Reality?
As for needing to have view of reality broken and Jesus having a different way of seeing reality, which Mackie claims – first we should ask, how do we know how Jesus saw the world? Answer: We know how he saw things from what is in the Bible.
Jesus as God the Son saw reality as fully God, fully man, a state no man has or can have. What one can know and needs to know about how Jesus saw things is made clear in Scripture in the very words of Jesus. In other words, the recorded words of Jesus give the view of reality we need; we do not have to wonder about another way Jesus may have viewed reality in order to see it the way God wants us to see it.
Here is the critical issue: In positing another way to see reality, which Mackie seems to suggest is needed, it is important to realize there is only one actual objective reality and the way for Christians to “see” it is through God’s word. There is not a reality more real than another reality, as Mackie’s remarks strongly suggest. This is like saying that there is a truth truer than another truth.
Mackie’s ideas reminded me of a line in Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling:
Ask Me to open your eyes so that you can find me everywhere….[….]…..this is not some sort of escape from reality; it is tuning into the ultimate reality. I am far more Real than the world you can see, hear and touch. (July 18)
I commented on this in one of my articles:
If Jesus is real, does he need to be “more Real?” Is there such a thing as “more Real?” Does He need to be the “ultimate reality?” Is not being the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Lamb slain for our sins enough? (Excerpt from CANA article)
Who created reality? Of course, God did. It is the Eastern religions, the occult, New Thought and the New Age that claim the reality we see and live in is not the “true” reality or that we need a new perception of reality. Although Mackie is not making this specific claim, he is making claims suggestive of or parallel to those views about reality.
The prophets were given visions by God which only they experienced, but this was how God revealed the truths he wanted them and us to have. This does not mean they saw reality differently or that they perceived another reality. To say this might suggest that we cannot trust the reality we perceive now, the one that God created for humanity. Or it might suggest that the reality we know is insufficient for the Christian life, which is exactly what can be inferred from Mackie’s remarks.
Part 2, Further Reflections on Mackie’s Talk
The feedback I received from my initial write-up about Mackie’s Bridgetown talk motivated me to clarify my concerns with Mackie’s talk since it seemed that many did not understand the issues with this notion of another reality.
In that first article, I commented on a statement made by Mackie about Ezekiel:
“Ezekiel allegedly had a ‘severe alteration of consciousness’ when he had his vision in Ezekiel chapter 8. This explains, according to Mackie, the different views of reality Ezekiel and other biblical characters had, and their other “states of consciousness.” This did not need to be spelled out to anyone when the Bible was written, claims Mackie, because they all ‘took it for granted.’
I do not think there is evidence for this in the text; furthermore, I think that seeking such states as well as the belief in “different levels of reality” is contra God and the Bible. A forthcoming article will address this issue and attempt to explain why this is not compatible with Scripture.”
This article you are reading now is that “forthcoming article,” over two years in the making.
I think the reason that some did not see the issues in the Paradise talk are because in the church
-
- There are assumptions that Mackie is a scholar who is always biblical and cannot be wrong.
- Very few know who Thomas Keating was or understand the influences on Keating (such as Carl Jung, Buddhist/Perennialist Ken Wilber, and possibly Richard Rohr).
- Very few people likely know or understand what contemplative spirituality is or its lack of foundation in Scripture.
- There is a minimizing of the importance of absolute truth and objective truth in the church, and a turn toward experiences and subjectivity. I am not even sure that the meaning of objective truth is understood or that it even matters anymore. It certainly does not matter in the culture and this thinking appears to have infiltrated the church.
The Heart and the Whole Person
This is from the previous article on the Bridgetown talk:
“Mackie states he started seeing a Spiritual Director who told Mackie to start every day by sitting in a long period of silence asking God to speak to ‘the whole of me’ in some way outside of his “normal” way of engaging with God.”
How else would God speak to someone but to the “whole” of the person? This statement reveals a belief that the mind is not sufficient for receiving God’s guidance; therefore, God must speak to other parts of the self. However, God communicates with our whole being all the time, which includes what is popularly called “the mind and heart.”
The Bible refers to the whole person with language such as “mind, heart, soul, and strength” (said by Jesus in Luke 10:27). This phrase refers to one’s will, mind, spirit – in other words, the whole self. God speaks to the whole self all the time; speaking to one’s heart or anything else apart from the mind is impossible and nonsensical. We can only process ideas and language with the mind.
Ironically and rather irrationally, to ask God to speak to a part of you outside of the normal way (which implies the mind, as I think Mackie makes clear in the talk) requires the mind itself to formulate the question asking God to speak to the supposed “you” outside of your mind.
Missing Out?
The lure used by Contemplative teachers in separating the mind and heart is to make Christians believe that only the mind has been involved in spiritual things, and therefore, one is missing out. One “needs” Contemplative practices to have true intimacy with God and to go “deeper” with God because then supposedly the “heart” will be involved. This is a false claim based on a fallacy (false dichotomy between mind and heart) and misinterpretation of Scripture.
Not surprisingly, contemplative teachings downgrade the mind by elevating what they view as the heart (or sometimes the spirit or soul). Words, which are linked to the mind, are debased while silence is elevated. Silence as profound or sacred is an integral part of esoteric teachings found in areas outside of Christian contemplative practices. But it is self-refuting to promote silence over words and thoughts because one must use words and thinking to do so. It is a hallmark of false systems to make inconsistent and self-refuting claims.
Contemplative spirituality is a form of Neo-Gnostic esotericism. By “esoteric” is meant ideas or truths that must be understood via experiences and/or hidden teachings not apparent in the normative reading of a text, and not verbally communicable. The experiential part is the mystical part; mysticism is a category of esotericism. Mysticism is based on subjective perceptions and experiences that are usually deemed to be ineffable.
Scriptures used by Contemplative teachers in attempts to promote their ideas are inevitably taken out of context, given another meaning, and/or misinterpreted. For examples, see articles here and here.
Since Mackie claimed he learned about prayer from Thomas Keating, it is important to understand what the late Keating taught. A good example is Keating’s statement that “God’s first language was silence.” But how would anyone know that even supposing it were true? This is an example of the contemplative take on God, which is a false one, and its mystical anti-mind bias (so very familiar to me from my New Age days!).
Moreover, the first thing we learn about God in Scripture is that God spoke and things came to be. Keating, one of the three founders of the modern Centering/Contemplative Prayer Movement, promoted the idea that silence is superior to words, and this principle is basic to Contemplative teachings.
However, God gave his revelation in words, which is the canon of scripture. Prior to that, God gave revelation directly to prophets, including dreams and visions, but these were accompanied by words or later verbally explained. Words are in logical sequence and understood with the mind but affect all areas of a person, including emotions and the spirit. So although words are understood with the mind, they influence and effect the whole person. This is how God wired humans. Contemplatives seem to think God has overlooked how to communicate with us.
Going “Deeper”
Contemplative teachers claim one can have a “deeper” or “more intimate” relationship with God via their s0-called ancient practices that supposedly offer an intimacy superior to regular reading/study of the Bible and verbal prayers. (The appeal to “ancient practices” is pervasive in the Contemplative movement, as though that alone gives it validity, assuming it is even “ancient”).
Perhaps one wishes to “feel” closer to God. In that case, one is seeking an experience and this is what contemplatives offer. However, nothing in the Bible teaches that one should conjure up experiences. All experiences, including dreams and contact with angels, given to prophets or others in the Bible were initiated by God, not by humans.
If “deeper” means a fuller or better relationship with God, the Bible gives all the guidance one needs for that. Maturing in Christ, which is the process of sanctification, is how one grows closer to the Lord. But biblical guidance is not what is offered by contemplatives because experiences are placed above words or using the mind and biblical guidance is viewed as limiting. This can be seen in words from Ruth Haley Barton, which I wrote about in an article:
“Barton disparages regular Bible reading and study as an information-gathering mindset that is analytical and may make us critical and even judgmental.” (From CANA article on Ruth Haley Barton; bolded text indicates Barton’s words in the original).
Whatever is labeled as Christian teaching should be based on the words and principles of the Bible. Any teaching based on God’s word will not downgrade thinking or words.
Part 3: Consciousness and Reality
The normal use of “consciousness” means awareness, usually through sensory input. One is aware of one’s surroundings using consciousness. “Consciousness” can also mean an “inner awareness,” such as being aware of one’s thoughts and feelings. These are normal states of consciousness.
The Altered State
Mackie claims that Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors “have a different way of seeing reality than most of us do.” He states there is also a “state of consciousness” which is an “altered state” and that Jacob, Ezekiel, and John were in this state. This accounts for their alleged different views of reality, according to Mackie. This consciousness as described by Mackie is not the normal consciousness of sensory input or awareness of thoughts and feelings.
If the biblical authors and Jesus are not viewing reality the same way as everyone else, then their words are going to have different meanings than what the rest of us are experiencing as reality. Yes, there are different views of reality – but there is only one objectively true reality. For 2,000 years, it has been understood by Christians that the biblical view of reality is the correct one and views contrary to that are false.
I had another view of reality as a New Ager, but it did not line up with the biblical view of reality, and my New Age worldview gave me other measurements for truth, for who God is, who Jesus is, why I am here, etc. The biblical view is based on God’s word so one would reasonably assume that Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors had the same view of reality as expressed by God in his word. It is irrational to think they did not have this view or had another one.
Jesus knows more about reality than any human, of course, but knowing more is not the same as having a “different view” of reality. If what Mackie claims is true, how do we know which version of reality is being presented in the Bible, and how does it differ from the normative reality of a Christian? Must one achieve this other view to truly know God or understand Scripture (I think that Mackie and other contemplatives believe that).
Richard Rohr, a heretical teacher and heavy promoter of contemplation, says this about the state of mind being changed by contemplative practices, which sounds eerily like Mackie’s ideas:
“The teaching of the contemplative mind gets to the heart of the matter because it changes consciousness, and thus transforms how we relate to ourselves, each other, and God. I believe it is the key to experiencing what Jesus calls ‘metanoia’ and St. Paul refers to as the ‘new mind.’ Jesus modeled it, and the desert mothers and fathers in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Cappadocia understood and cultivated it. It was taught systematically in monasteries for centuries. It is a treasure of our Christian tradition. From Rohr’s blog, July 1, 2022
“Metanoia” is the word usually translated as “repentance,” meaning to change one’s mind. Rohr does not mean repentance, as in repenting of sins, since Rohr does not believe one needs to repent of sins or that one needs salvation (since all have always been in God according to Perennial Wisdom). Rohr is speaking of a state of consciousness achieved via contemplation, the same altered state I achieved when doing Eastern spiritual meditation, and the same state seemingly referred to by Mackie.
While working on this article, I came across an article by Bob DeWaay critiquing Greg Boyd’s spiritual warfare views. Since Mackie has favorably quoted Open Theist Boyd elsewhere, and has made statements that reflect Boyd’s influence, it was eye-opening and insightful to discover that Boyd believes that the Old Testament authors had different views of reality. DeWaay writes:
“Dr. Greg Boyd describes the warfare worldview as that being held by pagans, but simultaneously claims it to be the view the Biblical authors held. I find his perspective amazing. He discusses the view of a particular pagan society: ‘The Shuar Indians of eastern Ecuador believe that there are two levels of reality: the ‘ordinary’ physical world, which we experience with our senses, and the ‘real’ one, which is experienced occasionally, and mostly in dreams or in shamanic journeys.’1 In this view the ‘real’ world is the world of the spirits which is not that accessible. But it is considered the cause of things in the ‘unreal’ physical world. Boyd explains, ‘This invisible society of spirits is behind everything that occurs in the physical world—though one has to see past ‘the lie’ to discern this society.’”
This idea of different realities in Mackie’s talk deeply disturbed me because this changed consciousness is what I practiced and achieved as a New Ager and it drastically diverges from the reality presented in God’s word.
Another Consciousness for the Biblical Authors?
Mackie uses the term “different forms of consciousness,” as though the visions given to prophets involved certain states of mind. This idea actually undermines God’s revelation. God’s revelation to the prophets and to us are all part of the normal way of understanding with the mind.
The prophets did not have to have another state of consciousness to have God’s revelation nor did they need to be in another reality. If that were true, then we would need another form or state of consciousness to read God’s word. Even though the Holy Spirit teaches believers through God’s word, that does not require a special state of mind or consciousness. This kind of thinking is esoteric, not just New Age. It is part of many esoteric philosophies and beliefs that one must change one’s consciousness, which refers to changing one’s view of reality or uncovering the true nature of reality.
What happened with Jacob, Ezekiel, and John is that they received a revelation from God, whether it was a dream or a vision. These are singular experiences initiated by God and there is no basis to call them an “altered state of consciousness.” We do not know how this was done, nor do we need to know.
Altered states result from hypnosis and are not natural (Eastern, occult, and New Age forms of meditation also put one into an altered state). Nor are such states productive. In fact, these states of mind suppress the critical thinking mind, and the thinking mind is one way we are made in the image of God. Nothing in Scripture is against the mind nor are people told not to think. But Mackie’s talk downgrades the mind throughout.
Mackie claims that we were in more innocent states as children, but this state is messed up by outside conditioning as we experience life and get input from others. This sounds alarmingly like many ideas I heard in the New Age because it underlies a view that humanity is corrupted by false views, not sin.
Unlearning
Interestingly, Richard Rohr, who is quoted by and apparently admired by John Mark Comer (and Comer’s influence on Mackie is apparent), teaches that contemplative practices change one’s consciousness in a process of “unlearning.” Rohr believes unlearning is necessary because Christianity has been corrupted and so what is taught in churches lacks key insights (such as nondual mysticism as offered by Rohr).
The reason I think Mackie’s statements about consciousness caused no alarm is either because people assumed it meant something other than what it does, or they did not understand it as problematic.
Mackie is talking not just about different states of consciousness, but about other realities. But there is only one reality. Although a big part of reality is unseen by humans (the angelic realm, where God dwells, and where those who have died outside of Christ are), it is not another reality. Some may argue and say Mackie only used that phrase to mean something we cannot see. But Mackie is articulate and careful with his words; he could have said something else if he did not mean “reality.”
What this adds up to is mysticism, and a mystical view is a natural result of contemplative practices that apparently have captivated Mackie. Mysticism is not a matter of transcending logic or thought; it is actually contra logic and thought. This is why all contemplative teachings downgrade the mind . It is always found in esoteric teachings that there is something profound beyond words and reason that one can experience – a hidden or secret experience and/or wisdom. This is exactly how I thought for over 20 years.
Mackie is planting not only the idea that gaining perception of “another reality” or a “super reality” is positive, but he is offering the means for it through the contemplative practices, which will alter perceptions over time.
I was troubled by Mackie’s talk because I saw evidence of this contemplative influence in Mackie’s apparent concept of reality, which is more esoteric than biblical. It reminded me of how I thought in the New Age until Christ freed me from that esoteric darkness into his eternal life and light.
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:13-14
Addendum:
Manipulating how one views reality is not just part of esoteric beliefs but is also found in cults. From the site of Landmark Forum (formerly est):
“In this session, we inquire into how our identity – who we consider ourselves to be – got created. The process began in childhood, as we gradually adopted ways of being and acting to deal successfully with things that didn’t quite go the way we thought they should. By the time we reach adulthood, we have assembled a set of practices and approaches, attributes and characteristics, that seem to give us a certain measure of success – that make up our personality, our style, who we consider ourselves to be.
When we begin to see that our identity was put together in response to something that we had determined shouldn’t be, the result is a new freedom in saying who we are – a fundamental shift in what we see and know as possible.”
This is similar to not only what Mackie was saying about how we “lose” a supposed innocence of childhood, but is what is believed in the New Age and in the occult and taught by Rohr as “unlearning.” Landmark is claiming to be able to free you of this wrong identity so that you can have a “shift” and see who you really are.
Note: Since I first wrote this article, the quoted statement above from Landmark is no longer there. It is replaced by another one expressing a similar idea but with more subtlety:
“Here we propose the view that in all human endeavors, context is decisive. That is, the hidden contexts from which we live determine what we see and what we don’t see; what we consider and what we fail to notice; what we are able to do and what seems beyond our reach. In this view, all behavior—all ways of being and acting—are correlated to the context(s) from which we live our lives.
When these contexts become apparent and known, we can begin to see the unwitting process by which they were assembled, and the degree to which they govern our everyday lives. We are left, possibly for the first time, with a choice about who we are and who we can be, separate from these contexts. There is a freedom and ability to take action that was unavailable before – even familiar actions produce a whole new level of effectiveness.”
Short link: https://shorturl.at/52hHx