Talk:Esoteric Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esoteric Christianity article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

The Golden Wedding Garment, a symbolical representation

The Christian Cross

The Pentagram circumscribed

Contents

[edit] Why I think Theosophy should be included in the "See also" section of this article

Even though 216.154.28.192 has removed mention of Theosophy twice from the "See also" section of this article, I would like to voice my opinion that it should be included. 216.154.28.192 said that we who would like to include this in the article are, "Obviously ignorant of Theosophy's non-sectarian approach to religion as evidenced in the Society's motto: There is no religion higher than Truth." I would like to respond that I believe there is sufficient evidence connecting Theosophy and Esoteric Christianity, historically speaking, and that this evidence should be enough to include Theosophy in the "See also" section of this article. First of all, Theosophy's roots were influenced by, among others, those such as Jakob Böhme, Robert Fludd, and Emanuel Swedenborg; Christian mystics who were also directly involved with forms of Esoteric Christianity. Secondly, I would like to say that the statement concerning the group being nonsectarian can show that Esoteric Christian traditions were also part of the group's views and were not discouraged (since many of Madame Blavatsky's forms of Esotericism were directly influenced by Esoteric Christian traditions as well as many other mystical and religious traditions, and there were a number of Theosophists who were involved in forms of Esoteric Christianity and vice versa.) Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you (or someone) will, but, it seems the group believed that there is some potential truth in all religions, and this is perhaps represented by the fact that Theosophy's symbol is a mixture of many different religious symbols from many different religious traditions. Is this not a form of Universalism? And would it also include Esoteric Christian traditions as well? I think it would. Also, wasn't Blavatsky involved with Freemasonry in some way? All sorts of Masonic traditions are included in the "See also" section of this article, and I think they should be, but one could also say that Freemasonry isn't just open to Christians because you don't have to be a Christian to be a Freemason. But Freemasonry is listed in this article, as it should be, because of historic ties and influences (both directly and indirectly) to the things represented in this article. I think a similar case could be made for the inclusion of Theosophy in the "See also" section. Also, I think it should be said that Esoteric Christianity involves a blending of many different traditions too. In fact, many so-called "mainstream" Christians would probably disagree both theologically and philosophically with many of the traditions represented in this article, but it still doesn't mean that there isn't a blending of different religious views that were influenced in some way or another by varying types of Christian mysticism and Esotericism down through the ages. And just because a group might be considered a form of Esoteric Christianity, or somehow associated with Esoteric Christianity, does not mean it isn't nonsectarian or Universal. It could be nonsectarian and/or Universal. I think a discussion of this history is important for this particular article. I think the evolution of Esoteric Christianity can be traced with some degree of concise generality: it came from a mixture of "magical" folk traditions from the "Old World" (Europe, Asia, Africa) that combined with mystical forms of Christianity early on and then lead to the development of different Western esoteric groups such as the Knights Templar and the Cathars, to the Behmenists, the Rosicrucians, and the Freemasons, and so on. Alchemy, Mysticism, and/or other forms of Esotericism played a role in these groups (I also think some mention of the Grimoires of old and the Pow-wow (folk magic) could be included somewhere in this article as well.) But it didn't just end there. Theosophy also sprang from many of these traditions too. Not only that, but Theosophy in turn influenced other groups along these lines. Rudolf Steiner was involved with Theosophy and then later started his Anthroposophical Society (mentioned in the "See also" section of this article.) Other groups, like the one lead by Anna Kingsford, and the Liberal Catholic Church of J. I. Wedgwood also sprang from Theosophy. Many of the New Age movements also sprang from these traditions. Anyhow, I think there's enough evidence to include Theosophy in the "See also" section of this article. Geneisner (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now this is the third time 216.154.28.192 has removed information from the article (even though what he removed was footnoted in the case of Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.) I've reverted. User has not discussed, yet keeps taking things out of the article. Is this now Vandalism? It seems there is a pattern with this particular user. I recommend these topics for discussion, and should the article be partially protected until this issue is satisfactorily resolved by a consensus and/or democratic diplomacy? Geneisner (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] editing

I've deleted some of the polemical and now extranious items from this talk page. But I've left these pictures because I like them.Darrell Wheeler 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrap it or retitle it!

Though the author(s) do not acknowledge it, much of the history presented here is considered speculative or mythical by scholars of history and esotericism. For example, the claim is made that Rosicrucianism began in the 14th century, yet scholars typically regard its start with the 17th century appearance of the Fama Fraternitatis. The claim is then made that this is about when the "age of Alchemy" started, yet alchemy had already been widely in practice for several centuries at least.

Here's another example: "Jesus, according to the Esoteric Christian tradition, was a high Initiate educated by the Essenes...." In fact, there is no single tradition that qualifies as "The" esoteric Christian tradition. Esoteric Christianity is a very rich and diverse field of study and practice, with significantly different expressions popping up in various times and places with little or no direct connection to others. The author(s) of this article may wish to tie the major expressions of Christian esotericism into one preferred model, and then speculate upon the convoluted historical connections necessary to make it sound plausible, but that is a poor excuse for NPOV representation of esoteric Chrisitianity.

The theological and escatalogical flavor of this article suggests that the author(s) are writing from perspective almost entirely limited to ideas from the Theosophical Society, Anthroposophical Society, and the Rosicrucian Fellowship. Uneducated readers are likely to get the impression that these are the only views of Christian esotericism. If this article continues in the current form, then it needs to be retitled to reflect its bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.237.136.153 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I think most of these problems have been fixxed but what do others reckon?Darrell Wheeler 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Let's Fix this Valuable Article

I do see what some of the other editors above mean about areas needing repair in this article. There is work to be done here, cleaning up, yes. Anyone up to it? Esoteric Christianity to me is wonderfully defined by Richard Smoley in his book Inner Christianity. The last link in the external links section leads to a survey/summary page I myself compiled (thank you to the Anon who linked to us) which summarizes Smoley's excellent definitions of esoteric christianity. It's true that Esoteric Christianity goes well beyond Theosophy and Rosicrucianism, Alchemy and the Essenes. The Essenic theories are hotly debated, by the way, and I personally am not so sure Jesus / Yeshua was an Essene, though perhaps he knew of their teachings. I am not one to jump in and mess with the content of an article. Let's discuss first what changes should be made here shall we? Where to begin... Any ideas? Regards, KatiaRoma 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you Katia. I've tried to make the intro at least inteligible.Darrell Wheeler 07:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Additions

This is what I included:

" MISCELLANIOUS

There are also many "Esoteric Christians" not associated to any groups or organisations as evident in booklets like "Pow Wow or The Long Lost Friend" 1820 written by John George Hohman. Which has a Christianized version of folk magic.

There are also writers like Max Freedom Long 1890-1971 (the founder of his version of modern Huna) who viewed miracles prescribed to Jesus from an Christian esoteric perspective. In particular his books like: The Secret Science Behind Miracles, 1948. What Jesus Taught in Secret, 1983. etc.

Arguably some may consider the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Mormons, Christian Science and a host of other non mainstream churches (like snake-handlers and strychnine-drinkering congregations) to contain esoteric elements within them. For example the Catholic Churches unofficially practice rites of exorcism or have "miracles" performed by Saints & anchorages etc. "

Its somewhat rough so please forgive me. If anyone can do better please do so. -Bill June 22, 2007

[edit] Recommended Readings

"Papal Magic-Occult Practices Within the Catholic Church" by Simon Publisher: Harpercollins 2007, ISBN: 0061240834.

"Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition" by Richard Smoley Publisher: Random House 2002, ISBN: 978-1-57062-810-8 (1-57062-810-6)


I included this as well.

-Bill June 22, 2007


[edit] Merger proposal

To avoid duplicating discussion, please join the discussion at the Christian Mysticism talk page.Typing monkey 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite Suggestions

Really, it needs help. The intro is intelligible but then it is just chaos. The article itself should not require divine guidance in order to be able to interpret it. Here are some specific objections.

"Some modern-day practitioners believe that the foundational teachings of Esoteric Christianity were publicly presented to the world in the early 20th century (1) in an effort to establish a future universal religion as humanity, with a more developed mind and will, walks forward to the understanding of a Universal Friendship."

I believe this is referring to Max Heindel, the Theosophist who formed the Rosicrucian Fellowship in the early 1900's. If so, it should say so. If not, the "foundational teachings of Esoteric Christianity" should be defined. Refer to source texts. Pseudo-Dionysus? Nag Hammadi? How is this different from Christian Mysticism, or Gnosticism, or Theosophy?

“Occult Christian teachings point out the major living source of the Esoteric Christian tradition in western civilization which began in the 14th century with the constitution of a secret brotherhood of holy men called the Rosicrucian Order, which expounded itself for the first time in the supposedly esoteric work The Divine Comedy.

“Occult Christian teachings point out”...what does this mean? What teachings? What teachers? What texts? Who considers the Divine Comedy to be an “esoteric work” and why? Now we’ve got the Knights Templar involved, but according to the first paragraph, this is a 20th century philosophy. And what do the Rosicrucians have to do with Dante again? All of this should be deleted if it can’t be improved and sourced.

The quotes section is not only too long, it doesn’t belong in this article and should be removed altogether, unless the cited work is used as a reference in the main text.

The article implies that this is an ancient tradition. However, as written, it relies heavily on the works and ideas of Max Heindel, Annie Besant, and Rudolph Steiner (or cites texts which rely on the same), all of whom are associated with Theosophy, a relatively recent mystic society. Typing monkey 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've pared it down quite a bit. The article is clearly slanted towards theosophy and so that is stated up front. I’ve tried to remove most of the vague, flowery, self-referencing, self-congratulatory, and npov language. I also pared down the “see also” list to a more reasonable size. Removed “recommended readings” and “current essays” as the works are not cited in the article. If they contain relevant information, that information should be incorporated into the article with a citation to the source. Removed the “Quote” section. Does not meet stylistic guidelines. If you feel the information in the quotes is essential to a layperson’s understanding of the topic, then summarize the content for inclusion in the article and cite the relevant work.Typing monkey 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the vast improvment you've made to this article.Darrell Wheeler 12:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hesitant to pare down so much, but we're supposed to "be bold". It's an interesting topic and hopefully more content will continue to be added or re-incorporated in a stylistically appropriate way. Typing monkey 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


From the guy who said "Scrap it...!": Things are definitely improving for this article, yet there is still room for improvement. Example: "“Esoteric Christianity” is a variant form of Theosophy[1] which regards Christianity as a Mystery religion." This statement is inaccurate because, despite Besant's book title, the Theosophical Society and its authorities have no ownership of the term "esoteric Christianity." And it's worth arguing that it's improper to capitalize "esoteric" when not referring specifically to Besan't book title. Easy comparisons would the be terms "mystic Christianity" or "liberal Christianity." The section in this article entitled "Apocalyptic Beliefs" continues to give the impression that these beliefs are universal among those considering themselves esoteric Christians, yet I can personally attest this is not the case. As to the proposed merger, as things are currently written I would oppose a merger with the Theosophy article because that would continue to falsely represent the subject. That merger would only be fitting if the text clearly indicated its specific POV. On the other hand, if the article continues to be reworked, it might be reasonably merged with Christian Mysticism. However, I believe esoteric Christianity does indeed merit its own article. I agree with the poster who mentioned Smoley's Inner Christianity. That book gives a comprehensive overview of the subject and would be a useful resource to anyone wanting to do this article justice.138.237.147.92 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Template removal

I think most of the concerns expressed in the templates about 'weasel words', neutrality, tone, etc. have been addressed so I'm removing those templates, as well as the rewrite tag. If there are still concerns, let's discuss specifics and try to correct them before re-adding the templates. Also removing the proposal to merge with Christian Mysticism, after reading the discussion there.Typing monkey 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brief History of Early Christian Esotericism

I've given this section the same treatment I gave "medieval forms....". I think there is one citation needed which I've noted in the text but I could not recall the "citation needed" wiki tag. In the sentence "It is not totally clear if reincarnation, along with the pre-existence of the soul, was part of Origen's beliefs, but most modern Esoteric Christian movements refer to Origen's writings (along with other Church Fathers and biblical passages) to validate these ideas...." would it be worthwhile to give one or two examples or at least chapter and verse type notes about which bible passages? Darrell Wheeler 13:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Indeed I was thinking about linking it to this wikipedia article: Bible and reincarnation. But I don't think is really good article yet... should we wait for a better article?... Prof.Landau 06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval forms of Esoteric Christianity

I've given this section a pretty big rewrite. I think I've made it more clear but still maintained the points Prof.Landau was making. He seems to be the most expert editor currently working this page (and well done by the way). If I've lost the thread please refocus it or undo it.Darrell Wheeler 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is much improved, thanks to you both.Typing monkey 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank both of you too. Unfortunately English is not my native language, anyway I'm trying to do my best. Thank you for your precious checksProf.Landau 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing your expertise. Some of the other sections still need a little tidy up of grammar etc. but overall the article vastly improved. As an intersted reader with no special knowledge i feel like I can start to get a grip on the subject now. I've removed the "technical" template.Darrell Wheeler 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four vs five

Why does it say that there are four of them that need be mentioned here and then it names five movements, the fifth being Freemasonry, with no explanation to how it is related to Christian esotericism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.119.131.79 (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the numbering problem. As to the explanation of how each movement is related I would have thought that following the links was how to get the explanation. For example if one follows the Freemasonry link you will find a section in that article related to christian esotericism. Perhaps this section needs to have a little expansion. Darrell Wheeler 11:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Removal of the Recommended Reading section

To qoute Typing monkey: ".... Removed “recommended readings” and “current essays” as the works are not cited in the article. If they contain relevant information, that information should be incorporated into the article with a citation to the source." by Typing monkey 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont see why the recomended readings section should be remove because its not "incorporated in the article" unless its part of wikipedia's policy to do so. I think the article is too narrowly focused, narrowly defined and still slanted. I feel it is also misleading. I feel providing a recomended reading section allows readers to do independent research and to define for themselves what an "Esoteric Christian" is. It allows them to also go beyond what this article has to offer.

Keep in mind there are "Christian occult" practices found in various literature as well as "Christian occult" practitioners. How do they fit in wikipedia? We already have "Esoteric Christianity" and "Christian Mysticism". Should a whole new section in wikipedia be made under "Occult Christian" or "Christian Occultism"?


Bill-

Dec 08, 2007

I'm not saying this is your intent; but its worthwhile to remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting personal opinion or original research. "recommended reading" lends an air of "weaselism" (to coin a phrase) as it always begs the question "Recommended by who?". A google search and browse through some dictionaries has confirmed to me that the lead-in of the article "“Esoteric Christianity” is a term which refers to an ensemble of spiritual currents which regard Christianity as a Mystery religion." is a generaly accepted and acurate definition as suported by the citations. While the words "esoteric" and "occult" have very similar meanings and are sometimes used interchangably the term "Esoteric Christianity" does seem to have this specific meaning. So it makes sense that the article should be narrowly focused on that and not on the wider world of chrisitian occultism. Are there other recognised sources which provide an alternative definition? How does this narrow definition "mislead"? . Perhaps there should be an article on "christian occultism" though I'm not sure what that article would contain. If you search wikipedia for it now you get some pretty wildly various results.
Drawing a distinction between "Esoteric Christianity" and "Christian Mysticism" has been a subject of discusion on the talk pages of both articles. A proposal of merger was considered and rejected. Those threads can be found by following the links in the previous section of this page. The Proposal could be reopened if you want. It's my opinion that the "see also"s serve to open the door to a wider scope of personal inquiry with out bloating this article.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


To Darrell No where did I say presenting my personal opinions or my original research. (btw Please qoute the exact/specific wikipedia policy. As I said earlier I'm not against it, if it is part of wikipidia's policy) What I was encouraging was to let OTHERS seek further research if they CHOOSE to and likewise not to bloat this article. (I would also add theres alot of books written by various authors using thier own original research).

"Recomended by who?" you say. Do you realize there are Recomended Reading/Further Reading(etc) sections throughout a number of wikipedia articles? How do you explain their existence? What about those External Links sources found throughtout a number of wikipedia articles (they too can be a form of recomendation)? How do you explain their existence? (look under wikipedia's Christianity, Nazi occultism, Nazism, Samael Aun Weor, Shamanism, Gnosticism articles etc. etc.) It does cause some confusion.


The problem being the article (at least to me) can be seen as slanted and sanitized. People can still present their personal biases by ommiting and presenting information that they want you to only see (similar to political propaganda). Without presenting alternative sources of readings I feel it can only lead to a one sided and skewed view. [The fact remains there are various Rosicrucian groups, Golden Dawn occult groups, Sameal Aun Weor occult groups, Huna groups etc. As well as various authors like Max Freedom Long, Sameal Aun Weor etc That do view "Esoteric Christianity" as a form of hidden occult practiced. (Yes you can also do a google on them and ask them yourself or ask at some occult forums about their beliefs.) My main concern was not really adressed. To qoute myself: "How do they fit in wikipedia?" "Should a whole new section in wikipedia be made under "Occult Christian" or "Christian Occultism"? "]

As for alternative definitions of Esoteric Christianity. There seems to be some blurriness in that area. The word "esoteric" means: belonging to the select few. private; secret; confidential. The word "occult" means: beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious. secret; disclosed or communicated only to the initiated. hidden from view. (btw I was using Dictionary.com as a resource)

Sadly the site esotericchristian dot com by ShekinahMoon is down. It did have some good articles regarding Christians practicing the occult etc. Bill-

January 5, 2008

Bill, thanks for your thought provoking response. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not in any way opposed to listing additional resources. I've found this guideline Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout Which suggests that the section you would like to see should be called "Further reading". I think that heading is fine. It sounds more Non POV to me.
You are quite correct to point out that many people do view ""Esoteric Christianity" as a form of hidden occult practice"" My understanding is that this is the essence of a Mystery religion. I guess I thought that aspect was covered in the article as it exsists now. The word "occult" to me also has a certain pejorative connotation which I think is best avoided in the article. I had a look at dictionary.com and searched both "esoteric christianity" and "occult christianity" If you check out the resulting lists of links through reference.com the results are quite interesting. To me the two searches yielded results of quite difrent character. looking at the first 5 or 6; "esoteric" links for the most part backed up the fairly narrow definition as set out in this article. "occult" had a wider focus with more emphasis on a fundamentalist response to occultism in general. Interesting reading for sure but to me it's outside of the scope of this article.
The more I look at the article the more I think it is missing some very important sections. Under the "Modern forms...." section it may be leaving out some groups which perhaps have diverged from the "classical" defintion (if you will) but would still be considered "esoteric". Further I think it would be worthwhile to add a section on the more traditional Christian response to "Esoteric Christian" belief systems and Esoteric Christian Groups. Perhaps a section like that would bring more balance to the article.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You're doing a highly constructive work in the article; far beyond what I was once able. I have added now some details that I sensed as appropriate. However, you're free and welcome to edit, keep or erase them according to your own discretion. I am truly grateful for the aid and clarification that you're bringing unto us all. May your efforts and works, dear friend editor Darrell Wheeler, be blessed and fruitful. Yours in friendship, Marco --213.58.99.5 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)