Tag Archives: Richard Rohr

09/28/21

Is the Enneagram Spiritually Neutral? Part 2

© peterhermesfurian | 123rf.com

The Enneagram of personality was developed by two men, Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo. In “The Enneagram — A History (Part 3),” Brandon Medina said Ichazo and Naranjo each played a key role in reimagining the Enneagram. As a result, the modern Enneagram, the Enneagram of personality, is not being taught and practiced the way George Gurdjieff conceived it, “as a tool which can reveal all knowledge and by which the secrets of the cosmos are laid bare.” Medina suggested that you could say that the Enneagram created by Gurdjieff died with him.

In Part 1, we looked at some of the history behind the Enneagram, noting how Gurdjieff drew it from ancient sources, possibly from the Babylonians. The Law of Three and the Law of Seven in the Enneagram were noted to be the philosophical foundation of the Fourth Way, a method he developed for humans to switch from the temporal to the immortal—in order to experience the “real world.” Here, while looking at “The Enneagram—A History (Part 2),” we will see how the efforts of two men transformed the Enneagram into a mystical personality test.

Ichazo and His Scientific “Discovery”

Oscar Ichazo was born in Bolivia in 1931. At the age of nineteen he joined a study group that experimented with techniques of altered consciousness. “I had contact with Indians and they introduced me to psychedelic drugs and shamanism while I was in my early teens.” Roughly one year later he was introduced to the writings of both George Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky, a student of Gurdjieff. Ichazo said in 1950 he was invited to a closed study group that included Theosophists, esoteric Rosicrucians, and a sect of mystical Christians called Martinists, where he took part in long discussions about the work of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. “I first pointed out to this group that all the ideas proposed by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky could be traced to certain forms of Gnosticism and to specific doctrines of the Stoics, the Epicurians, and the Manichaeans.”

Ichazo began to research Eastern tantra and the Holy Kabbalah. He traveled to Tibet and India to study yoga, alchemy, I Ching Kabbalah, Buddhism, Zen and Sufism. “Ichazo claimed to have received insight and instruction from Metatron the prince of the archangels and students whom Ichazo trained at his Arica Institute were guided by their own spirit guide, the Green Qu ’Tab, once they reach a higher state of development.” After waking from “a divine coma” he was in for seven days, he realized he had been entrusted to bring a special new accelerated method of spiritual work to the West.

The Enneagram with Riso-Hudson Type Names

Most Enneagram practitioners attribute the nine personality categories and their corresponding numbers on the Enneagram figure to Ichazo. He said the Enneagram of personality came to him in a vision and was his sole invention. He also introduced several other Enneagrams, which he called enneagons, for a total of one hundred and eight. The only differences were the terms surrounding the Enneagram figure, not the figure itself. He claimed direct revelation of all 108 Enneagram types.

I never considered them my invention, but a discovery as scientific discoveries are, with exactly the same qualifications of being verifiable and objective. . . [They] reflect something real in human nature itself. We feel the categories have been discovered rather than invented.

He later modified this statement, saying he did not receive the enneagons from anyone. “They came to me, 108 in all, as in a vision, showing their internal relationships with complete clarity.” Ichazo said that not only was he the initiator of the Enneagram of personality, but also “the 108 enneagons and the entire system in all its terms have been developed by me, only and exclusively.” He began teaching a group of fifty-five students in Arica who sought to reach their human potential (striving to switch from the temporal to the immortal—in order to experience the “real world”) by listening to a series of his lectures and using a variety of spiritual practices based on mystical and meditative traditions.

Naranjo and What Came to Him

Claudio Naranjo was a Chliean psychiatrist born in 1932. He was also introduced to the Enneagram and Ouspensky in his teens. In 1962, Naranjo was at Harvard as a visiting Fulbright scholar, where he participated in Gordon Alport’s Social Psychology seminar. He became a close friend of Carlos Castaneda and was part of Leo Zeff’s psychedelic therapy group in 1965-66. While taking a pilgrimage after the death of his son, Naranjo returned to Chile and became a student of Ichazo’s at the Arica Institute.

Naranjo corroborated Ichazo’s claim about how he received the enneagons. He said it was his own reading of Ouspensky and the Fourth Way that led him to Ichazo. “My main interest in learning from Oscar Ichazo was a conviction that he was a link to the Sarmouni—the school behind Gurdjieff.” But like Ichazo, Naranjo muddied the water as to the origin of the Enneagram of personality, initially saying it was Ichazo who introduced him to the Enneagram during Ichazo’s series of lectures.

Later, he seemed to suggest Ichazo cared very little for the Enneagram. Referring to Ichazo, Naranjo said, “He didn’t talk about the enneagrams of personality more than two hours during our year with him.” Naranjo said if Ichazo was credited as the ‘seed’ of the enneagram movement, “I should rather compare myself to the gardener who has watered the plant.” He claimed it was he, Naranjo, who put into words what Ichazo had the barest understanding and description of. Naranjo has also stated the psychological types of the Enneagram came to him by a process of ‘automatic writing.’

Naranjo sites his ‘automatic’ writing while Ichazo has said that a person “may receive instructions from the higher entities such as Metatron, the prince of the archangels, who has given instructions to Ichazo.” It was the contradictory claims of origin between the two and specifically the supernatural claims of inspiration made by both men which would later become a problem regarding ownership for Ichazo, Naranjo, and Arica.

Naranjo brought the Enneagram of personality to the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California. Esalen was an experimental center of esoteric ideas that had a crucial role in the human potential movement. Naranjo’s connection to Esalen was through his being an apprentice of Fritz Perls, and part of the early Gestalt Therapy movement, where he conducted workshops as a visiting associate at Esalen. One of Naranjo’s students at Esalen was a Jesuit priest, Bob Ochs, who took what he had learned about the Enneagram of personality to Loyola University in 1971.

The Enneagram Goes to Church

There Ochs taught the Enneagram of personality to several priests, including Don Riso, Mitch Pawca and Gerry Hare, who later taught it to Richard Rohr. In time, Don Riso left the priesthood and cofounded The Enneagram Institute with Russ Hudson. Pawca eventually abandoned the Enneagram, concerned it was introducing New Age beliefs into Catholicism. He wrote Catholics and the New Age in 1992 and “Enneagram: A Modern Myth.” Within the chapter, “Occult Roots of the Enneagram,” Pawca said:

The books by Gurdjieff’s disciples and articles about Oscar Ichazo prove they practiced occultism and that occultism is interwoven with the enneagram itself. Therefore, I believe Christians need to be aware of the enneagram’s occult origins so they can prevent occult traces from infecting their faith in Christ Jesus.

Lastly, there is Richard Rohr, who would become one of the key figures to popularize the Enneagram of personality within evangelical churches. He is a Franciscan priest who founded the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He’s published over thirty books, including: The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective and Discovering the Enneagram: An Ancient Tool a New Spiritual Journey. He wrote the Foreword to The Sacred Enneagram by Christopher Heuertz. Ian Cron and Susan Stabile, co-authors of The Road Back To You, along with Heuertz are friends and students of Rohr. The Sacred Enneagram and The Road Back to You are two of the most popular and widely read books on the Enneagram of personality within evangelical churches.

Medina noted how the competing claims of the supernatural origin of what they taught led to problems regarding ownership of the Enneagram of personality for Ichazo, Naranjo and Arica. The origins debate only became worse as students of both Ichazo and Naranjo disregarded non-disclosure agreements they signed and began to teach and write about what they had been taught. “In an attempt to stem the tide Naranjo went so far as to say that if these techniques were used or published outside of his training they would lessen in effect.” Yet, Naranjo failed to make those attending his public meetings sign a nondisclosure.

Much like what happened with Ichazo and Naranjo, attributions of conflicting origins were made by the various authors. Riso claimed a contemporary originship of Ichazo and Naranjo and not an ancient one as was claimed by Gurdjieff only to later change his position; Speeth and Palmer claimed an ancient origin which was developed by Gurdjieff and the Sufis. Though Palmer does agree with Ichazo’s claim that he developed a “new tradition” apart from the context [of] Sufi, Christian, and Gurdjieff into “an eclectic new age spiritual growth context.” No one can seem to agree if it is new or ancient, or new but ancient, or ancient but new. Because of the violation of the non-disclosure agreement as mentioned above, Arica would bring a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement; and in an ironic and amusing turn of events the very people whom broke the non-disclosure agreement they signed with Arica later made their students also sign non-disclosure agreements which they summarily ignored and broke. The books which quickly followed began to remove Arica, Ichazo, and Naranjo as originators of the Enneagram while some sought to ‘Christianize’ it.

There are now over 30 books by Christian publishers on the Enneagram of personality. IVP, InterVarsity Press, has books by Suzanne Stabile, Alice Fryling, Sean Palmer, and others. Zondervan publishes works by Christopher Heurtz. Thomas Nelson publishes Enneagram books by Beth McCord and Matthew Stephen Brown. There are dozens of Christian Enneagram coaches, like Beth McCord, the founder of YEC (Your Enneagram Coach), who provide “courses, coaching and community to help you discover your best self, using the tool of the Enneagram through the lens of the Gospel.”

Is the Enneagram of personality a ‘tool’ Christians can use? According to Beth McCord, you can see yourself “with astonishing clarity with the Enneagram through the lens of the Gospel, so [you] can break free from self-condemnation, fear, and shame by knowing and experiencing the unconditional love, forgiveness, and freedom in Christ.” We’ll examine this claim in the light of Scripture and look at a biblical critique of the Enneagram and the Enneagram of personality in Part 3 of this article.

07/20/21

The Perennial Fallacy

© Nikki Zalewshi | 123rf.com

Richard Rohr became a Franciscan in 1961 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1970. He founded the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC) in 1987 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and serves there as the founding director and academic dean of the Living School for Action and Contemplation. In a 2011 interview for NPR, he was called “one of the most popular spirituality authors and speakers in the world.” In the first chapter of his 2019 book, The Universal Christ, he said the first incarnation was described in Genesis 1, when God joined with the physical universe and became the light inside of everything. So much for the fundamental theological distinction between Creator and creation.

Everything visible, without exception, is the outpouring of God. What else could it really be? “Christ” is a word for the Primordial Template (“Logos”) through whom “all things came into being, and not one thing had its being except through him” (John 1:3). Seeing in this way has reframed, reenergized, and broadened my own religious belief, and I believe it could be Christianity’s unique contribution among the world religions. . . .We daringly believe that God’s presence was poured into a single human being, so that humanity and divinity can be seen to be operating as one in him—and therefore in us! But instead of saying that God came into the world through Jesus, maybe it would be better to say that Jesus came out of an already Christ-soaked world. The second incarnation flowed out of the first, out of God’s loving union with physical creation. If that still sounds strange to you, just trust me for a bit. I promise you it will only deepen and broaden your faith in both Jesus and the Christ. This is an important reframing of who God might be and what such a God is doing.

With these statements, Rohr identifies himself as a panentheist, believing that the universe is God. This is distinct from pantheism, which believes God and the universe are identical. According to the New Dictionary of Theology, “For the panentheist God has an identity of his own, that is, he is something which the universe is not. On the other hand, the universe is part of the reality of God. It is God.” In other words, the creation is an overflow of God’s creative being.  “God creates out of himself, not out of nothing.”

Rohr elaborated on his notion of the universal Christ in his blog for December 2, 2018, “Who Is Christ?” Rohr said he believes a Christian is simply someone who has learned to see Christ everywhere. “Understanding the Universal or Cosmic Christ can change the way we relate to creation, to other religions, to other people, to ourselves, and to God.” This so-called Universal Christ is a “Divine Presence” that pervades all of creation from the very beginning. The Big Bang is the scientific name for that idea whereas “Christ” is our Christian theological name.

Needless to say, conservative, evangelical Christians are strongly critical of The Universal Christ and Rohr’s theology. Michael McClymond, writing for The Gospel Coalition, said while Rohr covers himself in the mantle of Catholic and Franciscan spirituality, much of what he presents contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church and historic Christianity. Rohr’s distinction of “Jesus” from “Christ” is not a new idea. It was first addressed by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, written in 180 AD. Irenaeus said it was blasphemy to separate Christ from Jesus: “They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten.”

Marsha Montenegro, a former New Ager and ex-professional astrologer, critiqued Rohr’s The Universal Christ, for its support of perennialism and well as panentheism. Perennialism believes that all world religions share a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all knowledge and doctrine has grown. It does not teach that all religions are the same. Rather, it is the belief that although religions are diverse extrinsically, at their innermost core they are united phenomenologically, by shared religious experience. She referenced Rohr’s blog, which said the Perennial Tradition encompassed the recurring themes in all world religions and philosophies that say:

There is a Divine Reality underneath and inherent in the world of things. There is in the human soul a natural capacity, similarity and longing for this Divine Reality, and the final goal of existence is union with this Divine Reality.

I’m not clear on what Rohr’s current status is with the Roman Catholic church, but I’d like to know if his bishop has read The Universal Christ, or any of his other books. God creating out of Himself; distinguishing between Jesus and Christ; equating the Big Bang and Christ; and saying the final goal of reality is union with the Divine Reality seems like teachings that should bring him under some form of review or examination. How has he not been brought before some review board before now?

Marsha Montenegro did a 30-minute video on Alisa Childers’ YouTube channel on Perennialism. Alisa noted how perennialism is seeping into evangelical churches. Perennialists admit the practices and doctrines are different and even hold that it is okay to adhere to one religion, because you’ll benefit from that religion. But you are aware of this “truth” that supposedly unites all religions. “You kind of have this insight into the real meaning behind everything.” Montenegro accurately calls this belief gnostic.

You have people who may say they are Christian, or they’re Jewish, or their Hindu, but they follow the perennial philosophy. And so often they will say, “I follow the Christian tradition, or the Christian wisdom tradition, or the Hindu tradition. . . . But a lot of times you can’t really tell, because the person won’t say, “I follow perennial wisdom.”

Montenegro noted how Richard Rohr is very open about following and even advocating for perennial philosophy. Childers affirmed that perennialism is all over his website. “The perennial tradition points to recurring themes and truths within all of the world’s religions. At their most mature level, religions cultivate in their followers a deeper union with God, each other, and with reality or with what is.” You access this “core truth” through mysticism and experience; and through these practices, you are able to “see” what the truth of the perennial is.

In a book Marsha Montengro co-authored with Don and Joy Veinot, Richard Rohr and the Enneagram Secret, Montenegro and the Veinots said because of his Perennialist beliefs, Rohr accepted that the beliefs of Buddhism, the New Age, Hinduism, Islam, “or any other religion are valid.” Whatever their differences, Rohr believed they shared a common essence, a “Divine Reality,” where all paths end in the same truth. “Panentheism and Perennialism both lead Rohr to the false conclusion that no one needs any kind of salvation; all are ‘in’ Christ already; religions share the same core truth; and all that is needed is for people to realize these ideas.”

Montenegro and the Veinots said Rohr believed humans needed to move away from a dualistic mind-set, one that made distinctions, to a non-dual one. Rohr equated “dualistic thinking” with division and strife. He thought categorizing people into areas of their beliefs was divisive and destructive. He taught that we needed to move to a non-dual consciousness. In “A Change of Consciousness,” Rohr said:

The change that changes everything is the movement away from dualistic thinking toward non-dual consciousness. We know that if we settle for our old patterns of dualistic thought, this emerging phenomenon will be just one more of the many reformations in Christianity that have characterized our entire history. The movement will quickly and surely subdivide into liberal or conservative, Catholic or Protestant, intellectual or emotional, gay or straight, liturgical or Pentecostal, feminist or patriarchal, activist or contemplative—like all of the other dualisms—instead of the wonderful holism of Jesus, a fully contemplative way of being active and involved in our suffering world.Emerging Christianity is both longing for and moving toward a way of following Jesus that has much more to do with lifestyle than with belief. We do not want to solidify into an institution focused on certain words and the writing of documents. We want to remain, if at all possible, focused on orthopraxy (right practice), compassionate action flowing from non-dual consciousness.

Rohr would have you immerse yourself in a bottomless, shoreless sea of oneness with a Divine Reality. This seems eerily similar to transcendence as it is understood by William James in The Varieties of Religious Experience and echoes the spiritual, not religious experience of Alcoholics Anonymous. See “What Does Religious Mean?” and “Spiritual, Not Religious Experience.”

In the first chapter of Romans, Paul said the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. What can be known about God is plain, not hidden. God has shown it to them, including Richard Rohr, so he is without excuse. So, although he knew God, he did not honor him as God or give thanks to him. Rohr became futile in his thinking and his foolish heart was darkened. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:23).