Theological Objections
ONE OF THE FIRST CHRISTIANS to engage in a serious study of comparative religions was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. During the latter part of the second century, the Gnostics and other mystery religions had become a serious problem for the churches in southern Gaul, and Irenaeus took the offensive by writing several lengthy treatises in defense of the faith. The bishop was well aware of the exotic appeal of "hidden wisdom" which was part of the Gnostic message. In the preface to his monumental work Against Heresies, he wrote: "Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it would at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced more true than the truth itself."1
One of the ablest of the church fathers, Irenaeus understood that the best way to refute the Gnostic system was to critique it from within rather than simply to shout invectives at it. Through his intensive study he became more conversant in Gnosticism than even some of the Gnostics themselves.
Page 106
In like fashion we need to understand thoroughly the philosophy of reincarnation before we can come to intelligent conclusions about it. Having examined the outward teachings of reincarnation, we should direct our attention now to the underlying metaphysical bedrock — the theology of reincarnation.
It may be said with some certainty that no religion or religious philosophy is any better than its conception of God. Reincarnation is based upon the Eastern view of God and the universe, which as I have explained, is often called gnostic or occult mysticism, or monism. In a spiritual framework, monism always refers to the idea that "All is One," the idea that God is not separate from the creation. Occult, in its most basic etymological sense, is derived from the Latin meaning "hidden," a concept similar to the gnosis of Gnosticism; both terms refer to the secret doctrines and practices of mysticism whereby a person may come to enlightenment or realization that he or she is of the same essence as "God," or the "Absolute," the ethereal substratum from which all creation emanates.
There are two fundamental problems with the doctrine of theological monism. First, it is not really theology. We have always known that the universe exists; to simply change its name from "universe" to "God" is a meaningless tautology and does not answer the real questions of the origin and purpose of the world or the nature of God. Second, the "God" of monism is fatally flawed. Since he (or "it," which is more accurate) is of one essence with creation and consciousness, God is thus the origin of the imperfection and evil in our world; the foulest deeds and thoughts of humanity literally become attributes of God.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The God of monism is by definition the actual perpetrator of imperfection, evil and suffering, as all things proceed out of its very being as an emanation at the beginning of creation. This fact is usually not confronted by monists, but even
Page 107
when it is, it is rarely pursued. Theosophist Clarence Pedersen, in his article "The Source of Becauses," does admit that "Karma must have come into operation with the first instant of manifestation, the first instant of creation."2 Unfortunately, Pedersen never follows his statement through to its logical conclusion, namely, that the creation and the Fall are synonymous and simultaneous; while he does tacitly admit that his Deity is imperfect and limited in power, it apparently makes little difference: "God, we may say, observing what he has wrought, immediately repents his rashness. Unable to recall that portion of his consciousness which he has willed forth, he now does the next best thing and proceeds to negate the effects of First Cause."3
Pedersen's description of creation only underscores the fundamental problem in monism. The Deity is under compulsion to manifest itself in the created order, much like a dam that is about to burst. It cannot be constrained and has limited power to control the creation process once it starts; thus it is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and the goodness and holiness of such a God is certainly subject to question. Once the power, holiness and goodness of God are done away with, creation becomes an unqualified hell.
The inability of monists to perceive this crucial flaw stems from the ultimate amorality of their philosophy. Good and evil as mutually exclusive moral categories are said to be only an "illusion" which blinds humanity from seeing the unity of all things. This the ultimate achievement is to rise to a "higher state of consciousness" where one is unencumbered by such crude stumbling stones as "good" and "evil."
While all this has an appearance of "wisdom" and is often propagated as such, it is in fact nothing more than "error craftily decked out in attractive dress," as Irenaeus observed eighteen hundred years ago. Perhaps it would be closer to the mark to say that such a notion is one of the most monumental intellectual and moral defaults in the
Page 108
history of human thought. It should be noted that the inability to distinguish between right and wrong is a legal definition of insanity according to most systems of jurisprudence. When a murderer is declared not guilty by reason of insanity, it means that he did not know it was wrong to kill his victim.
This idea of an uncontrolled Deity mired in its own creation undergirds the system of reincarnation and karma. All lives partake of the balancing act in which people, as part of the One, redeem the universe. But in the final analysis it never is redeemed, for karma is a permanent feature of the cosmos. Even under the best circumstances, it becomes temporarily dormant after the dissolution of the universe, only to re-emerge in the next cycle of creation. Thus the law of karma only postpones the solution to the problem of evil and suffering eternally, without ever confronting or solving the root of the dilemma.
Reincarnation and Theodicy
On the surface, the doctrine of reincarnation is an honest human attempt to answer the problem of theodicy, God's relationship to evil. For this reason many people find it appealing. W.R. Alger, a distinguished Unitarian clergyman of the nineteenth century, enthusiastically shared this view: "The theory of transmigration of souls is marvellously adapted to explain the seeming chaos of moral inequity, injustice and manifold evil presented in the world of human life. Once admit the theory to be true, and all the difficulties in regard to moral justice vanish."4
In the first half of his statement Alger makes a valid point: reincarnation does provide a specific explanation for situations of injustice, inequality and suffering. The victimized person has committed offenses in previous lives and must therefore pay the consequences. It is a theory which very much appeals to the deep questions of people who cry out and ask "Why?" or "Why me?"
Page 109
But herein lies the danger. It is an attempt to reduce the deepest and most painful human questions and problems to an easily manageable formula. While it does provide a convenient solution to the problem of injustice and suffering, it only pushes the real problem of theodicy and the origin of evil further out of reach and perpetuates it through endless cycles of karmic action and reaction.
The second half of Alger's statement, his remark that "all difficulties in regard to moral justice vanish," is both naive and incorrect. For even if we are able to account for the unjust suffering of individuals, the root problem of the origin of evil remains. Nor does the philosophic system on which reincarnation is based ever provide any final solution to the problem of evil and suffering; for each new regeneration of the universe gives rise to the same old status quo. In this respect reincarnation is a totally inadequate response to the problem of evil.
The Christian faith approaches the problem of evil and suffering quite differently. Instead of indicating a specific reason for each person's individual plight, biblical revelation appeals to the sovereignty and mercy of God. This is well illustrated in the story of the man born blind (John 9:1-3). When specifically asked about this very problem ("Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"), Jesus did not engage in past-life speculations: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." Jesus then restored his sight. The man's individual situation is viewed as a symptom of the total human condition, which Jesus came to redeem. Why the blind man had suffered more than others we are not told.
Paul also addressed this problem in the book of Romans: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! . . . But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay,
Page 110
to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (9:14, 20-21). Paul responds to the problem by appealing to the sovereignty of God as expressed in Christian theism: God is the all-powerful and all-wise Creator, a personal God who actively wills things, as opposed to the impersonal God of reincarnationists that is in bondage to its own nature in perpetuity. In Romans 11:33-34, the apostle rests his case:
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
Who then are we to presume to understand the infinite wisdom and complexity of the divine purposes? God's plan will unfold perfectly and in its time; it is our duty to love and obey him. It is our desire to place ourselves at the center of the universe and be as God that has been our undoing.
At this point some may still ask how Christianity is any different when it comes to the problem of God and evil. Is not the God of the Bible also responsible for evil? Although God is of course "responsible" for everything that transpires in his universe, it is more precise to say that he responds to evil, for evil is not part of his character. While the Scriptures do not give us a precise, systematic statement on the origin of evil (theodicy is primarily addressed in terms of its solution, the cross of Christ), they do provide a number of pieces to put together this greatest of puzzles. This subject, needless to say, deserves several volumes; I can at most supply a skeletal outline.
Primarily, it is generally held that God created sentient beings so they could share in his love and goodness through a personal relationship with him. Yet love involves choice and free will; if we were not free to love God, but only programmed like robots, love would not be genuine. And free
Page 111
will involves risk; it may be abused. Apparently it was abused. Satan, for reasons that are little understood, rebelled against God in what was probably a sin of pride and self-will. He led a rebellion and was exiled to earth with his fallen angels. When the human race was created, they were seduced by Satan and hence came the Fall.
The important concept to grasp here is that evil did not originate with God; he is not the author of evil, although he has allowed it to continue for a season for reasons finally known only to him. His moral perfection is thereby preserved. Although God could obliterate all his fallen creatures with one sharp command, he has instead chosen to prove his love by becoming incarnate as one of us, experientially sharing our suffering and personally paying the price by redeeming the stricken race. This is the true love and character of God made known. Thus the Lord told the apostle Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9).
In this light it seems clear that the monistic doctrine of dissolution of personality is in actuality an attack upon the personal nature of God himself. While God is infinite, unsearchable and ineffable, as Paul declares in Romans 11, he is also the same God who revealed himself to Moses by the Hebrew name of Yahweh ("I AM THAT I AM"). The oft-quoted verse in Genesis 1:26, that God made humanity in his own image, is generally held to refer to personality; we who are finite-personal beings can know God because he is infinite-personal. When personality is destroyed and obliterated, no amount of clever sophistry can disguise the fact that "God" is reduced to an existential blur or a sinking feeling in the pit of one's stomach. God is then lowered to an object of philosophical musing; "he" becomes a scientifically defined cosmic law which can be manipulated by spiritual techniques instead of being worshiped.
Page 112
Law and Grace
Theologian Francis Schaeffer once said that if each person were to go through life with a tape recorder hung around his or her neck, everyone would stand condemned at the Final Judgment when the reels were played back; for each of us would pass sentence on ourselves for being guilty of doing the very things we daily decried. Such is the human condition. We have all broken God's laws, ignored him in self-pursuit, and deserve the punishment (Romans 3:23 and 6:23). Likewise, according to reincarnationists, we have all become enmeshed in the law of karma. As Blavatsky says,
Our philosophy has a doctrine of punishment as stern as that of the most rigid Calvinist, only far more consistent, and philosophical, with absolute justice. No deed, not even a single thought, will go unpunished; the latter more severely even than the former, as a thought has far more potential in creating evil results even than a deed.5
The law of karma is a hard taskmaster, and every soul must bear its own burden. Blavatsky confirms this when she says, "[Reincarnation] is the destiny of every Ego, which thus becomes its own Savior in each world and incarnation."6 In Travel Diary of a Philosopher, Count Hermann Keyserling concurs:
Every action entails, according to the law of karma, its natural and inevitable consequence; every one must bear those for himself, no merciful Providence can remove them . . . The man who does not believe in himself is considered to be an atheist in the real sense of the word. The highest ideal would be if a man could think of himself continuously, not as the most sinful of sinners . . . but as perfect; such a man would no doubt attain perfection even in this life.7
How anyone would attain perfection by thinking only of himself is an incomprehensible anomaly, but at any rate it becomes obvious that there are no free gifts in reincarnation.
Page 113
The concepts of mercy and forgiveness are foreign to the cosmic gristmill of karmic thought, although the teaching of Buddhism concerning bodhisattvas bears a surface resemblance. These bodhisattvas are reincarnated masters who are said to possess the ability to burn off inordinate amounts of the karma of their followers if their disciples submit totally to their teaching and techniques. This state of affairs is not, however, to be confused with forgiveness; it is more like an acceleration process. Furthermore, the bodhisattvas are limited in their influence by time and space and must reincarnate periodically. Since this concept postdates Hebrew thought, it may be a modification of the forgiveness taught in the Old Testament. Similarly, Hinduism has had since medieval times its avatars, who are said to be "mini-incarnations" that arrive from time to time in the form of holy men.
In stark contrast, Christian love knows nothing of calculations or boundaries. The fallen human condition is not a closed system that perpetuates itself into eternity with no exit. Geddes MacGregor observes:
Asiatic religions, which have rightly been called "religions of eternal cosmic law" imply a state of affairs that orthodox Christians have always believed to be that which Jesus Christ came to end. There is truth in the slogan of some modern theologians that Christianity is not a religion, but the end of religions. That is, indeed, precisely what the primitive church saw behind the Death and Resurrection of Christ . . . So there is a dimension in the Christian faith that no karmic principle or reincarnationist doctrine could fully contain, since Jesus Christ is held to be victorious over the very state of affairs they represent.8
Reincarnationists say we are all working our way back to God; Christianity says that we are running away from God but that he has pursued us in Jesus Christ. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners
Page 114
Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). It is he who redeems us.
Martin Luther called this human predicament "the bondage of the will." Calvin put it in stronger terms, speaking of humanity's "total depravity." Both men meant that the human race is hopelessly enslaved to self-will, "making man the measure of all things" and caring little, if anything, for the will of God unless it can be manipulated for self-gratification. In responding to this condition, God undertakes responsibility for his rebellious creatures, taking the initiative by actually absorbing the sin of humanity and its consequences: "For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21).
Thus we have the "big switch" of Christian theology. God takes our sin, condemns it on the cross and gives us his righteousness in return as grace, a free and undeserved gift. Because it is accomplished and given by God, it is perfect and complete; nothing can be added to it, and human righteousness and good works cannot improve God's forgiveness.
In fact, one of the greatest misconceptions that can be held about the nature of God is that he does not forgive sin — a thesis that the proponents of reincarnation frequently assert. They do not feel it possible for God to be merciful or for human beings to be personally transformed by the free gift of his grace and mercy. Sadly, this is a common misconception among people of all religions. It has been said that human religion is no more than people trying to reach up and appease God through feeble works of self-righteousness and austerities; in contrast, God's religion is initiated by God himself, as he reaches down in self-revelation and forgiveness. For this reason Paul is adamant when he says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — not because of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Page 115
Even in the Old Testament, centuries before Christ, God held out his hand to all:
Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool (Isaiah 1:18).
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:7).
Such is the true love of God. Can it even be compared to the merciless and exacting retribution of karma and reincarnation? The gulf is infinitely wide between the two: God has effected a permanent healing, soon to be complete, while reincarnation is an eternally incurable malignancy. Essentially, bad karma is nothing more than unforgiven sin, and, as such it stands in marked contrast to the reality of forgiveness.
Satan's Last Stand
Scripture tells us that death is the last enemy to be conquered. It was also the first result of the Fall: "For in the day that you eat of [the tree] you shall die" (Genesis 2:17). The curse of death is at the very center of the human condition; Jesus validated his claim to be the Messiah by being raised from the dead. Paul tells the Corinthians that if Christ has not been raised, their faith is futile and they are still in their sins. If for this life only they have hoped in Christ, they "are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19). Over and over again, death is held out as the counterpoint
Page 116
to God's offer of life in the Bible.
Because there is so much at stake with death, it is precisely at this point that Satan can be expected to make his final stand. If he could be successful in denying the reality of the curse of death, he could anesthetize people to the need for the gospel of the New Testament. Therefore, an all-out assault is likely; the serpent's retort to Eve in the garden has echoed down through the centuries: "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" (Gen 3:4-5). The Devil's perennial denial of sin and death is perhaps an attempt to justify his rebellion and establish an autonomous set of rules for his own kingdom.
The most recent assault on the reality and the curse of death has secured a firm beachhead through the thanatology movement, popularized by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross with her life-after-death research (she claims to be aided by several helpful spirit beings named Salem, Anka, and Willie), and Raymond Moody with his best seller Life After Life. The current boom in popular reincarnation beliefs and past-life recall may catch many a hungry fish with the same old battered lure. Helen Wambach reports that ninety per cent of her subjects experienced "previous deaths" with little or no negative feelings, and often with joy. During a lecture in Palo Alto, California, she summed up the prevailing Zeitgeist with obvious relish: "The Age of Aquarius means that we're learning that we never die. You will experience many lives, many time periods."9
Spiritual Deception and Spiritual Warfare
Finally, it must be realized that spiritual deception is the means to an end, and that end is spiritual bondage. Reincarnation is a philosophic/ religious system which is the direct antithesis of biblical revelation. Because the concept of rebirth is such a linchpin in gnostic-occult and Eastern philosophy, it has been highly developed, covered over
Page 117
with layers of sophistry, and reinforced by centuries of elaborate philosophy in order to render it palatable to its followers. However, underneath the sugar coating is the bitter pill of error; recall phenomena are only part of the whole system of spiritual bondage and deception into which entire races and cultures have fallen.
This bondage is exemplified by the after-death rites performed by certain Tibetan Buddhists, who are firm believers in reincarnation. When a person dies, the body is carried to a large flat rock on a hillside by specially trained people known as "dumden men." These men undress the corpse and, laying it out on the rock, methodically butcher the body with machetes. The limbs are first hacked off and stripped of all flesh; the body is decapitated, the flesh is scraped from the skull and the brains are removed. Then the torso is ripped open and disemboweled, and all the human flesh is chopped into bite-sized pieces for the gathering vultures. The remaining bones are ground to a pasty pulp with mortar and pestle and mixed with ghee (clarified yak butter) and barley meal. This mixture is then whipped into a stiff paste and set next to the flesh. The vultures descend and eat. If the ghoulish remains are entirely eaten by the birds, it is a good omen for the reincarnating soul; if uneaten or partially devoured, it bodes evil for the next birth.
Such is the reality of spiritual bondage. The Old Testament strictly forbade similar rituals of pagan cults practiced by Israel's neighbors, rituals such as the burning of one's children as sacrifices. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul, writing to the church in Corinth, asserted that pagan idolatry was more than just folk nonsense. Speaking of the local temple sacrifices, Paul recognized that they were forms of systematic bondage, in which demons were masquerading as beneficent gods:
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what
Page 118
pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons (1 Corinthians 10:19-21).
Comparing Religions
In comparing religious world views such as gnostic reincarnation and Christianity, it is helpful to have a frame of reference, a theological grid on which to evaluate belief systems. This enables us more clearly to perceive differences and similarities on critical points. One such grid compares various religions in five main areas of doctrinal concern: (1) doctrine of God, (2) nature of the world, (3) human nature, (4) method of salvation and (5) theodicy.
Comparing the positions of Christianity to the gnostic / reincarnationist views in this way, it becomes obvious that the two are in fundamental disagreement on all these pivotal issues. A brief cross-referencing of the two views will bring the picture into sharper focus.
Doctrine of God. As demonstrated throughout this study, the theology of reincarnation is based on an impersonal principle which undergirds the universe and emanates forth from itself in endless cycles of expansion and contraction. In contrast, the Bible tells us that God is holy and infinite in all respects, yet personal; he is a God who stands apart from creation and loves his creatures with a self-sacrificing love.
Nature of the world. Reincarnation views the world as a state which is less than real, an illusory projection of consciousness which is inherently negative, a lamentable by-product of the creative forces of the universe. Christianity sees the world as real, though temporal and fallen. It is part of God's deliberate creation, and as such it has a definite purpose and is basically good. The finished creation is portrayed in Genesis (before the Fall) as both real and good.
Human Nature. Reincarnation regards people as transient shells that are filled with an immortal soul for a season and then
Page 119
extinguished forever as the soul passes on and assumes a new body and personality. This soul or spiritual essence is conceived of as being a part of God. Christianity views people as made in the image of God (see Genesis 1:26), and so human beings have both personality and moral responsibility. Nonetheless, we are not Deity in essence, and humanity is not a mode of the Divine; an infinite gulf separates creature from the Creator.
Method of salvation. Reincarnationists insist on self-salvation; the soul must save itself by working off karma in multitudinous reincarnations, finally achieving liberation by getting off the wheel of rebirth. Christianity insists that eternal salvation is a gift from God in which the personality is retained, and salvation is conferred on the recipient regardless of merit. It is only necessary to receive the gift of eternal life through faith and then to apply it through righteous living. Jesus' merit becomes our merit.
Theodicy. Reincarnation's endless cycles never solve the problem of evil; evil is eternal. The idea of evil continuing forever is unthinkable in Christianity. Evil was conquered by the death and resurrection of Christ and will be put away forever when he returns to judge the world. This is reflected in Jesus' frequent restatement of the theme "this age [the present order of things] and the age to come [where evil has been eradicated, in the kingdom of God]."
All things considered, a fundamental difference between historic Christianity and the religions of the East lies in their respective focal points. The former puts God at the center; he is the object of worship. The latter reduces theology to anthropology, making humanity the measure of all things. British writer Harry Blamires underscores the danger of this anthropocentric view when he says, "In the Christian moral system the key sin is pride — that perversion of the will by which the self is asserted as the center of the universe. That is the mark of the utterly lost soul."10
Chapter Ten || Table of Contents
________________________
1. The Writings of Irenaeus, vol 1 (Edinburgh: T.T. Clark, 1868), p.2.
2. Clarence R. Pedersen, "The Source of Becauses," in Hanson, Karma, p.36.
3. Ibid., p.37.
4. Quoted in C.J. Ducasse, The Belief in a Life after Death (Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas, 1961), p.209.
5. Blavatsky, Key to Theosophy, p.135.
6. Ibid., p.27.
7. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.59.
8. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, p.24.
9. Lecture in Palo Alto, Calif., 15 July 1979.
10. Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1978), p.89.
