My impression of Dr. Wayne Dyer is that he's a nice guy, who'd I probably like very much personally should we get the chance to meet. Last I checked, we apparently also see things in a similar way politically. But this short article is more a response to his spritual writings than his politics or personality.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me are all the amusing contradictions of the New Age movement. Dr. Dyer's writings are certainly no exception. Looking, in particular, at his short essay Becoming Spiritual, something interesting leaps out.

Despite initially claiming not to be "judgemental", and apparently disclaiming any sense of elitism, Dr. Dyer immediately sets out to divide human beings into two basic categories -- "us" and "them", or "spiritual beings" and "non-spiritual beings."

He begins by writing, apparently acceptingly:

The non-spiritual person is not incorrect or bad because he or she experiences the world only in a physical manner.

... but then proceeds to list twelve differences between the "spiritual" and "non-spiritual" in a way that clearly favors the "spiritual" person while showing the "non-spiritual" person in an inferior light, portraying the beliefs of "unspiritual beings" as being behind most the suffering in the world.

Now, don't get me wrong: I have no argument against people who want to say their way of life is superior to all others. In fact, I think each person should live in whatever way they think is most profitable, correct, beneficial, and moral. But I think people show also have the honesty to admit it when they take such a position, rather than pretending to a false non-judgementalism.

So we have the first contradiction, saying you believe in the connectedness of all people, and implying a non-judgemental approach, while dividing humanity up into two basic types and selling one as clearly superior to the other.

Playing Word Games

Another surprising thing about Dr. Dyer's writing is that he takes it upon himself to define exactly who can be called "spiritual", and who is not. Christian mystics through the ages, who report visions of various sorts, are "not spiritual" in Wayne Dyer's taxonomy, simply because they believed in the theistic God. I suppose the same would probably have to be said about the Jesus you meet in the bible.

Though I might be found to argue about who is or is not "Christian" (alas, one is guilty of being a horrible person today if one believes the word could ever exclude anyone) I'd certainly never deny a person the ability to label themselves with a broad term like "spiritual," no matter how much our beliefs differed. But Wayne Dyer apparently inculcates his followers with a definition which does precisely that.

So here we have second contradiction, one often seen among New Age adherants: Claiming to be utterly accepting, while in fact redefining words in unusual ways which deny the usual, obvious meaning, and exclude some from a category they would otherwise clearly seem to belong to.

Now, on to his essay...

Becoming Spiritual

1. The non-spiritual being lives exclusively within the five senses, believing that if you cannot see, touch, smell, hear, or taste something, then that something simply doesn't exist. The spiritual being knows that beyond the five physical senses, there are other senses we use to experience the world of form....

Even though you cannot perceive it through one of the five senses, you know that you are a soul with a body.... To be a spiritual being means that you allow yourself the option of being multi-sensory. Hence a whole new world opens up.

Most religions believe we are more than physical beings: that we also have a spiritual aspct, a soul (Hindu atman) which inhabits a physical body. But, as we'll soon see, the emphasis becomes not merely on admitting spiritual experiences can occur, but rather on unquestioning acceptance of any kind of spiritual experience or guidance.

2. The non-spiritual being believes we are alone in the universe. The spiritual being knows he or she is never alone...

Non-spiritual beings accept the existence of a supreme being or God, not as a universal force that is within us but as a separate power that will someday hold us accountable. They do not see themselves as having assistance or a higher self...

Here Dr. Dyer introduces a major doctrine, sneaking in almost subtly, below the radar screen, rather than presenting it clearly for conscrious evaluation. The belief is that we have a "higher self", a part of us with a distinct personality and will which presents itself to us through spiritual experiences, and practices such as mediatation.

But this does not necessarily follow from point #1: Traditional Christians, for example, (who we have just learned are, surprisingly, "non-spiritual") believe we are all spiritual beings, and have a soul. But the soul is just "us", the thing looking out from behind the eyes, not a distinct personality separate from our conscious one, nor some spiritual entity who shows up claiming to be our "higher self" and asking (ultimately) that we do whatever it tells us.

Similarly, Dr. Dyer claims: "They do not see themselves as having assistance or a higher self." While it is true that Christians do not believe that an entity purporting to be your "higher self" should be accepted, it is NOT true that they see themselves as without assistance: they instead see themselves as having assistance from the loving being who created the entire universe. Me personally, I think that's not a bad trade-off.

So we have the Christian conception of the spiritual -- there are indeed spiritual beings around us at all times, but we must use our minds to judge all spiritual experiences against reason and revealed truth -- versus the Eastern conception of the spiritual: there is no absolute, shared "truth" nor "goodness" to judge against, and it is implied to be wrong to bring reason to bear in evaluating such experiences.

But Dr. Dyer avoids such debates. Instead, he uses a straw man argument to bypass this third position -- of believing in the spiritual, but not trusting it unquestioningly, and seeking help primarily from God, not some intermediary of questionable motivation. We believe it in all -- but that's different than looking to it for guidance, as Dyer would apparently tell us we must do.

3. The non-spiritual being is focused on external power. The spiritual being is focused on personal empowerment.

By contrast, the spiritual being is focused on empowering himself...

First, notice the focus here: the "self". Empowering the "self." Contrast that with the two great laws of Christianity: (1) Love God with all your heart, mind, strength, and (2) love your neighbor as yourself.

So what's wrong with "external power"? The Eastern conception of the universe is that all conscious reality is actually illusion (Hindu maya), and that all apparent suffering is illusory. In Western belief, we try to stop suffering by addressing the physical, political, psychological, and/or religious root causes.

But if reality is just illusion, then "liberation" comes from "detachment" -- realizing it is all just an illusion and ceasing to get emotionally involved in it -- the soul learns to stop caring or believing in the suffering. Further, since each soul is really God in disguise, and there is no "right" nor "wrong", all are living out a pre-chosen life-path, and thus it would be immoral to interfere by use of force.

This idea is called karma, and it has been popularized in recent years by spokespersons such as Shirley McClain, who attributes the suffering of the poor to choices they made before birth in order to work off bad Karma or accumulate good Karma. It is also the core belief behind the Hindu caste system.

In contrast, in the JudoChristian conception, reality is NOT mere illusion, and suffering is real, not simply illusory. In the JudeoChristian conception, there is such a thing as evil, and it is depicted as needing to be restrained, sometimes by physical force, lest it destroy and inflict suffering upon the innocent, who have not chosen such treatment in a former existence. Thus the bible demands the use of force for good, such as: "Rescue those being led away to death, hold back those staggering towards the slaughter..." (Prov. 24:11) and the incident where Jesus made a whip and drove money-changers from the temple, against their will.

So we have two worldviews in conflict: biblical and Eastern. There is a legimate debate to be had here. But it is not served by portraying your opponents as selfish materialists who are only concerned about using "external power" for selfish reasons. To the contrary, rather than being told to seek "personal empowerment" -- by external or internal means, Christians are told to love their neighbors as themselves. Protecting the innocent is an important aspect of that.

If you were being attacked by a thug, would you want physical force to be used to restrain that person from hurting you? Shouldn't you treat others the same way? So you can see there are serious practical differences here which are being brushed under the rug rather than debated openly.

The use of force over another is not a possibility for the spiritual being. He or she is not interested in collecting power, but rather in helping others to live in harmony and to experience real magic. This is a power of love that does not judge others. There is no hostility or anger in this kind of power.

Again, let's be honest here: In Wayne Dyer's taxonomy, the biblical Jesus was an unenlightened, unspiritual being. He used force over others:

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:15)

Jesus judged others:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town." (Matthew 23:33-34)

Jesus experienced anger as a wholesome, godly reaction against those who oppressed others and rejected God's love for them and others:

Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath... [Jesus] looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. (Mark 3:1-3,5)

Again, according to Dr. Dyer, Jesus was deeply unspiritual and flawed, and certain feelings (anger) and actions (using force) are always inherantly wrong. According to the bible, there is a place and time for everything, and our life is a challenge to learn when to use each tool, and when it is wrong.

Unless you are willing to fire the police, since their whole existence is predicated on the idea that it is sometimes right to use force, Dyer's philosophy may not be one you think should dominate your life or our society.

4. The non-spiritual being feels separated and distinct from all others, a being unto himself...

While this may certainly be true of atheists and other kinds of materialist, recall again that Dyer has rhetorically forced Christians into his "non-spiritual being" category.

It is certainly true that Christians feel "distinct" as personalities and individuals -- whereas in Eastern beliefs, individuality and distictions are bad and an illusion (we are all really part of the collective, and in many Eastern religions, the individual identity must be oliterated), in JudeoChristian belief, God created, loves, and cherishes our distinctions and individual identities.

On the other hand, Dyer's implication that the Christian, as a "non-spiritual being" "feels separated ... from all others" is patently false. Consider, again, the teachings of Jesus:

I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers.... As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love... (excerpted from John 15)

We are in Jesus, and Jesus is in us; Jesus and the Father are One, so God is in us and with us. Even the most basic understanding of Christian doctrine leads one to understand that the Christian experience is one of experiencing "Jesus in your heart", one of profound communion with God and others:

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (Rev. 3:20)

Jesus is alongside us, communing with us; our identity as individuals remains.

And among believers:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. (Acts 4:32)

The salient point is that we are connected to each other by being first connected to God; thus we are connected through God. It is the Christian who believes this connection is entirely voluntary, and that it cannot be forced on anyone. I and Hitler are not "one" unless we choose and agree to be.

Finally for today, just as Dr. Dyer apparently wishes to deny the Christian any claim to being "spiritual", so also he rhetorically denies any power could possibly associated with that experience:

Plainly stated, miracles and real magic are simply unavailable to those who believe themselves to be islands in the sea of humanity.

Yet, to the contrary, the bible is filled with people who believed they were "islands in the sea of humanity", such as Ezekiel, who believed (mistakenly) he was the last non-Baal-worshipper, David, who often felt like the whole world was against him, Jesus, who said he was the son of God, and that his opponents were children of the devil, and Peter and Paul, who did not claim to be united with those trying to kill them. But the power of miracles were nonetheless demonstrated in these lives, and they often rejoiced at seeing God's divine power, deliverance, and help demonstrated in their lives.

And I would have to say, at certain points, that I have very much seen this power at work in my own life as well, despite the fact that my personality remains intact, and I do not claim nor seek any spiritual unity with people like Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin. But according to Dr. Dyer, my experiences, as are those of Christians throughout the world and over the ages, are all either impossible or illegitimate, as we believe we are distinct individuals who believe in an external God.

Again, I don't mind that Dr. Dyer draws judgements and distictions. I do somewhat mind that he claims that miracles are impossible in the lives of those who believe in the God of the bible, and don't seek out, trust, and obey random spiritual entities (only God!) for help and guidance.

But what seems so insincere is that he claims not to be doing so, while being, in implication, far more judgemental and exclusive than any Christian I'd know: Christians would never claim spiritual experiences are denied to those with differing theology, or that they should not be called "spiritual". They would just be concerned such people wouldn't have the tools and safeguards to deal with them safely.

Enough for now; more later hopefully.