Page 1 of 49
By David Lee Burris
https://youtu.be/AosAaTR17TE Page 2 of 49
The Church of Oprah Winfrey- -A New American Religion?
Albert Mohler | President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary | Tuesday, November 29, 2005
By any measure, Oprah Winfrey is one of the most successful women in America. Her net worth is now thought to exceed one billion dollars, and her expanding media empire is one of the great success stories of the modern entertainment industry. She recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of "The Oprah Show," and is committed to a contract that will take the show through its twenty-fifth season. She regularly appears at the top of the "Most Admired Women" listings and has become a cultural icon, complete with her own magazine and product lines. But is there more to the meaning of Oprah Winfrey?
Marcia Z. Nelson sees Oprah as a major American religious leader. In her book The Gospel According to Oprah, Nelson presents her as the symbol and catalyst for a new American religion. "Oprah Winfrey, talk show host, film producer, and philanthropist, is not ordained. She is neither preacher nor religious professional. Yet her multimedia empire, built over two decades, has given her the scope and stature of an influential leader. Oprah has a prominent pulpit from which to preach," Nelson insists. Oprah's television audience of ten million (according to Nielsen ratings) and her magazine readership of 2.7 million together represent a massive media phenomenon.
As Nelson explains, "Oprah's whole enterprise, which includes many media that provide platforms for her gospel as well as sources of income, is vast." Nelson's book represents an effort to understand Oprah Winfrey as an exemplar and prophetess of a new form of American religion. In reality, Oprah is probably best understood as a highly-talented representative of the religion of positive thinking that has shaped American culture for at least the last two centuries. In this role, Oprah continues and extends a line of religious thought that replaces the transcendent with the temporal and looks for fulfillment and success as the goods of a satisfying life.
In Oprah Winfrey, Marcia Nelson has found a figure of such influence and reach that she may well represent the mainstreaming of her own life philosophy. Page 3 of 49
Of course, Oprah's primary audience is comprised of women. "Oprah is primarily the voice of women in the middle: middle-class middle Americans," Nelson explains. Through her television show, magazine, and book club, Oprah reaches out to these women with a message of self-improvement, empowerment, and self-actualization.
Watching "The Oprah Show" is, Nelson insists, something like attending a worship service. "Go to this house of worship and sit down for an inspiring hour that will engage you and give you a lift," Nelson encourages. "An hour-long show five days a week adds up to a lot more pulpit time per week than the average pastor enjoys, and Oprah commands a lot bigger congregation."
Nelson's book is genuinely interesting, offering credible and helpful insights into the Oprah phenomenon. At the same time, Nelson gushes over the meaning of Oprah and seems to celebrate Oprah's redefinition of religious experience. Indeed, she goes so far as to refer to Oprah as a symbol of spiritual renewal. "In other words, it is not just talk, but talk that's been tested in life's fires--talk is testimony," she asserts. "As Oprah would say, this is about getting real. This is the language of authenticity. A preference for the freshness and vividness of experience over what can seem like the dull dryness of institutional faith is hardly new, of course. Spiritual renewal has ever been thus."
Oprah repackages spirituality. "She translates what religions would term transcendent into something that is inspiring but secular. She would call it a vision of possibilities. She has tried to develop her own unique language, which means talking about values in a secular and inclusive sense in a religiously pluralistic country."
The Oprah phenomenon is based in self-disclosure, confession, testimony, and talk-- lots of talk. Episodes of "The Oprah Show" often deal with abuse, frustration, and the search for fulfillment. Guests are routinely encouraged to confess their wrongdoing, claim their promise, and move into a new phase of their lives, empowered and encouraged by Oprah and the experience of sharing their inner lives with millions of television viewers. In this sense, Oprah's television show promises something like a secular catharsis--complete with Oprah's validation of their problems, their desires, and their self-analysis. Nelson suggests that Oprah's influence is based in her gift for listening and her knowledge that self-disclosure and personal testimony offer a means of liberation. Of course, this dependence upon disclosure and confession also makes for good ratings--and Oprah understands what interests a television audience. Page 4 of 49
As Nelson explains: "On Oprah's show, abuse may be the subject of a show, followed the next day by an entertainer. However morally laudable or pressing, unrelieved focus on abuse or mistreatment or any of the world's pressing needs doesn't make for good ratings, either. Without good ratings, the television platform Oprah needs to 'get people to think about things a little differently' would vanish."
In the course of her research, Nelson approached scholars of American religion, asking them "whether they could think of Oprah as a teacher who advanced a kind of entry-level religion that included the same core values many religions promote." When Oprah was criticized for offering meaning but without community, Nelson counters by suggesting that Oprah's television show and reading club offer one form of community, even as her expanding presence on the internet promises "virtual community."
Oprah Winfrey's approach to life centers in self-analysis and positive thinking. Of course, material abundance also plays a part. "Oprah believes in abundance, a concept not generally associated with religion," Nelson acknowledges. "A lot of people think of religion as requiring asceticism and poverty--giving up goods, denying personal desires. And for good reason." By offering an array of product recommendations and endorsements, and by filling her magazine with advertisements for expensive products and services, Oprah clearly associates the good life with material fulfillment.
In keeping with the theme of positive thinking, and with the ideology of spiritual movements of this kind, Oprah's secularized spirituality includes few rules or moral judgments. "Oprah is famously nonjudgmental and empathetic," Nelson explains. Even as she features programs on romance, dating, marriage, and parenting, Oprah remains unmarried. Her non-judgmentalism extends to her own lifestyle, even as she has publicly acknowledged the fact that she lives with her longtime boyfriend, Stedman Graham.
When Oprah refers to God, she is clear to insist that this means no specific god and entails no particular theological commitments. Nelson refers to Oprah's treatment of religion on her program as "a non-sectarian picture" in which theological content "is present but not primary." In other words, "God is acknowledged as necessary, but the language doesn't insist on that. It's soft sell." Page 5 of 49
As Nelson understands the Oprah phenomenon, forgiveness is at the center of Oprah's message. Nevertheless, Oprah offers forgiveness without atonement. Confession of inadequacy is presented as a sufficient remedy for wrongdoing. God’s effectively out of the picture as lawgiver or judge, and there is no room for the cross of Christ as atonement for sin.
"Oprah's 'New Age' talk about spirit was part of her ongoing, ever evolving attempt to find the right words for teachings she learned through religion," Nelson suggests. "Her spiritually inclusive language is also intended to be unique--the language she alone speaks that makes her inspiring and distinctly herself. For marketing reasons as well as for her own sense of mission, she's putting her own stamp on the language, on the words she uses, on the culture, where the 'Oprah effect' and 'Oprahfication' and 'She Oprah'ed it out of me' are terms that have been coined to describe her pervasive influence and style."
Oprah's faith wears no labels, Nelson insists. Oprah "talks often enough about values that her audience can see she is value driven, even if the values and beliefs don't wear a specific denominational label," Nelson observes. As she explains, "Oprah's clothes may wear labels, but her faith does not."
New York University professor Paul Vitz once observed, "Contemporary psychology is a form of secular humanism based on the rejection of God and the worship of the self." In her substitution of psychology for theology, Oprah Winfrey has become a high priestess & icon of the psychologization of American society. When she features prominent New Age figures on her television show, she helps to mainstream New Age philosophies among millions of Americans. Her substitution of spirituality for biblical Christianity, her promotion of forgiveness without atonement, and her references to a god "without labels" puts her at the epicenter of a seismic cultural earthquake. Oprah's newly-packaged positive-thinking spirituality is tailor-made for the empty souls of our postmodern age. She promises meaning without truth, acceptance without judgment, and fulfillment without self-denial.
Page 6 of 49
Oprah Winfrey and a Theology of Suffering
“Ms. Oprah Winfrey has religious antecedents besides the black church. Kathryn Lofton argues in her new book, “Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon,” that to understand Ms. Winfrey it helps to know Charles Grandison Finney, the great antebellum evangelist.
In his 1830 revival campaign in Rochester, Mr. Finney formalized the “anxious bench,” a pew/altar where sinners congregated while members of the crowd prayed for them to repent or become Christians. A whole plotline revolved around the bench, and worshipers eagerly anticipated its ritual. Who would sit there? Would they be saved? “At every point,” Dr. Lofton writes, “the preacher prodded, focused, named and decried.”
Dr. Lofton argues that in an atmosphere suffused with Ms. Winfrey’s beliefs in miracles, angels and pervasive spirituality, audience members got to see guests participate in “the familiar ritual turn of daily confession and rejuvenation.” Whether the day’s show featured the organization expert decluttering somebody’s home or “confessions of a once-upon-a- time Haitian child slave,” the redemptive plot arc, the payoff of deliverance, was the same. And like the best hellfire preachers, Ms. Winfrey could be merciless in exacting those confessions. “Guests are forced to admit their worst transgressions.”
Yet the Church of Winfrey is at most partly Christian. Her show featured a wide, if drearily similar, cast of New Age gurus. As Karlyn Crowley writes in her contribution to “Stories of Oprah: The Oprahfication of American Culture,” an essay collection published last year, Ms. Winfrey excelled at offering “spiritual alternatives to the mainstream religions” in which many of her followers grew up. Ms. Winfrey presided over something like a “New Age feminist congregation,” Dr. Crowley writes.
In her earnest spiritual seeking, Ms. Winfrey gave platforms to some rather questionable types. She hosted the self-help author Louise Hay, who once said Holocaust victims may have been paying for sins in a previous life. She championed the “medical intuitive” Caroline Myss, who claims emotional distress causes cancer. She helped launch Rhonda Byrne, creator of the DVD and book “The Secret,” who teaches that just thinking about wealth can make you rich. She invited the “psychic medium” John Edward to help mourners in her audience talk to their dead relatives.” - Mark Oppenheimer Page 7 of 49
The Ministry The confluence of her determination to make something noble of her show and the new stream of spirituality she had tapped into while filming Beloved led to a transformation of The Oprah Winfrey Show. She had new confidence, new wealth, and a new source of spiritual power. She also may have had a dose of anger after the film that was to be her Schindler’s List failed and failed embarrassingly. She decided that it was time to expose the world to the eclectic spirituality that had privately empowered and inspired her through the years. No longer would she honor her divine self through meditation, chanting, candle lighting, and ancestor worship in the morning and then later in the day tape a program about children being murdered. It was time to lead a spiritual revolution, to begin the awakening. The vision born the night of her fortieth birthday party was about to be fulfilled. For the 1999–2000 season, she announced a campaign called “Change Your Life” television. Women who had tuned into her show to learn about the latest thrilling household appliances or about Oprah’s favorite fragrances or to hear celebrity gossip or to revel in disgust at the nasty underbelly of American society were now introduced to a religious revolution. Insisting that religion and spirituality are two different things—“religion is what you belong to but spirituality is what you do”— Oprah began to lead her audiences into an alternative stream of supernatural living of a kind that had seldom been aired on television and certainly not before a daytime audience. Suddenly, women who attended their Baptist church on Sunday mornings or their Methodist Bible study on Tuesdays or who carried pictures of the pope and wore crucifixes—or who watched T. D. Jakes or Pat Robertson or Joel Osteen nodding with approval—were immersed into a way of seeing themselves and the world that was unlike anything they had known.
Page 8 of 49
They were also introduced to an Oprah Winfrey they had not met before. The Oprah they had known was the black Baptist woman who had risen above poverty, prejudice, and sexual abuse to carve out a media empire. Their Oprah was rich and certainly among the elite, but she was also one of the girls. She was the ultimate girlfriend—weight rising and falling, finding the world an interesting but funny place, and making all the other girls feel like they weren’t alone. She could laugh. She could be naughty. She was moved by what moved you. The new Oprah was, well, spooky. She obviously had another life few knew about, a well of power and beliefs that she hadn’t been willing to expose before now. Oh, there had been the occasional reference to “higher power” or “my spiritual self.” But there was also talk of Jesus and church and the oft-shouted “Lawd, hep me!” that wrung a laugh and that felt familiar to blacks and whites alike. This new version of Oprah, though, used words like “energy” and “spirits” and “focus” in ways that were new to most of her audience. Things were happening on stage that weren’t usually seen on television and it felt like Spooky Oprah was trying to reach through the TV screen and rearrange each viewer’s soul. Then again, it wasn’t Oprah who did the heavy spiritual lifting; it was her guests. One of the most popular books in America at that time was Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, a marriage guide that urged strong relationships grown from deeper understanding of the differences between men and women. Those in Oprah’s audience who had read the influential book probably expected Gray to talk about how to relate to their spouse better. Instead, the best-selling author instructed viewers about how to meditate and chant the words, “O glorious future, my heart is open to you. Come into my life.” Later, in a discussion of how past emotions shape behavior, Gray told a weeping woman in the studio audience, “I’d like you to go back to your inner child. I want you to imagine Mommy and Daddy coming to you, and I want you to express your feelings to them.” Page 9 of 49
This was tame. Along with Gary Zukav, author of The Seat of the Soul, Oprah devoted an entire program to the Hindu concept of karma. “Energy is energy,” Zukav said assuringly. “Your feelings are the force field of your soul.” Another guest, Iyanla Vanzant, author of Acts of Faith, urged viewers to “surrender to the god of your understanding,” promised “total and complete peace” if they did, and thought this was best done by “getting naked with yourself.” Financial advice superstar Suze Orman built on a favorite Oprah theme by telling the audience, “money is a living entity and responds to energy, including yours.”49
Then, in a statement that would have created a firestorm of controversy had it been made by a television preacher, Orman assured, “Your self-worth equals your net worth.”
The “Change Your Life” shows ended with a segment entitled “Remember Your Spirit,” during which Oprah, accompanied by low lights and New Age music, insisted, “I am defined by the world as a talk-show host, but . . . I am spirit connected to the greater spirit.” It had all proven too popular to end, though, and the programs devoted to alternative spirituality continued.1
1 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 10 of 49
The Secret By 2007, Oprah’s spiritual crusade had taken on a messianic tone. Nothing reveals this as much as her gushing support for the popular book The Secret. The work of Australian television producer Rhonda Byrne, The Secret had been released in March 2006 and had achieved huge sales, largely through viral marketing. By year’s end, the book and DVD package set was in the top five of Amazon’s Christmas week best sellers. On February 7 of the following year, Oprah introduced Byrne to her audiences, having already told them that as she opened the book and DVD set, “I took God out of the box.” Now, she proclaimed, “You can have it all. And, in fact, you already hold the power to make that happen.” In the interview with Byrne, Winfrey was giddy. “This is a happy, happy day for me,” she exulted. “I’ve known ‘The Secret’—I didn’t call it ‘The Secret’—for years. And for years on this show, this is what I’ve been trying to do, is to get people to see it.” But what was this secret? As Byrne revealed, the secret was otherwise called the Law of Attraction and meant simply this: thoughts become things. “So, what you’re saying,” Oprah asked, “is that we all . . . create our own circumstances by the choices that we make and the choices that we make are fueled by our thoughts. So our thoughts are the most powerful things that we have here on Earth.”60 Byrne said yes. Turning to her audience, Oprah summarized: “It means that everything that happens to you, good and bad, you are attracting to yourself. It’s something that I really have believed in for years, that the energy you put out into the world is always gonna be coming back to you. That’s the basic principle.” In a second program devoted to the book and its core concept, Oprah explained how closely her vision for her show aligned with the ideas in The Secret. “It is what this show is all about, and has been about for 21 years, taking responsibility for your life, knowing that every choice that you’ve made has led you to where you are right now. Well, the good news is that everybody has the power, no matter where you are in your life, to start changing it today.”
Page 11 of 49
The outcry against this mystical message was instant. Salon.com’s Peter Birkenhead called it “minty-fresh snake oil.” HBO’s Bill Maher called it “insane.” The Washington Post slammed it as “slimy.” And Richard Roeper—upon hearing an ad for a seminar on the book’s themes in which Winfrey says, “You only have to believe that you can succeed, that you can be whatever your heart desires, be willing to work for it, and you can have it”—screamed, Only if you live in Tinkerbell’s world. In the real world, of course, there are millions upon millions of people who have tried the believe-desire-work portion of that equation and yet will NEVER have what they want. They will experience an entire life arc without escaping from poverty or despair, without ever finding love or happiness or wealth of material things and-or spirit. Oprah was undaunted. She had found her spiritual voice and embraced the ministry to which she was called. She would still do her shows on Spanx undergarments or Carol’s Daughter beauty products or her favorite Key Lime Bundt Cake. She would have the best and the brightest and the richest on her show. But always there was the theme of the invisible path to peace, achievement, money, and fulfillment, always there were the empowering of the ancestors and the connection to the greater spirit that had long defined her life. She had carved out her own unique spirituality just as she had carved out her own one-of-a-kind media empire. She defied the rules, in business as in faith, and the contradictions did not seem to bother her fans. As Kitty Kelley writes, Oprah quoted the Bible but did not attend church. . . . On family values she covered all the bases: she applauded motherhood but for herself she had chosen a career over children [and] life with a man outside of marriage. . . . She preached self-improvement (makeovers and cleansing fasts) and self-empowerment (believe it and achieve it) sprinkled with the New Agey piffle of The Secret. . . . Contradictions aside, Oprah became a towering presence in America, a one-woman cathedral. And so she had perceived herself to be. And so, for millions worldwide, she had become.2
2 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 12 of 49
The 'church of Oprah' – What is it? Is Eckhart Tolle's 'A New Earth' consistent with biblical Christianity?
Oprah's influence on our culture and her interest in Eckhart Tolle's book A New Earth have caused some to call her the leader of her own cult. Oprah Winfrey's show peaked at an astounding ten million daily viewers. Much of her show promotes things that are good. More recently, however, her spiritual beliefs—which are not biblical—have become a more central part of the show. Oprah believes there are many, many ways to reach or connect with "what some call God." She promoted Tolle's book on her Book Club, on her website, and in partnership with him on a weekly webcast. In the Spring of 2017 she produced a 10-part television show on Tolle and the book.
Because of Oprah's influence and following by some who believe her to have some sort of special wisdom, some critics say she has built a following akin to a cult. Though her following is sometimes referred to as the "church of Oprah" there is no such organization or denomination. Oprah does not acknowledge the Bible as God's special revelation nor Jesus Christ as the sole avenue to the Father (John 14:6). Page 13 of 49
She does purportedly offer ways for her listeners and viewers to live a life of purpose, peace, self-worth, and spiritual freedom.
Tolle, a New Age author and speaker, promotes personal divinity. Though he sometimes quotes the Bible and refers to biblical principles, his view of Christianity is skewed, warped, heretical, and sometimes even blasphemous.
In the first chapter of A New Earth, he misquotes Jesus, supports millions of years of evolution, supports flowers and crystals as manifestations of Universal Consciousness, and lumps Jesus in with the Buddha and others as special people. He supports Buddhism as truth, alongside with Christianity, and writes of his support also of Gnosticism— an early heretical view of Jesus. He dismisses sin as a forgetting of our connection with the Source, and describes heaven as an "inner realm of consciousness."
The core of Tolle's spiritual teaching is that each person can train themselves for salvation—heaven is simply a state of consciousness achieved through one's own power & Jesus is nothing more than a spiritual master who taught people to look within themselves for spiritual release. This is akin to Satan's original lie [to Eve]: "you will be like God" (Genesis 3:5).
This mashup of spiritual salad Tolle has concocted simply is not biblical and Oprah's full-fledged support of his ideas is a mistake. The only thing their teaching together offers is deception.
Page 14 of 49
Is Eckhart Tolle’s "New Earth" compatible with Christianity?
Question: "What is the 'church of Oprah'? Is Eckhart Tolle’s 'New Earth' compatible with Christianity?"
Answer: Oprah Winfrey is arguably one of the most influential women in the world. With a daily viewership that has peaked around 10 million, The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely has the potential to impact the lives of many people. The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely promotes much that is good. However, there is another side of Oprah that has only recently become an integral part of her show—and that is her rejection of biblical Christianity. Oprah has made statements on her show in the past that have given a small glimpse into her personal spiritual beliefs, speaking mostly about her belief that there are many ways, millions even, for a person to "get to what some call God."
This more recent exposure of her beliefs revolves around the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, which she helped to make a best-seller by promoting it on Oprah’s Book Club and on her website. Beyond simply promoting the book, Oprah has partnered with Tolle in presenting weekly online webcast classes in order to explore the ideas and principles expressed in A New Earth.
Some have gone as far as labeling Oprah a cult leader—and with good reason. She is a figurehead for the promotion and propagation of anti-biblical beliefs which deny every foundational truth of historical Christianity. Her webcasts have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants with the promise of gaining new perspectives on how to live a life of enrichment, peace, newfound self-worth, and spiritual freedom.
Eckhart Tolle, a well-known New Age author and speaker, promotes nothing short of personal divinity in his teachings. In an attempt to deceive people into thinking that his religion is compatible with Christianity, Tolle occasionally quotes from the Bible and refers to biblical principles. The problem is that Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth, is in complete opposition to biblical Christianity from cover to cover. Nearly every reference to, or quote of, Scripture is twisted by Tolle’s consistent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Consider what can be found in just the pages of the first chapter: evolution of life over millions of years is assumed to be fact; flowers, crystals etc. are believed to be manifestations of the Universal Consciousness and considered enlightened life forms; Page 15 of 49 the definition of sin is misinterpreted; Jesus Christ is thought of as just one of those rare people who, like the Buddha, achieved divine consciousness; other religions, such as Buddhism, are considered just as valid and true as Christianity; an early Christian cult, Gnosticism, is portrayed as one of the few groups who actually understood the teachings of Jesus; sin was simply a forgetting of the connectedness and oneness with the Source, along with everything else connected with the Source—a delusion of separateness; heaven is portrayed as merely an "inner realm of consciousness."
These teachings are found in just the first chapter. Obviously, Eckhart Tolle is promoting a new religion, one which combines the most mystical aspects of every major religion. The first chapter, of course, sets the tone and direction for the rest of the book. This direction happens to be as far from biblical truth as is possible. If you are concerned at all with whether or not this book is compatible with the Christian faith, you need not read any further than the first chapter to understand what Tolle believes and what Oprah is encouraging others to believe.
Tolle ends the book writing about the new heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21. He states near the end of chapter 10:
The only existence the future actually has is as a thought form in your mind, so when you look to the future for salvation, you are unconsciously looking to your own mind for salvation. You are trapped in form, and that is ego. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” writes the biblical prophet. [T]he foundation for a new earth is a new heaven - the awakened consciousness. The earth - external reality - is only its outer reflection. The arising of a new heaven and by implication a new earth are not future events that are going to make us free. Nothing is going to make us free because only the present moment can make us free. That realization is the awakening. Awakening as a future event has no meaning because awakening is the realization of Presence. So, the new heaven, the awakened consciousness, is not a future state to be achieved. A new heaven and a new earth are arising within you at this moment, and if they are not arising at this moment, they are no more than a thought in your head and therefore not arising at all. What did Jesus tell his disciples? “Heaven is right here in the midst of you.”
In line with chapter 1, chapter 10 places the final stamp of approval on a belief system completely void of biblical truth. Salvation is presented as a state of being, achieved through one’s own power; heaven is referred to as simply a state of consciousness; and Jesus Christ is relegated to a spiritual master who taught that one only needs look within oneself to find spiritual release. Scripture is used only out of context and presented as obscurely as possible.
There is no room for Jesus Christ, the God-Man, or His teachings in Oprah and Tolle’s belief system. In fact, Oprah and Tolle propose that all people free their minds from a belief in Christ. Truly, deception is the only thing that Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey offer. They, and those that follow their teachings, have fallen for Satan’s original lie, “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).
Page 16 of 49
Church of Oprah
Church of Oprah – New Age Purpose Eckart Tolle’s books, The Power Now and Stillness Speaks, provide the doctrine for what many regard as the “Church of Oprah.” In his latest bestseller, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, Tolle “draws from the guiding principles of multiple religions.”1 The super-star talk show host Oprah Winfrey predicts, “I think he [Tolle] is a prophet for our time.”2 Her XM satellite station began teaching a 10-week Internet miracles course based on Tolle’s “New Earth” book (concurring with New Age teaching). During her Oprah & Friends (Soul Series) radio program, Oprah revealed her purpose in life: “I’m so excited to tell you about my newest book club selection, A New Earth . . . I believe and try to live by the message of this book . . . it caused a greater sense of awakening for me.”3 Oprah believes her life purpose is to awaken the entire world to “your life’s purpose.”
Church of Oprah – The Beliefs If the church of Oprah actually does exist, then how do Oprah and Tolle envision the “awakening” of their disciples? Tolle responds:
• Minimize Your Thoughts – “You are no longer possessed by the thinking mind . . .You don’t rely on thought anymore; you go beyond thinking...You suddenly find there’s another dimension deeper than thought inside you...I call it stillness ...an aware presence, nothing to do with past or future.”4 Page 17 of 49
• Live for the Moment – “A continuous refocusing on what really matters...which is the present moment. People don’t realize that now is all there ever is; there is no past or future...The present moment is your life. It’s nowhere else -- never, ever.”5
• Let Your Consciousness Evolve – “Our ability to think more and more, so that gradually we became identified with thinking, was how we lost a deeper connectedness with life - with Paradise... we are now at an evolutionary transition where far more human beings than ever before are able to go beyond ego into a new state of consciousness.”6
Church of Oprah – Comparison to the Bible Eckhart Tolle’s beliefs characterize the church of Oprah which coincides with the New Age doctrine of evolutionary Godhood, as well as the union of earth and nature as “Gaia.” These ideas are contradictory to the teachings in the Bible.
Religion is man reaching out to God. Salvation, as presented in the Bible, is God’s love and mercy reaching out to imperfect man:
• Christ’s Mind – Instead of abandoning the thought-process, the Bible tells us that when we have a relationship with God, we gain understanding because we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:14–16). Any past guilt and future fears dissolve as we place our trust in God who created our bodies as well as our minds (Isaiah 26:3; Philippians 4:6–7).
Page 18 of 49
• New Hope And A Future – Each one of us has struggled with our past. But God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, not only sets us free from condemnation, but offers us a new life and future (2 Corinthians 5:16–18). We are so highly valued by God that He actually custom-designed your life (Jeremiah 29:11–13).
• A Transformed Life – We can never form a connection for ourselves to heaven (Paradise) through meditation, rituals, or philanthropic deeds. We are imperfect humans, sinful by nature. So, Jesus’ perfect, sinless life was offered in our place, “giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 3:22–24; Romans 5:21).
In her own words, Oprah’s “religion” teaches: “There are many paths to what you call God...Her path might be something else and when she gets there she may call it ‘light’...If her loving, kindness, and generosity bring her to the same point, it doesn’t matter if she calls it God or not.”7
1 ”The Book that Changed Oprah’s Life,” Good Housekeeping’s Quick & Simple, April 29, 2008, p. 18. 2 Oprah Winfrey, “Oprah Talks to Eckhart Tolle, O, The Oprah Magazine, May 2008, p. 298. 3 ”Oprah’s New Religion – You will not believe your Ears!” – Video 4 (Oprah Winfrey, pp. 298–299). 5 (Oprah Winfrey, p. 344). 6 (Oprah Winfrey, p. 346). 7 You-Tube Video Interview with her audience “The Church of Oprah Exposed”
Page 19 of 49
Despite the fact that Oprah Winfrey is one of the most visible people in the world and despite the fact that her story and views are broadcast in some form nearly every day, the details of her religious life tend to come to us in bits and pieces. She is not a theologian and does not speak in systematic and connected ways. She is also not a teacher who expresses herself in fully formed thought. Instead, we learn what we can of her faith because of what she affirms in the thinking of others, because of the glimpses into her soul she occasionally grants to her audiences, and because of what an ever-attentive media has been able to divine. We know, for example, that she keeps a Bible by her bed. We know she calls her estate “The Promised Land” and that she has named its two roads “Glory” and “Hallelujah.”2 We know she is eclectic, that she lights candles to her ancestors, chants Hindu mantras, prays to the God of the Bible, but believes that her thoughts control her destiny. She has affirmed her belief in reincarnation, in karma, in maya, in the Law of Attraction, in the power of intention, in channeling spirits, and in spirituality as the key to prosperity. Yet she angrily rejects labels. Remember that she has said, “I am not New Age anything and I resent being called that. I am just trying to open a door so that people can see themselves more clearly and perhaps be the light to get them to God, whatever they may call that. I don’t see spirits in trees and I don’t sit in the room with crystals.” And she knows that she is destined. Words like chosen, mission, calling, ministry, and intended flow freely from her lips. Maya Angelou believes she is a “moral mountain” for our age. Her boyfriend, Stedman, believes she is “one of those chosen people. You know, hand-picked by the universe to do great things.”12 She is confident that some force has placed her on earth at this time for some reason. Page 20 of 49
The Four Pillars of Oprah Winfrey’s Brand of Faith
1. Religion and spirituality are two different things. It is a principle that Oprah’s audiences often hear, one that was particularly important in her pioneering “Best Life” series. Religion and spirituality are two different things. You can “do” the one without “doing” the other. You can belong to your church or your temple or your mosque and still join Oprah in adopting practices from other faiths. You can be Roman Catholic and still chant mantras. You can keep your Jewish faith and still invoke the spirits of your ancestors. You can be a Muslim and give yourself to a life governed by karma. In other words, you can keep your traditional religion but create a completely different kind of informal spirituality to help you live out each day. As the written introduction to the “Best Life” series assures, “The terms ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’ are often confused, but . . . you can be one without being the other.” Oprah’s audiences love this distinction. It allows them to create a spiritual life based on what is meaningful to them, rather than what is mandated by traditional religion. For those who are unchurched or unaffiliated with a formal religion, it serves as an invitation to a spiritual life free of the formalities and judgments of traditional faith. For those already part of a traditional faith, it serves as an invitation to explore alternative spirituality without fear of the prohibitions against the occult that most mainline faiths insist upon. For most of Oprah’s followers, it has been a liberation, allowing them to make meaningful spiritual practices part of their lives regardless of the source and regardless of the contradictions with their prior faiths. This idea that religion and spirituality are two different things is one of the most innovative concepts to arise from Winfrey’s programs. The esteemed HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, published by the American Academy of Religion, did not even include an entry for spirituality when Winfrey began distinguishing the word from religion. Debates over this distinction quickly arose. Theological faculties at colleges and universities conducted conferences and sponsored seminars. Writers and practitioners grappled with the matter of definition. Page 21 of 49
Tragically, Winfrey’s distinction between religion and spirituality was artificial. She had made a distinction without a difference in order to draw her followers into her novel brand of faith. The truth is, of course, that religion and spirituality are very much the same thing, that religion defines the very nature of spirituality, even makes it possible. In order to comprehend this, we should explain our terms better. Spirituality is probably best understood as belief in an invisible world and the mastery of practices designed to connect with that invisible world. It is the lifestyle and habits that allow our lives to merge with the unseen. But religion, on the other hand, is the broader understanding of truth that includes an explanation of the unseen. In other words, religion and its doctrines are the map for the invisible realm that spirituality navigates. Oprah urges her followers to chant mantras, but there are no mantras in Christianity. In fact, repetitive praying of meaningless or insincere prayers is forbidden. Oprah urges her followers to believe in reincarnation, but there is no reincarnation in Christianity. The Christian New Testament makes it clear that a man is supposed to live one lifetime and then face judgment by God.16 Oprah summons the spirits of her ancestors and calls her followers to do the same. Yet while Christians honor their ancestors, most of them would regard invoking ancestral spirits or anything close to channeling as the same thing as invoking demons. And while Christians believe their thought life is important and should be conditioned by God’s will and the Scriptures, they would never believe destiny is determined by thoughts alone as Oprah does. For Christians, the universe is personal. It was created by God. It reveals God. It is governed by God. It is God whose hand they hope to move in prayer. It is God whose goodness they acknowledge in their worship services. Needless to say, the idea that human beings will become gods themselves is arrogant blasphemy to Christians. Christians live in a relationship with a God who rules in the affairs of men. Human beings are creatures. They are servants of God. They do not create themselves or their destinies by thoughts or mantras or anything else. They are subjects of the one God, creator of all things.
Page 22 of 49
2. Opposing religions can be casually blended. This hope certainly lives in the heart of Oprah Winfrey. She is rooted in her Baptist faith but she believes Jesus isn’t the only way to God, as she famously said while arguing with an audience member. Instead, she holds to the dream of her generation: that all religions can somehow be blended into one. This is what allows her to treat religions as though they are each offerings on the same spiritual buffet. She can pick one practice from Religion A and another practice from Religion B in much the same manner that she might order from a Chinese restaurant menu. It is how she has fashioned the unique, eclectic religious life she portrays on her programs. There is intellectual dishonesty in this, however. It is more mood than method, more about religious feeling than about religious possibility. It is only possible to blend competing religions when they aren’t taken seriously, when their spiritual claims are ignored or refashioned. This can only be envisioned by those who think they know better, who believe they see the genuine truth behind the religions of others and who intend to merge that truth with the truths behind still other faiths. This requires a certain degree of disregard for what religions claim for themselves. It requires a sense of messianic purpose. It also requires an astonishing degree of arrogance. Those who wish to fashion new faiths out of a blend of traditional faiths miss the fact that there is inherent in religion, as in all claims of truth, a certain exclusivity, a certain rejection of counterclaims. This is not necessarily bigotry. It is the nature of truth. If 1+1=2, then it does not equal anything else. It is an intolerant, exclusive fact that does not admit any other claim. It is not possible to merge 1+1=2 with some belief system that claims the opposite. Yet in the matters of religion, this is exactly what Oprah Winfrey and her fellow syncretists attempt to do. They want to borrow bits and pieces of Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or Wicca and blend them into a new faith, despite the fact that each of these religions makes claims that deny the claims of the other. Page 23 of 49
As much as advocates of New Age and alternative spirituality might want to deny it, the major religions of the world do not fundamentally align with each other. Instead, they strike out in nearly opposite directions. For example, Christianity maintains that Jesus Christ is a God/man, the only son of the only God. Islam maintains that Jesus Christ is but one in a series of human prophets. Hinduism maintains that Jesus Christ was at best an especially enlightened guru. Judaism maintains that Jesus Christ was an errant rabbi. How can these claims be reconciled? They cannot be, unless what these religions say about themselves is not taken seriously. These are completely different belief systems, offering completely different views of the world and insisting on completely contradictory solutions. It is dishonest to contend that they somehow point in the same direction and that with a little modification they can be fashioned into something unified and new.
Yet this is precisely what Oprah Winfrey believes she can do.
3. Religions can be redefined at will. There is a third pillar of the Oprah Winfrey religious worldview and it is that the religions of the world can be remade for comfort and convenience. Theologies are simplified. Terms are redefined. Religious mythologies are reworked, often according to Freud, Marx, Darwin, or Kant. Entire ancient belief systems are reinterpreted and popularized. It is a breathtaking conceit and it is an astonishing disregard for the traditions of the centuries, for the ancient ways granted to this generation as a gift. Mantras became syllables to chant for de-stressing rather than the names of Hindu deities to be summoned in meditation. And yoga became merely exercise rather than the physical positions of worship designed to create “union”—the meaning of the word yoga—that it was understood to be in the East. And never would a Western youth who looked East for his spirituality have dreamed of endorsing the caste system of Hinduism, which left the poor and the broken languishing in their agony in honor of the law of karma. All was sanitized. All was rearranged. Page 24 of 49
The great concern was not just that she did violence to traditional religions but that she and her fellow spiritual innovators created new, untested, unsupported religions. They were religions without text, without history, without system, without creed, and without proof of benefit to human lives. These were spiritual faiths, true, but they were also secular, in the sense that the word secular means “of the age.” These religions were fashioned for the moment, comprised of trendy ideas but then presented as ancient beliefs through stolen language and rituals.
4. All true religion enhances self. In the religion of Oprah Winfrey, and certainly in the religions of the teachers she gathers around her the hero of the story of faith is self. It is the individual that is the object, the beneficiary, the focus of adoration, and the ultimate purpose of the faith. The universe is understood to be ever bending to enchant the individual. All doctrines and creeds are measured in terms of the self. The final victory of the religion is a liberated, happy, self-possessed, prosperous, peaceful individual. The faithful do not seek God or the good of mankind but rather their “divine self,” their “spiritual self,” their “deified form,” or their “transformed beingness.” This, in short, is the complete inversion of most traditional religions and it is not hard to imagine this as the spirituality that the “me generation” might naturally devise for themselves. The boomers are more about self- fulfillment, self-expression, self-enhancement, and the enchantment of the divine self than any other generation on earth. They resisted the outer, the traditional, the expected, and anything that felt to them like conformity. Always the focus was upon themselves. We find, then, that the religion of Oprah Winfrey and her tribe is much about the kingdom of self. It would seem, then, that the Oprah Winfrey brand of self-centered faith—one in which she insists that “gurus” are sent “not to teach us about their divinity but to teach us about our own”—is a setup for disillusionment.3
3 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 25 of 49
Thoughts shape reality. In a universe in which there is no personal, absolute powerful God and in which everything is an extension of energy or consciousness, human thought or intention rules. This is what Oprah Winfrey believes and it explains why she was so wildly drawn to The Secret and its irrefutable Law of Attraction: “thoughts become things.” For The Secret to be true, there cannot be a divine will operating in the universe. In other words, there cannot be a being approximating the biblical God. Instead, the universe must be made up of eagerly available energy, sensitive to the influence of human thought. As Winfrey exulted when The Secret was presented on her program in 2007, “It means that everything that happens to you, good and bad, you are attracting to yourself. It’s something that I really have believed for years, that the energy you put out into the world is always gonna be coming back to you. That’s the basic principle.” It is a belief as old as the Hindu concept of “cosmic consciousness” and as recent as cutting-edge experiments in “noetic science.” The core principle is simple: thought is a substance outside the human body that takes the form of highly ordered energy capable of changing the physical universe. We likely think of parlor tricks like bending spoons, but experiments have been done purporting to prove that thought affects the rate of plant growth, the direction fish swim, and even chemical reactions in the human body. As new science author Lynne McTaggart has written, “Living consciousness somehow is the influence that turns the possibility of something into something real. The most essential ingredient in creating our universe is the consciousness that observes it.” This possibility of thought affecting matter is behind her belief in the Law of Attraction, her confidence in the power of intention, her certainty that meditating creates its own realities, and her belief in the connection between prosperity and inner vision. Yet even if there is a connection between human thought and the physical universe—and there does seem to be evidence for this at lower levels of impact— there are nevertheless two troubling considerations. First, that thought can affect the human body is a far cry from believing that a woman’s entire existence is shaped by her thoughts. Yet this is the dynamic upon which Oprah Winfrey has based her life and by which she explains her success. It is also the dynamic she urges upon her audiences. A second and even greater concern is that this matter of thought impacting the physical world works for both positive and negative results. As Oprah herself said of the Law of Attraction, “everything that happens to you, good and bad, you are attracting to yourself.” While this principle may make for an intriguing parlor game when it comes to good things like prosperity and a new love, it becomes a horrendous accusation against those who experience tragedy. Has the rape victim drawn a rapist through her thought life? Is the welfare mother really impoverished because she believes she is? Is a family who has lost a child to be charged with destructive thought patterns as the cause of their heartbreak? Page 26 of 49
The Law of Attraction removes good and evil in the world and leaves only productive and destructive thoughts. It is a mysticism with far-reaching repercussions, more vast than ever considered on Oprah Winfrey’s show.
The universe intends only good. One of the central certainties of Oprah Winfrey’s spirituality is that the universe in all its various forms only intends to grace human beings with good. It is benevolent, even loving. Uninhibited by destructive human thought and action, the universe would extend nothing but blessing & kindness to human beings. The best human response, then, is as Gary Zukav urges: “Let go. Trust. Create. Be who you are. The rest is up to your non- physical Teachers and the Universe. Take your hands off the steering wheel. Be able to say to the Universe, ‘Thy will be done,’ and know it within your intentions.” For Oprah Winfrey, this means only good, only blessing, only enchantment. Humans create what is perceived as evil through their destructive thoughts and actions. The universe itself is either neutral or good and can be approached so that only good things come to human lives. This insistence upon the inherent good intentions of the universe has made Winfrey both confused and frustrated with the existence of evil in the world. Winfrey was equally confused by the events of September 11, 2001. As Jennifer Harris and Elwood Watson have written in their book The Oprah Phenomenon, following 9/11, Oprah found herself caught between “the problematic immanent world and the otherworldliness of eastern mysticism.” For a woman who believes that her spirituality carries with it the power to change reality for the better, her irritation with “the problematic immanent world” is odd indeed. Obviously, what Oprah’s religious worldview does not contain is a solution for the problem theologians call “theodicy,” which deals with matters like God’s just government of the world and the problem of good and evil. At the very least, a religious worldview that includes the reality of both good and evil is a realistic worldview. Those who hold to it will not be surprised by suffering and pain. They will grieve at the hardships of mankind, but they will not be confused or spiritually shattered by the existence of tragedy and loss. But the monistic universe that Oprah believes in has no answer for the presence of evil beyond blaming individual thoughts and intentions. If trusting the universe does not produce blessing and fortune, there is no further explanation.
Page 27 of 49
The evidence seems to suggest that the universe is, in fact, a place of great beauty and peace but also a place of danger and horror. In space, collisions between astral bodies occur constantly. On earth, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, and volcanic eruptions occur quite apart from man’s involvement. Animals kill, diseases ravage, and human beings give in to both the better and the lesser angels of their nature. No objective observer of life on earth would conclude that a universal energy is ever capable of granting goodness but that man is in the way. Instead, he would conclude that the universe is a powerful, thrashing place that is both glorious and terrifying, both creative and cruelly destructive. The religious worldview of Oprah Winfrey does not allow for this.
Experience trumps truth. It has been well said that when it comes to matters of religion and spirituality, this generation is more concerned with what works than what is true. The measure of every belief and practice is how effective it is in creating meaningful experience. There is little concern for whether that experience is based on anything lastingly true. In fact, modern spirituality is not always certain that there is anything true in the eternal sense. Instead, the word truth is replaced with the word valid, and always the focus is upon valid experiences that bring wealth and happiness to the ever-enchanted self. Oprah Winfrey has been a champion in this cause. In fact, it is this refusal to speak in terms of what is true but rather in terms of what creates thrilling experience that allows her to distinguish her spirituality from her religion. She is not interested in debating weighty matters such as the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. She sidesteps these, sometimes with statements as direct as “I’m not going to get into a religious debate with you,” and this just after she has urged a religious concept upon her audience. She wants the experiences her stable of teachers have promised. She wants peace and well-being and focus. She wants to be empowered to live out her life. She wants the ancestors to enable her to act and “Greater Spirit” to guide her in business and the Law of Attraction to grant her vast wealth. Never, though, is truth a concern. Never is the measure of an idea or a practice whether it derives from what is immutable and sure. There is, of course, danger in this. It is theoretically possible that Oprah Winfrey can live stress free through her mantras and her yoga and her visualization and still offend a deity who requires something else of her.
Page 28 of 49
The reality is that feelings and experience are no indicator of truth. We know this from daily experience. The pilot who flies his plane according to what his body tells him, according to how he feels rather than by his instruments, is heading for a crash. The doctor who relies on his feelings about the amount of medicine to give to a patient is likely to do great harm. We want bus drivers to drive by their instruments and the road signs and we want bankers to leave their feelings at home when managing our accounts. This is because feelings and experience often have little to do with truth. In fact, they can be highly unreliable, as every investigator of a traffic accident knows: eyewitnesses, those who experienced the crash, are usually the least reliable sources of fact. What would seem to be the most satisfying to the human soul is experience based on truth rather than experience for its own sake. If there is a God, then it would seem that the hunger of the heart is to know him, to hear his voice or feel his love or know when he is near. Experience alone will not achieve this goal.
Indeed, much of what traditional faiths require is purposefully counter to the sweet experience of alternative spirituality. A number of the major traditional religions call for fasting. Some require sacrificial giving. Most urge self-denial. Christianity even extols laying down one’s life for others, and the word used for life in the original language of the New Testament does not refer to biological life but rather to the inner life, the realm of dreams and hopes and aspirations. None of these experiences are judged by whether or not they work, but rather by whether they are true—true in the sense that they are based on a system of truth beyond the individual. The great fear, of course, is that by questioning and then reworking traditional religions and then making experience the arbiter of all spiritual value, Oprah Winfrey may very well be leading millions into a hodge- podge spirituality that will fail them in the time of trouble, that will not answer their soul’s need and will ultimately prove false, both as a matter of genuine experience and as a matter of eternal truth.4
4 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 29 of 49
REDEFINING GOD
“I MYSELF AM THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE” —A Course in Miracles
IF IT IS TRUE that no religion can rise higher than its conception of God, we must be clear as to what we believe about the divine being. So, when the serpent said to Adam and Eve “you will be like God,” what did this creature have in mind, and more important, how would Adam and Eve have interpreted this reassuring reply? Understanding this satanic promise opens up the whole world of Spirituality. Obviously, Adam and Eve could not have the attributes of sovereignty and omnipresence; they could not have created the trees in the garden of Eden nor the starry heavens above. God would have to be redefined if Adam and Eve were to resemble Him. God would have to be pared down to correspond to Adam and Eve’s limitations and experience. God could not be thought of as existing apart from them, but as residing in them. Even more to their liking, they would participate in godhood.
SIN DOES NOT EXIST Ideas have consequences. Once you affirm that we are already holy—that we are already God, then it is quite impossible to accept our sinfulness. Unlike Christianity that teaches that we are separated from God because of our sin, the New Spirituality teaches that we are, in fact, already united with God. So, although you and I think that we are separated from God because we are conscious of sin and regrets, we are now told that we were never separated from God at all. The deeper we go within ourselves, the more we are invited to deny our guilt and pain and find peace within. Page 30 of 49
So, predictably, there is no mention of sin in The Secret. No need to mention sin since the Universe, and all of us, are already “perfect.” The cause of all the problems in the world is merely bad thinking, especially the failure to recognize and appropriately use “the law of attraction.” Therefore the solution to what we call our problems lies within us. The only “savior” we need is ourselves. Along the same vein, Eckhart Tolle denies that sin exists, but admits that we are afflicted with a dysfunction—a dysfunction of the ego, which ultimately does not really exist. What many of us consider to be evil, according to Tolle, is really only an illusion, a bad dream. “The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are ultimately illusionary. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily.” If you have followed the argument so far, we have learned that we are God, so we are entirely holy and therefore sin does not exist. It follows that human beings are not responsible for what they do, even if what they do is sometimes called (erroneously) evil. In a later chapter, I will quote Tolle, who makes the point that we cannot hold human beings responsible for their behavior. What we call evil happens in the body; and since only the realm of the spirit is real, we cannot hold others accountable for their actions, which are really illusory. Our real self cannot be separated from God because the real self is a part of God. “You do not become good by trying to be good, but by finding the goodness that is already in you, and allowing the goodness to emerge. But it can only emerge if something fundamental changes in your state of consciousness.” According to Tolle, truth cannot be found in thought, doctrines, or narratives, which are perceived through our egos. “Every ego confuses opinions and viewpoints with facts. It cannot tell the difference between an event and its reaction to that event. Only through awareness—not through thinking—can you differentiate between fact and opinion . . . only thorough awareness can you see the totality of the situation or person instead of adopting one limited perspective.” I can’t help pointing out that if truth cannot be found in “thought, doctrines, or narratives,” how can it be found in Tolle’s own book The New Earth? Although truth is not something you believe, Tolle apparently makes an exception for his own writings! He has written hundreds of pages to convince us to believe certain thoughts, doctrines, and narratives. Clearly, he expects us to set reason aside when it comes to understanding his point of view; we must embrace irrationality to experience the “awakening.”
Page 31 of 49
THE CONTRAST The concept of God in New Spirituality is about as far from the God of the Bible as one can travel. The desire of man to form God into an image he can live with is indisputable proof of man’s rebellion and unrepentant pride. Obviously, the enterprise is a farce: imagine the silliness of man affirming that the kind of deity he wants is the kind that actually exists! Think of the hubris of identifying God with one’s basic desires and aspirations (consciousness) and then saying that this God is the real God. Add to that the audacity of saying that we all participate in this divine essence.
Wouldn’t it be better to investigate to see if there is evidence that there is a God beyond the world who is its creator and judge? The biblical conception of God fits the facts of both history and science. And for that matter, the Christian worldview gives us the most rational understanding of the world and our place in it.
The apostle Paul was certainly inspired by God when he made this prediction: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3–4). Yes, today people do not want to listen to the truth but wander off into myths. The God of the Bible is not found by getting in touch with our own consciousness, but rather by looking at His revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. This God is one who is seen in nature and, more important, by reading the Scriptures. There we see God’s transcendence, His power to create, and to sustain what He has created. The imaginary God of the New Spirituality can be debunked in so much as a single quotation from the Bible: To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing. (Isaiah 40:25–26)
Page 32 of 49
Take a moment to ponder these two verses and see how they contradict modern Spirituality. In this simple paragraph of Scripture, we learn that (1) it is folly for us to think we are like God; we dare not compare ourselves with Him. When we think of God, we should not look for similarities, but rather contrasts between us and the Almighty. Then we learn that (2) He created the worlds at a point in time; we are not co-creators with Him, for we ourselves are His creation; and (3) He is personal, calling even the stars by name. This means that He also knows us in terrifying detail, even keeping track of the number of hair on our heads (Matthew 10:30). Finally, He is (4) sovereign over His entire creation; which means He is sovereign over us too. The New Spirituality is nothing less than idolatry of the heart, which is just as serious as idolatry of the hand. Already in Ezekiel’s time, the prophet warned, “Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces” (Ezekiel 14:3). The passage goes on to speak about the coming judgment of those who would redefine God, making Him into an idol they can control. The God of the New Spirituality is an idol created in the human heart in a frantic search for peace of mind. At it turns out, this God just happens to be the figment of an eager but thoughtless imagination. “These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you” (Psalm 50:21, italics added).5
5 Lutzer, E. W. (2008). Oprah, miracles, and the new earth: a critique. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers. Page 33 of 49
REDEFINING MORALITY
“LET ME REMEMBER THERE IS NO SIN” —A Course in Miracles
ADAM AND EVE DESIRED to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree because they were promised that they could be their own God, living by their own rules and determining right versus wrong for themselves. The serpent assured them that they could disregard what God had said and conduct their lives according to their own instincts. God’s will could be replaced with their will, and they could do whatever seemed right to them. Recall that the serpent began by introducing doubt into Eve’s mind regarding the clear command of God. “Did God actually say?” (Genesis 3:1). Now that the seed of doubt had been planted, he watered it with the allurement of special knowledge. If she and her husband disobeyed, their “eyes [would] be opened” and they would be like God, “knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). This special knowledge gave them permission to have moral freedom. Imagine, they would know “good and evil”! There was some truth in Satan’s promise. After they ate they did know good and evil; but they did not know it as God does, namely, as a surgeon might “know a disease.” Adam and Eve now knew good and evil by personal experience; they knew it because they were now a part of the corruption of everything that was holy and good. And because they were finite, incapable of knowing the future, they were ill-equipped to run their own lives—but they would still try. Adam and Eve introduced us to the notion that our intuitions are reliable and our feelings more infallible than God’s commands. They would not only be law breakers but become their own law makers, doing what they saw as right in their own eyes. Good and evil would now be theirs to determine by intuition and experience. They were the masters of their fate, the captains of their souls.
Page 34 of 49
MEET THE GOD WHO IS US Now let’s put the logic together: We’ve learned that the New Spirituality says that we are all God; we are already entirely holy; and whatever happens to us takes place because we will it. In such a world, death and sickness cannot exist; hence, they are illusions, a dream from which we must awake. It follows that there can be no distinction between good and evil. In a world where “all is God and God is all,” evil must have the same source and nature as good. And since we are not physical but spiritual beings, in this realm, good and evil as we know it cannot exist. Even crime is an illusion or at least we cannot be blamed for it. Eckhart Tolle agrees. Listen as he makes the point that we cannot be responsible for our actions since we are neither our bodies nor our thoughts, but our real existence is found only in the parallel spiritual universe he calls consciousness.
Note carefully: Does this mean that people are not responsible for what they do when they are possessed by the pain-body? My answer is: How can they be? How can you be responsible when you are unconscious, when you don’t know what you are doing? However, in the greater scheme of things, human beings are meant to evolve into conscious beings, and those who don’t will suffer the consequences of their unconsciousness. They are out of line with the evolutionary impulse of the universe. (italics mine)
Now we get to the heart of the matter. We cannot really distinguish good from evil since they both arise from the same life force; added to that is the notion that our outer actions are only illusionary, and you can better grasp why we are not responsible for our actions. To quote Tolle again, “The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of good and bad are ultimately illusionary. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily” (italics added). So, there you have it: the mental labels of good and bad are ultimately illusionary. Tolle teaches that we as humans are not born spiritually dead, but spiritually unconscious. Our real self cannot be separated from God because the real self is a part of God. So, we must simply affirm who we are as existing in God and deny that evil has any part in our lives. The reason we cannot hold people accountable for what their bodies do is because only the realm of spirit is real. Page 35 of 49
Tolle adds, “You do not become good by trying to be good, but by finding the goodness that is already in you, and allowing the goodness to emerge. But it can only emerge if something fundamental changes in your state of consciousness.” If only we lived in the realm of consciousness, we would find the latent goodness within each of us. So, evil is simply a misunderstanding of our egos; the fundamental part of us is perfect. Imagine! Behavior done from fear doesn’t actually exist! You are to forgive those who have wronged you because there is nothing to forgive! Since they are perfect just as you are, evil does not exist. This news would hardly be welcomed by those who endured the Holocaust; nor would it be good news to the young woman who was raped here in Chicago this past week. Yes, the New Spirituality teaches that the labels good and evil are meaningless and only love exists! Charles Manson will not go down in history as a great theologian, but because he had adopted the same pantheistic view of God, the mass murderer asked, “If God is all, what is evil?” His reasoning was clear: good and evil both reside in God. Just so, the New Spirituality teaches that God is male and female; plus and minus; darkness and light; He is perfection and also what is sometimes wrongly called sin. In this universe, everything is good, for everything is God.
Again, Tolle agrees. The reason we think we know the difference between right and wrong is because we are collectively insane. It is a form of madness. He writes, Recognize the ego for what it is: a collective dysfunction, the insanity of the human mind. . . . Once you see the ego for what it is, it becomes much easier to remain nonreactive toward it. You don’t take it personally anymore. There is no complaining, blaming, accusing, or making wrong. Nobody is wrong. It is the ego in someone, that’s all.
Perhaps now we can better understand the exchange that took place between Oprah Winfrey and self-proclaimed Satanist Michael Aquino. More than twenty years ago, on the February 17, 1988, program, Aquino described Satanists as “very decent, very law-abiding people . . . [who] have nothing to do with evil.” Oprah was surprised that this was the case, given the gruesome stories connected with Satanism that occasionally surface in the news. But Aquino said that the idea that Satan was evil was a gross misconception that he would “lay at the doorstep of the Christian value system.”
Page 36 of 49
Indeed! Looked at in one way, Aquino was right on both counts. First, given the Eastern mind-set, Satanism is not evil—precisely because nothing can be evil. Satan is only God in another form; the dualism we see in the world and as taught in the Bible is just the way things appear to us, but not the way they are “behind the curtain.” Second, please note that Aquino was right in holding Christianity accountable for making moral distinctions; it has the audacity of calling Satanism evil, for example. We plead guilty, of course. The Judeo-Christian worldview can call something evil precisely because it does not believe that everything is God; nor does it teach that individuals are God and therefore they have the right to do as they please. Satan is not God; we are not God but; to the contrary, God is personal and exists independently of His creation. Meanwhile, we as Christians are accused of being tied to the elementary distinctions of physical existence. We betray our lack of understanding; we just have not experienced the true nature of reality. If only we were to save ourselves by a transformation of consciousness, we would get beyond such distinctions. Since evil does not exist, it follows that man’s problem is not sin but ignorance. All that we need is enlightenment. Many decent people who have been lured into the New Spirituality because of its use of Christian terminology have no idea of the consequences of believing that we are all a part of the force called God. Nor do they realize that these teachings affirm that evil does not have actual existence, and humans cannot be held responsible for what we erroneously call evil. The New Spirituality with its denial of morality is actually more dangerous than the secular humanism we have all heard so much about. Inconsistent as the humanists are, they still wish to cling to some of the standards of the Judeo- Christian tradition. Atheism still teaches the need for morality of some sort. But the New Spirituality logically abolishes morality altogether.
WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN TO ME? Even though evil is an illusion and, strictly speaking, does not exist, the fact is that we have terrible things that happen to us. At least before we experience a transformation of consciousness, we experience grief in what Tolle calls “the pain body.” How do we account for this? The answer: Since we are God, it cannot happen to us unless we will it. In other words, we attract it to us because of our thoughts. We cause whatever grief comes our way.
Page 37 of 49
This is standard fare in occult religion. Years ago, a graduate of est (Erhard Seminar Training) stated that she listened for two hours while two women therapists explained how the Jews must have “wanted” to be burned by the Germans, and that those who starve in the Sahara Desert must want it to happen. When asked what can be done about a child starving in the desert, one of the therapists snapped angrily, “What can I do if a child is determined to starve?” Erhard, like the New Spirituality teachers, believed the universe was perfect, and that we are God in the universe, and we caused any evil that might exist. Byrne concurs. She says that this is a friendly universe. We should proclaim, “This is a magnificent Universe. The Universe is bringing all good things to me. The Universe is conspiring for me in all things. The Universe is supporting me in everything I do. The Universe meets all of my needs immediately.” And again, “You are the creator and there is an easy way to create by using the law of attraction.”11
In fact, we never have to lack benefits in this world because of the law of attraction. It’s like having the Universe as your catalogue. You flip through it and say, “I’d like to have this experience and I’d like to have that product and I’d like to have a person like that.” It is you placing your order with the Universe. It’s really that easy. Indeed, if you are overweight, it is because you have been thinking fat thoughts.
In passing, this explains why I should never have to feel guilty for the way I treat you. Betrayal, theft, or personal injury should not fill me with regret. Whatever has happened to you, happened because you, as God, willed it. You attracted my evil because of your thoughts. No need for me to apologize in a perfect Universe.
In a perfect world where evil is an illusion, guilt is a sickness of the mind.6
6 Lutzer, E. W. (2008). Oprah, miracles, and the new earth: a critique. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers. Page 38 of 49
LAVISTA CHURCH OF CHRIST The Church of Oprah
by Dan Gatlin
For decades, Oprah Winfrey has proclaimed faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, when one examines Oprah’s Jesus, he is not the same Jesus found in the New Testament. Oprah’s Jesus is not God in the flesh, merely a "good man." He is non-condemning and tolerant of "alternative lifestyles." In short, her Jesus is a New-Age Jesus.
In recent weeks, Oprah has conducted a series of internet broadcasts extolling the virtues and philosophy of her spiritual mentor, Eckhart Tolle. Tolle is a New Age teacher and author with two best-selling books, The Power of Now & A New Earth.
There is nothing particularly new about Tolle’s teaching. Hi s website states: "The work of Eckhart Teachings is in response to the urgent need of our times: the transformation of human consciousness and the arising of a more enlightened humanity. In addition to supporting Eckhart Tolle and the dissemination of his teaching, we are committed and dedicated to serving the new consciousness and awakening of all humans on the planet. At the core of the teachings lies a spiritual awakening that he sees as the next step in human evolution. An essential aspect of this awakening consists in transcending our ego-based state of consciousness. This is a prerequisite not only for personal happiness but also for the ending of violent conflict endemic on our planet." This is the same gobbledygook that New Agers have been churning out for the past 30-40 years.
For those not familiar with the New Age Movement, it is essentially Eastern Religion (Mysticism) adapted to western culture. New Agers believe in a "Supreme Power" of some kind, but vary somewhat as to what it is. To New Agers "God" isn’t a Person (Being/Personality), but simply a force. Page 39 of 49
Most New Agers are pantheistic, that is, they believe that "god" is nature itself. Since matter is made up of energy & since energy is equivalent to spirit, then matter becomes divine. Man is composed of matter (which has energy or "spirit"), so mankind is actually divine, a part of whatever "god" is. Of course, Western culture, and in particular, the Bible have blinded man to his true nature. "Enlightenment" comes through meditation on one’s own being or purpose, with the ultimate goal of "union with the Divine." When all of mankind realizes that we are all a part of god, then peace will prevail throughout the world and humanity will be able to evolve to the next level of consciousness.
Does all of this sound familiar? The hippies of the 1960’s believed and taught this as they rejected societal norms and explored Eastern Mysticism. Those same hippies have now cut their hair, discovered soap, and are now running many of our institutions, from government to universities to businesses. Notice a portion of Wikipedia’s definition of New Age: "The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions from both East and West, many of which have been melded with ideas from modern science, particularly psychology & ecology. Many New Age ideas could be described as drawing inspiration from all the major world religions with influences from Buddhism, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Mayanism, Ceremonial magic, Sufism, Taoism, Wicca and Neo-Paganism being especially strong."
Notice two things: First, psychology and ecology have been hijacked and are no longer strictly sciences. Large portions of these "disciplines" comprise religious teaching. A young person with interest in psychology or ecology may attend a university thinking they are getting an education, when what they are really receiving is religious indoctrination. Of course, the class material is presented as science (and, as such, should never be questioned) when, in fact, it is religious. Any young person without a firm conviction in the truth will find themselves unknowing disciples of this new cult. Page 40 of 49
Contrary to what Tolle espouses, New Age doctrine appeals to the ego. Only those few who have achieved "enlightenment" will evolve to the next level of consciousness. They are a little better than the rest of us. Contrast that attitude with the Bible, which was given for all men to understand (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 3:4; I Timothy 2:3-4) Second, notice that of all the religions that are mentioned, there are not any references to the Bible or to "Christianity." That is because the one true God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24) and will not tolerate any false religion. Therefore, false religions feel compelled to marginalize or reject Him.
Let’s consider with three basic points relative to New Age religion.
God is Distinct from Nature Pantheism says that nature itself is god. But the Bible says that God is distinct from nature. It is God who created the universe and all the laws applicable to it. Notice how Genesis 1 begins and ends: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ... Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good" (Genesis 1:1,31). When Paul came to Athens and preached to people who were completely ignorant of God, he said, "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things" (Acts 17:23- 25). There are, perhaps, portions of two generations who have removed God from their knowledge, and the consequences of such are clear (Romans 1:18-32). Page 41 of 49
God is Distinct from Man Tolle and Winfrey take the position that "God," as taught by Western culture, is simply the creation of man. Obviously, neither have made a serious investigation into the Bible’s reliability. They simply issue the same baseless charge that secular humanists have been making for 150 years. They offer no evidence for their assertion, but none is needed for those blinded by New Age dogma.
Tolle’s concept that man is inherently divine is an ancient error. Many men in the Bible have attempted to take God’s place (cf. Ezekiel 28; Acts 12:20-25; II Thessalonians 2:3ff). Of course, all failed. In truth, mankind is God’s creation (Genesis 1:26- 28). While we have been created in the spiritual image of God, we cannot possess many of the attributes that belong solely to deity. Man will never be omniscient (Psalms 139), omnipotent (Job 42:2) or omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:23-24). However, man can have the same character as God (II Peter 1:4-8).
Truth is Objective One of the major failings of New Age teaching is how "truth" is discovered. According to New Agers, truth cannot be found in an external, objective source like the Bible. "Truth" is individual and subjective. One usually arrives at "truth" thru meditation, emptying the mind and allowing it to turn in on itself. Tolle’s website says, "When challenges come, as they always do, make it a habit to go within at once and focus as much as you can on the inner energy field of your body." The goal of this kind of meditation is to get in touch with your feelings. Again, Tolle’s website states, "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you really are than thinking."
What happens when one person’s "truth" is diametrically opposed to another’s "truth?" Not to worry, to a strict New Ager, all truth is to be accepted (unless it comes from those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible). Such open - mindedness is contrary to the Bible’s teaching (Matthew 7:13- 14; Acts 4:12).
Page 42 of 49
One of the things that makes the Bible stand apart from any other religious document or belief is that one can objectively examine it’s reliability. Yes, much of what we believe in the Bible is based on faith. But it is not a blind faith, it is a faith based on facts.
1. Pre-Scientific Statements. The Bible reveals many scientific facts that took man thousands of years to discover. For example, the spherical nature of the earth (Isaiah 40:22, written about 700 BC). This wasn’t accepted as scientifically proven until around 1500 AD. One of astronomy’s "newer theories" in astronomy is the "Expanding Universe." Yet, writers of the Bible referred to "heaven" as an "expanse" (Genesis 1:8) 3,500 years ago. Jeremiah (who lived 2,600 years ago) tells us that the universe cannot be measured (Jeremiah 31:37). Bible writers also speak of the evaporation and rain cycle (Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7) thousands of years before science "discovered" these truths. Literally hundreds of examples can be cited. How did the Bible writers know these truths? The only logical answer is that the Author of the Bible is the Creator of the universe. 2. Historical Accuracy. Critics of the Bible cited the lack of any archeological evidence for the Hittite Empire, which played a prominent role in the Old Testament, as proof that the Bible was nothing but myth. Then A. H. Sayce and Hugo Winckler discovered evidence of their existence 100- 125 years ago. Belief in the Hittites is now accepted fact. More recently, Bible critics said that there was no evidence for the existence of David, King of Israel. Then in 1994 the Aramaic Stele was discovered in the ancient city of Dan with references to both "the house of David" and "King of Israel." These inscriptions have been verified. 3. Continuity. The Bible was written by about 40 men over a period of 1,500 years and, when properly interpreted, contains no contradictions. Man is simply not capable of producing such a flawless document. Some have tried, all have failed. (For example, Mormon writings contain many documented absurdities and contradictions.)
Page 43 of 49
Cultists (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, New Agers) often make the accusation that the Bible has been corrupted and changed over the centuries. This is mere assertion without evidence. This charge is so easily disproven it is a surprise that anyone still makes it. There are Bible manuscripts that go back 1,000’s of years that conclusively prove that the Bible didn’t evolve. This is an argument made only by the lazy or uninformed.
While New Agers are groping around in the dark trying to figure out who or what this "Supreme Power" is, all Christians know precisely who created & saved them. If we are God’s offspring (children), then doesn’t it make sense that He would reveal Himself to us, not only through the book of nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1:20), but through the written word that He left (John 16:13; Romans 10:17; Ephesians 3:4).
What is most dangerous about Tolle is the unparalleled access to the public afforded him through Oprah Winfrey. During one internet broadcast Oprah revealed that over 700,000 people were watching, and undoubtedly millions more will see it re- broadcast over YouTube and similar venues. Fox News reports: "Winfrey is nothing if not gifted at recognizing what’s already popular in the culture and exploiting it. But her association with Tolle is way over the top. It involves sponsorships with General Motors (Chevy), 3M Corp. (Post-Its) and Skype Internet phone service. In one broad stroke, she has managed to accomplish what Scientology never has achieved: bringing corporate America’s implicit approval into religion"
**********************************************************
Page 44 of 49
Background. It is now well known that the unusual name “Oprah” came about as the result of a clerical error. Vernita, likely shaken and unsure at the birth of her first child, allowed her Aunt Ida to suggest the new baby’s name. It would be “Orpah,” Ida decided. This was an odd choice. Orpah was the obscure name of the sister-in-law of the biblical figure Ruth. According to the ancient story, the two women married brothers who soon died. Ruth decided to stay with her mother-in-law, Naomi to care for her in her old age. Orpah, after much weeping and show of affection, simply left. She would become a symbol of showy emotion without commitment & according to the Jewish historian Josephus, she would also become an ancestor of the fearsome giant, Goliath, nemesis of King David. Orpah was not a name that would have evoked noble themes for those who knew Scripture, and perhaps this is what Ida intended. Fortunately, midwife at the child’s birth, Rebecca Presley, inverted the letters in the biblical name & entered “Oprah” instead.7 That she was black helped her win her first television job. In the early 1970s there was a push from civil rights activists around the country for television personalities to reflect the racial makeup of their audiences. The FCC weighed in as well and began urging stations to diversify. Nashville was 80 percent white and 20 percent black in those days, but this was certainly not reflected on TV screens. The local NAACP had made racial equality in Nashville’s television programming a frontline cause, and soon station managers were being pressured to put blacks on the air. This meeting of talent and opportunity has often been disparaged in the retelling. Critics and the resentful have seen Oprah’s hiring as, in Kitty Kelley’s words, “a big wet kiss from the affirmative action fairy.” Even Oprah has seemed embarrassed in recalling her good fortune: “No way did I deserve that job. I was a classic token, but I sure was one happy token.”
7 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 45 of 49
Once the new program was launched, the embarrassments began. As Kitty Kelley has perfectly summarized, Oprah “read the word Canada from the teleprompter as ‘Ca-NAY-da’ three times in one newscast. She later mispronounced Barbados as ‘Barb-a-DOZE.’ She read a report about a vote in absentia in California as if ‘Inabsentia’ were a town near San Francisco. A few nights later she characterized someone as having ‘a blaze attitude,’ not knowing how to pronounce blasé.”
Then suddenly Oprah’s career came crashing down. WJZ decided she was dull and stiff on the air and noted she regularly mispronounced words. They fired her. “At the time, I was devastated, devastated!” is how an emotional Oprah recalled her feelings on her “Oprah Lifeclass on 10/17/11, all these years later.
But rather than put her out on the street, WJZ looked for something else she could do. They had a failing talk show, “People Are Talking” and with nothing to lose, they stuck her there on August 14th, 1978. And Oprah blossomed as she never would have as a newswoman for she could be her very personable self. In what at first appeared to be a demotion, turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to her as she found her real calling. The show became a hit.
In 1984, a Chicago television station, WLS TV hired her to take over a failing half hour talk show and within the year, her “AM Chicago” became Chicago’s hottest local show and it was soon expanded to an hour. The next year it was renamed “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and in 1986 it went nationwide and its popularity mushroomed, eventually going global and attracting many millions of viewers each day over the 25 years it was on the air.
It all might have seemed the desperate grasping of a wounded, uncertain soul except that once Oprah Winfrey moved to Chicago, she rocketed to success. It happened so suddenly it all seemed prior, as though it had already happened in some other realm. Page 46 of 49
At this moment, she had a choice. She could lean to the biblical concept of destiny, which meant that a loving God had determined a lofty fate for her that she could never have deserved and that she ought to receive in humility and gratitude. Or, she could choose to believe that she was inherently an exceptional creature, one whom the laws of the universe conspired to elevate. She chose the latter, and whether this was base vanity & ego or not, this sense of self-importance was so powerful in her that it pulled all in her life into its wake.8 What galled many observers was that while The Oprah Winfrey Show spewed filth from America’s cultural sewers, Winfrey continued to speak of herself in terms that would have been overstated had she been Mother Teresa. At the same time the Wall Street Journal described her program as “Nuts ’n’ Sluts” and “Freak of the Week,” Winfrey spoke of herself as an incarnation. To the Chicago Sun-Times’ Robert Feder, she once said, “I had been looking at pictures of Rosa Parks and Leontyne Price and I believe I am the resurrection of a lot of my ancestors. I am the resurrected life for them.” For some, this was all too much. The Sun-Times’ Daniel Ruth could not restrain himself. He wrote Oprah’s ego had gone on “a gluttonous binge”: Don’t worry, Oprah. Just because you can turn pap into cash, you needn’t fret too much about comparisons to Christ . . . I have a hard time believing Sojourner Truth spent a lot of time wrestling with subjects like “Victims of Freeloaders” (Oprah show: July 5, 1988), “Soap Opera Stars and Their Fans” (Oprah show: June 29, 1988) or “Dressing Sexy” (Oprah show: July 28, 1988). . . . Please, dearest Oprah, don’t presume to place yourself in a class with genuine intellects, leaders and such pioneering black women as Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, Leontyne Price, and especially Rosa Parks, who earned their rightful acclaim through commitment, quality, and courage.9
8 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
9 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 47 of 49
She listened to spiritual gurus like Shirley MacLaine and Marianne Williamson & came to believe even more firmly that she was divinely appointed. As she once reported, “Stedman thinks I’m one of those chosen people. You know, hand-picked by the universe to do great things.” This was more than the kind encouragement of a boyfriend. It was a certainty in Oprah’s mind. “God is with me. That’s why I always succeed . . . I am God-centered.”10 On the second evening of Oprah’s birthday celebration, as the women settled down to champagne and conversation at the bungalow, talk turned to the mounting criticism and to what might be done. Each one in attendance adored Oprah and believed she was an “anointed one,” an “apostle of truth.” As Kitty Kelley writes, “Each believed that Oprah was a blessed disciple, a special messenger sent from God to do good.” Maya Angelou, who attended the party, later explained to Vogue magazine, In a queer way . . . she holds a spiritual position not unlike Norman Vincent Peale once did. Each culture and each time has its spiritual nattering nabob. At one time it was Peale, and for some Republicans it was Barry Goldwater. These are moral mountains that we looked up to, some of us. For others, it’s the Dalai Lama and there’s always the present and future and past pope. And these are people who, to lesser or greater degrees, are really the lights, the pinnacles of what is right and kind and true and good and moral. Well . . . she’s sort of that.
Convinced of Oprah’s mission, the women began discussing how Oprah might best be a blessing to her generation. Someone suggested and all agreed that she should join with the pope to lead the world in a weekend of prayer. His Holiness would certainly welcome the opportunity, it was thought.
10 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 48 of 49
By the end of the first decade of the third millennium, then, as Oprah Winfrey was bringing her successful talk show to an end and preparing to launch the OWN network on cable television, she could look back upon her spiritual life and see that it had conformed to the mystical flow of her generation. She had turned from the Christianity of her youth when much of her generation had. She had entered that other spiritual world through the portal of self-help, via the same hunger for uplift and self- improvement, for healing and recovery, that had moved millions like her in the same direction. She had blended Christian forms, Eastern mysticism, and sanitized occult practices into an intensely personal, customized religion. This was simply the way of her age. She wove practices and beliefs once thought disparate into a religion that was, quite literally, the “Religion of Oprah.” She encouraged others to do the same. She found no tension in blending a Hindu version of reality with ancestor worship with chanting Hindu mantras with the The Secret’s Law of Attraction with yoga with an animistic honoring of the spirits in nature with a belief in self-divinity with channeling with astrology with karma with the Bible with the certainty that right spirituality is rewarded with wealth and well-being with prayer to whatever force is god with the confidence we create the evil we experience with the unswerving assurance that a supernatural destiny rules human affairs. This was the buffet of beliefs she had chosen for herself and that she urged others to embrace as well. In retrospect, she had accumulated her beliefs as a fellow traveler with her generation, picking up doctrines and practices like so many souvenirs from the foreign travels of her times. Yet, always and without doubt, she understood each doctrine and act of faith in terms of the self, in terms of creating blessing and wholeness and enchantment for the individual. This is a strange conclusion, given that each of the religions the New Age built upon stresses the loss of self as the path to fulfillment, but it is nevertheless the heart of the new American faith drawn from the New Age revolution that occurred during the decades of Oprah Winfrey’s life.11
11 Mansfield, S. (2011). Where has oprah taken us? the religious influence of the world’s most famous woman. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Page 49 of 49