Throughout this project it has been my main purpose to draw
out those elements within Frannie’s teachings which are derived from New Age
spirituality. Keep in mind that I do not reject anything that may be good and
true in anything that she says. While I wish to uncover her teachings for all
to see, this does not equate with the notion that everything she ever says is
heretical. I only wish to inform the reader of those propositions which are
contrary to Catholic theology.
The Effectiveness of
New Age Influence
One of the elements of the New Age which makes it so
attractive is that it contains elements of truth which are extremely helpful.
For instance, people who find themselves struggling with excessive anxiety may
find a sense of peace by learning how to enjoy the moment. Many people can
easily find a new sense of purpose in their life as a result of their influence
by New Age gurus. Sometimes this new sense of purpose can be so radical that it
takes a person from the brink of suicide to a new state of consciousness which
revolutionizes the entire paradigm of their lives. In fact, people of many
different faiths can connect to some aspects of the New Age movement and have a
false sense of kinship. Consider Oprah Winfrey and the impact that she has made
in the lives of people. Yet she is incredibly immersed in the New Age and
strongly promotes Eckhart Tolle. If such endeavors did not affect any change at
all then very few people would take it seriously.
The New Age movement thrives on elements of timeless truth
found in any number of religions. People who find themselves inspired by some
truthful element can very easily end up accepting the entire system of thought.
One has such a positive experience that they conclude that the context must be
true. They are like one drinking water from a cactus plant after dragging
themselves over a desert and become influenced by the hallucinogenic properties
that it might contain. Of those who are thoroughly committed to their
particular religious affiliation can attest to some life changing element
which, from their perspective, adds credence to the entire system of thought.
The religious experience serves as the orienting event for the acceptance of
teachings which approximated the occasion. However, from what we have observed
of human behavior such a subjective experience cannot be the basis for determining
truth since the systems of thought to which they adhere radically differ from one
another.
Self-Referential Incoherence
Some like Frannie Rose or Eckhart Tolle may say that they don’t
really have anything that they are teaching anyone, and that any exclusive
faiths claims are only manifestations of the egoic mind. One of the ways that
brainwashing works is to characterize all opposing views in a negative light,
such as linking all the world’s religions to the egoic mind. In one quick brush
they have painted everything other than what they teach to be something to
avoid. However, neither Frannie nor Tolle would be writing books and doing
seminars if they did not think that they have something to teach. And they
would not spend their time in these endeavors if they had no sense that they were
right, and opposing ideas were wrong. This
method is self-refuting because the principle is being applied to every idea
outside itself but never applied to itself in the same way. For example, one
could teach that everything that is taught in the New Age is a manifestation of
the egoic mind. In fact, let’s just say that the idea of religion being the
mere manifestation of the egoic mind is itself a manifestation of the egoic
mind and therefore no escape from the egoic mind is actually possible, and that
what Tolle proposes is just another illusion, another layer of lies that the
mind tells us. What is it about the propositions of New Age teaching that are
somehow exempt from being seen as just another worldview built upon a set of
presuppositions derived from the egoic mind?
Frannie’s Thought on
Unlearning
On one of the episodes of Rocky Mountain Views, hosted by
Martha Thompson, Frannie has stated the following:
“A lot of what we do is fill up our heads with stuff we've
learned from outside us which lays heavy and covers the wisdom that God is
giving deep inside us... so the more we have stuck in our heads the harder it
is for us to hear that wisdom... we have to literally clear some of that stuff
which I call unlearning.”
·
What does she mean by what we have “learned from
outside us”?
Since we are not God all learning takes place by observing
that which lies outside of ourselves. There is a distinction between that which
is on the other side of the room and that which is not part of our nature. If
we are listening to wisdom that God speaks to our hearts then it still lies
outside of our nature. Our substance is distinct from God, we were created from
nothing. God is not the core of our nature in any ontological manner, nor are
we an emanation from him, rather we are as distinct from God as a creator is
from his creation. Therefore we do not have innate ideas nor is there some
collective unconsciousness, a concept which Jung felt was proved by his
principle of synchronicity. A book by Jung by the name Synchronicity can be found in the reading list of Frannie’s book,
Fixing Frannie.
·
Why is it that she characterizes things that
we have learned from outside us in a negative light?
Well, consider this, if she can lead you to question
propositions which you hold to be true, then it will make you more
impressionable to accept a different set of propositions. This is effective because
not every proposition is maintained with the same level of certainty. If a
person who has had a strong religious experience and holds to a certain
proposition merely as a result of this subjective experience, then there would
most likely be no rational basis for holding said proposition. Likewise, even
those in the Catholic Church who have been poorly catechized from birth and
have had no deep religious experience will have a longing for something that
sounds different and have little to no rational basis for what they presently
maintain. There are a lot of factors which make people vulnerable to influence.
The problem with the method which Frannie proposes is that it
has an element of truth to it. If a person is never willing to question their
ideas then they will never have the opportunity to move from falsehood to that which
is true. For example, if a person believes that Frannie’s teachings are perfectly
compatible with Catholic theology then they can never see the absurdity of this
position if they were to never question it. Interestingly enough she couches
this method within some propositions of her own. And I think that we should
certainly draw these propositions into question:
1) “The mind is a wonderful tool, it does amazing things, but
leading us to God is not one of them”
2) “You let our minds lead us away from God, making Him
complex...they tell us what God is and what he isn't, and what he can't be...
our minds don't know anything about this our minds tell us what God thinks...
the mind knows nothing about the experience...”
3) “What you think about God is what your mind has made up
about God what you have heard from others about God... but is not your
experience.”
As you can see the entire premise that underlies the reason why
we are to empty the mind of propositions is based upon her propositions. We are
just exchanging one set of propositions for another.
A Whole World of
Theologians
One might be tempted to think that the entire world is broken
up into two different types of people: those who are theologians and those who
are not. To the contrary, we are all theologians. The question is not whether
or not one is a theologian but whether
we are a good theologian or a bad theologian. The same is true of philosophers. We are all
engaging in the task of theology every time we ask a question or propose a
proposition for consideration. For example, Frannie tells us that leading us to
God is not one of the things that the mind does. This is clearly an assessment
of how she views the role of the intellect among the other powers of the soul.
She also tells us that the heart is distinct from the mind, which is clearly an
assessment of how the powers of the soul relate to one another, if she views
the intellect as part of the soul at all. Those who have not given much thought
to these matters, nor considered the ‘heart’ in biblical theology as I had
demonstrated in my previous post, may be hearing ‘answers’ to theological
questions which they have never asked, and therefore have no way of determining
whether what is being said is true or not. People who are not familiar with a
particular area of thought are much more impressionable and open to suggestion.
It would be a mistake to think that everything that Frannie
teaches does not flow from a set of propositions which comprise a theology that
she is propagating every time she teaches. While she is asking us to empty our
minds, we would be doing so while following another set of propositions which
serve as the sufficient reason for the act. In such a method there is no real
emptying of the mind which is taking place since it is purposed activity as an
act of the will, a rational appetite which is an inclination to the good which
is presented to the intellect. Aquinas says, "an act of the will is nothing other than
an inclination which proceeds from an interior cognizing principle...."[i] Once
again, the entire premise that underlies the reason why she propose for
us to empty the mind of propositions is based upon her propositions.
No comments:
Post a Comment