Groothuis and Hexham 2/3
Second exchange of three between Groothuis and Hexham
Subject: Re: AR-talk Hexam/Poewe book slams evangelicals
To: AR-talk, AR-talk@xc.org
Originally from: <DGrooth133@aol.com>
Originally dated: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
On Hexam:
It is not irresponsible for me to make a general claim about Hexam's book. It is an encouragement for others to analyze it for themselves. I would like to review the entire book somewhere, but that remains to be seen.
Dr. Hexam's idiosyncratic discussion of monism is not the only problem with the section of his book. However, my discussion of monism in Unmasking the New Age is not without definition or illustration. Read it for yourself. It is abjectly and utterly absurd to think that a Christian student would have his faith threatened by understanding of the term, which is within the standard range of meaning. My use of the term is little different from R.C. Zaehner's use, for instance. My books are not superficial pot boilers or "reductionistic" as Hexam claims. Nor is Elliot Millers book. Hexam does not back up his accusations in the book.
On the other hand, Hexam's use of "monism" stretches the boundaries to the point of being misleading. When you say "Christianity can be viewed as a monism," most people will think of Meister Eckhart or Matthew Fox's view of Christianity, not the orthodox view. His quote of Gordon Clark is not given a sufficient context to make clear just what Clark was getting at.
It is also objectionable for Hexam to claim that the Geisler/Clark book, New Age Apologetics is wrong to view Suzuki, Sankara, Radhakrishan, and Plotinus as pantheistic thinkers. They clearly are pantheistic, although each has a different version of it. Hexam also faults Geisler/Clark for not including Hegel as a pantheist. This is ironic, since Hegel clearly is not a pantheism, but a panentheist.
It is also a poor strategy apologetically to write a book for a secular publisher and drag other Christians unnecessarily through the mud. What's the point of it, except to indicate that your approach is far superior.
Doug Groothuis
==================================================================
To post to AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to <AR-talk@xc.org>
To join or leave the AR-talk discussion group, send subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk <your@e.address> to <hub@xc.org>
Subject: Re: AR-talk Hexam/Poewe book slams evangelicals
To: AR-talk, AR-talk@xc.org
Originally from: <DGrooth133@aol.com>
Originally dated: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 17:58:53 -0400 (EDT)
Here are the specifics on the book I mentioned a few days ago:
Irving Hexam and Karla Poewe, *New Religions as Global Cultures: Making the
Human Sacred* (Westview Press: A Divison of HarperCollins Publishers, 1997).
Paperback, 194 pages. Chapter one contains the objectionable material on
evangelicals.
Douglas Groothuis
==================================================================
To post to AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to <AR-talk@xc.org>
To join or leave the AR-talk discussion group, send subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk <your@e.address> to <hub@xc.org>
Subject: Re: AR-talk Hexam/Poewe book slams evangelicals
To: AR-talk, AR-talk@xc.orgOriginally from: <DGrooth133@aol.com>
Originally dated: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
One more thing about Dr. Hexam's claim that my critique of the New Age
movement is too broad and unnuanced. I have always realized the breadth and
variety of what goes by (or went by) "New Age." I suggest the good
professor--and those influenced by his remarks--remember this statement from
Unmasking the New Age (InterVarsity Press, 1986):
"The task of properly identifying, analyzing, and critiquing something as
large and varied as the New Age movement is a formidable task for several
reasons. First, The New Age movement draws from many sources...Second,
because of this diversity, statements made by representatives of the New Age
may not hold for all those associated with it. Third, the New Age world view
itself emphasizes and exalts change and evolution. Therefore, many of those
involved in the New Age movement often shift theirperspectives...
Nevertheless, we can identify six distinctives of New Agethinking... (page 18).
"This kind of careful qualification (also used by Elliot Miller in his A Crash
Course on the New Age [Baker, 1989]), is hardly "reductionistic." Dr.Hexam's charge is groundless. Apparently, he thinks that only professors of
Religious Studies (like himself) are qualified to say anything of
significance on New Religious Movements. He is wrong.
Doug Groothuis
==================================================================
To post to AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to <AR-talk@xc.org>
To join or leave the AR-talk discussion group, send subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk <your@e.address> to <hub@xc.org>
Subject: Re: AR-talk Hexam/Poewe book slams evangelicals
To: AR-talk, AR-talk@xc.orgSender: owner-AR-talk@xc.org
Originally from: Apologia@xc.org (Rich Poll)
Originally dated: Sat, 14 Jun 97 22:19:38 -0000
On 6/15/97 3:40 AM, DGrooth133@aol.com <AR-talk@xc.org> wrote:
>One more thing about Dr. Hexam's claim...
By the quiet from you before today Doug I had the impression you were going by the Charter's admonishment to resist debating. I do now ask that you hold off. I believe you've had four posts to Irving's one. Please let it rest.
Could I interest you two in a online debate statement presentation that would be made available on the Apologia web site? I am envisioning something perhaps similar to the How Wide the Divide? item in our "What's News" archive.
How about it Irving? I'm open to negotiating the presentation format.
Rich
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rich Poll <Apologia@xc.org>
Owner/Moderator, AR-talk
<http://apologia.org>
==================================================================
To post to AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to <AR-talk@xc.org>
To join or leave the AR-talk discussion group, send subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk <your@e.address> to <hub@xc.org>