If I were to write this review in thestyle Ann Voskamp used in writingher book, it would read like this:

Sunlight streams through win-dow. Shadows on keyboard. I sithere. I want to separate sub-stance from style and deal onlywith substance as I contemplatea book. Before me lies TheThousand Gifts, a book written byAnn Voskamp, farmer’s wife,Canadian. Ann writes in personfirst, tense present, style poetic.Two hundred thirty-seven pagesspeak of angst personal andthankfulness God-given andquote Julian of Norwich, AnnieDillard, Brennan Manning,Henri Nouwen, Teilard deChardin and others. The style Ifind difficult. Of that I will notspeak. The substance is of con-cern. Of that I will speak.

But let us leave the first person presentpoetic to her and deal with her mes-sage.

Let me state this clearly: AnnVoskamp has written a book sharing herpain and offering help through her dis-covery of eucharisteo_ (to give thanks).She chose a literary style that I andother reviewers found difficult to workwith, but the style she chooses is herprerogative. Where her work warrantschallenge is in her reliance on panen-theism, romanticism, sensual languageand those whose viewpoints she approv-ingly cites. What follows is my evalua-tion of Voskamp’s contribution, and,

through my analysis I intend to protecther readers from the errors she hasintroduced.

We live in a postmodern theologicalage where the sensual and mysterioushave replaced the rational and cogni-tive; where many churches promote theidea of worshiping God with all fivesenses; where feelings trump clearBiblical exegesis, systematic theology,statements of faith—rational approach-es to Christian theology. Into this milieucomes One Thousand Gifts by AnnVoskamp, a book that takes romanti-cism to a new level, using sensuality toinvoke religious feelings and, ostensibly,true devotion.1

Voskamp weaves a tale of discovery,finding devotion to God throughencounters with nature and art, and inher experience, uncovering the secret tojoy through what she calls eucharisteo_(“giving thanks” transliterated from theGreek).

Begrudging Voskamp her religiousfeelings is not my purpose here, nor isdisagreeing with the basic thesis thatChristians ought to give thanks to Godin all things. But I do object to thepanentheistic worldview Voskampespouses in the book and the accompa-nying romanticism. First we will explorepanentheism and romanticism to showwhy these ideas are of concern.

PANENTHEISM

Voskamp sees God in everything, andthat concept has a name—panenthe-ism. We must distinguish panentheismfrom pantheism, the belief that God is

everything. If we accept that God is ineverything, then we accept that Godcan be discovered and understoodthrough encounters with nature.Voskamp shows that she knows what iswrong with pantheism:

Pantheism, seeing the naturalworld as divine, is a very differentthing than seeing divine Godpresent in all things. I know ithere kneeling, the twilight sostill: nature is not God but Godrevealing the weight of Himself,all His glory, through the lookingglass of nature. (Voskamp: 110)

But she falls into a trap when shereplaces it with panentheism.2

Furthermore, her conclusion that pas-sages like those in Psalm 19 and Romans1 speak of God in everything is not avalid implication. Why? Because thesepassages speak of general revelation.Nature, the vehicle for God’s expressinggeneral revelation, is fallen and does notreveal “all His glory.” Christ does that,and what can be discerned about Godthrough nature is not saving knowledge,but condemning knowledge. The bookof Romans makes that clear:

For since the creation of the worldHis invisible attributes, His eternalpower and divine nature, have beenclearly seen, being understoodthrough what has been made, sothat they are without excuse. Foreven though they knew God, theydid not honor Him as God, or givethanks; but they became futile intheir speculations, and their foolishheart was darkened. Professing tobe wise, they became fools, andexchanged the glory of the incor-ruptible God for an image in theform of corruptible man and ofbirds and four-footed animals andcrawling creatures. (Romans1:20-23)

Crit ica l Issues Commentar yA B I B L I C A L L Y B A S E D C O M M E N T A R Y O N I S S U E S T H A T I M P A C T Y O U

I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2CIC

ROMANTIC PANENTHEISM

A REVIEW OF OONNEE TTHHOOUUSSAANNDD GGIIFFTTSS BY ANN VOSKAMP

BY BOB DEWAAY

The nature religions of the pagans seeGod in creation, worship creation, anddo not come to messianic salvation.Paul claims that salvation comes onlythrough the gospel, which comes to usthrough special, not general, revelation.Voskamp confuses these two categoriesthroughout her book. For example:“And every moment is a message fromthe Word-God who can’t stop writingHis heart” (Voskamp: 86). Voskampclaims that the ability to see God ineverything is the key to getting suchmessages. Pagans live in the same time-space world we do and do not receiveinfallible, inerrant, and binding revela-tion from God from that world. Instead,they live in darkness, and if they seekmessages from God through themoments in this world, what theyreceive will lead to pagan mysticism andnot anything that is clearly and binding-ly revealed by God.

Voskamp would likely recoil fromthe notion that she is promoting pagannature religion. But she puts Christianson the same footing as the pagans bytaking them on a journey to find God innature and art. She thereby promotesmysticism. Her concepts about Godthat are distinctively Christian are bor-rowed from special revelation (theBible). But she never makes a distinc-tion between general revelation andspecial revelation, and by integratingthe two so seamlessly, she elevatesnature to the status of saving revelation.Since God is supposedly in everything,then God can be found in everything.And that is panentheism.

Much of the current evangelicalworld is being seduced by panentheism,and we need to understand what isunbiblical about it. Many think thatpanentheism is a logical implicationfrom the Christian concept of omnipres-ence—that God is everywhere. Theirconfusion has left the door open for theNew Age to enter the church.

Here is what we are dealing with.God is not limited spatially—that is avalid Biblical concept. This means thereis nowhere where He is not – Psalm139:7-10. But panentheism describes anontological (ontology—the study of

being, what a thing is in its essentialnature), not spatial category.Panentheism teaches that God’s essenceor being is in everything. This is not thesame as the doctrine of omnipresence,though panentheism would agree thatGod is everywhere.

Here is the problem. If God in Hisessence and essential being is found ineverything, then there is nothingunique about Christ (which is preciselythe New Age claim). Biblically, Christreveals God and His glory in a waynature does not. Nature reveals Godobliquely, not concretely and verbally.Jesus, on the other hand, spokeinerrant, binding words that will judgeus on the last day (John 12:48). Themoon does no such thing.

Panentheism permeates Voskamp’sOne Thousand Gifts. As an example ofher panentheism, Voskamp describes anexperience where she finds salvation bygazing at a full moon in a harvestedwheat field:

Has His love lured me out hereto really save me? I sit up in thewheat stubble, drawn. That Hewould care to save. Moon faceglows. We are head to head. I ambare; He is bare. All Eye sees me(Voskamp: 115).

Her experience is described in salvificterms: “It’s dawning, my full moon ris-ing. I was lost but know I am foundagain” (Voskamp: 118). She claims an“inner eye” that sees God in a panen-theistic way: “If my inner eye has Godseeping up through all things, then can’tI give thanks for anything? . . . The artof deep seeing makes gratitude possible”(Voskamp: 118). In Romans 1, “seeing”God through general revelation in a waythat makes all humans culpable is truefor all, not just for special enlightenedones like Voskamp.

The claim that salvation can befound in seeing God in the harvestmoon introduces some troubling fac-tors. One is that Voskamp implies thatfor her, “salvation” is being saved froman unhappy life filled with ingratitude.She never mentions God’s wrath againstsin (she does mention sin but not in the

context of substitutionary atonement).Another is that she completely confus-es, then merges, general and special rev-elation. General revelation does notoffer saving knowledge, whatever shemeant to convey of her experience“chasing the moon” (her terminology).Yet another is that panentheism is againimplied here as it has been throughoutthe book.

Before we go further we must con-sider two theological terms important inChristian teaching: immanence, mean-ing God is close at hand, and transcen-dence, meaning God is exalted aboveand beyond us and the creation. Theseare relational and ontological categoriesand not spatial ones as I mentionedbefore. Voskamp confuses these twoconcepts and, like many liberal andEmergent theologians, promotes God’simmanence at the expense of His tran-scendence. I am concerned that herconfusion will likely be imparted tomost of her readers.

Consider this passage from Isaiahthat reveals both immanence and tran-scendence: “For thus says the high andexalted One Who lives forever, whose nameis Holy, ‘I dwell on a high and holy place,And also with the contrite and lowly ofspirit In order to revive the spirit of thelowly And to revive the heart of the con-trite’” (Isaiah 57:15). That God is“high and exalted” means that theCreator is separate from His creation, isabove and beyond it, and thus transcen-dent. God is not one of the many naturegods of the pagans. “Above” and“beyond,” when used in this way,denote God’s essence and being (ontol-ogy), not His spatial relationship to theuniverse.

But God is also “with the contrite.”Here we see the key to understandingimmanence. It does not say that God isuniversally “with” all people only if theyhave the right “inner eye.” The Biblesays “The Lord is far from the wicked, ButHe hears the prayer of the righteous”(Proverbs 15:29). “Far from” and“near” in such contexts are also rela-tional and not spatial. God hears prayersand personally relates to those who seekHim and are willing to come to Him onHis terms. This relationship is available

2J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

through Jesus Christ who is to bebelieved and trusted and is not availablethrough the moon. God is near to allsinners spatially, because in Him theylive and move and have existence (Acts17:28). But if they refuse to repent andbelieve God as He has revealed Himselfthrough Jesus Christ whom He raisedfrom the dead, they will remain far fromHim in a relational sense (see Acts17:30-32). The moon cannot resolvethe problem of sinners’ lost condition,but the Son will if they repent (Acts17:30, 31).

Voskamp’s panentheism is not com-patible with Christian theism. Thisworldview is very popular in today’s cul-ture, inside and outside the church, butit is not from God. Rather, it is a depar-ture from the faith once for all deliveredto the saints. My notes taken as I readVoskamp reveal panentheism on manypages (16, 31, 54, 89, 109, 110, 112,118, 119, 124, 137, 138, 185, and 195).It is no exaggeration to say that theentire book is written from a panenthe-istic perspective.

Voskamp even finds Christ in every-one, including the lost encountered inthe inner city: “A long night doing whatwe’ve come to do, to bless Christ in theother” (Voskamp: 185). The Bibleclaims that only believers are indwelt byChrist through the Holy Spirit (Romans8:9). Voskamp’s panentheism spills intouniversalism as it does in Emergent andthe New Age. It colors everything sheteaches.

ROMANTICISM

Voskamp displays Romanticismthroughout her book so we must addressits impact here. Romanticism—the ideathat truth could be found in feelings,art, and the intuitive rather thanthrough empirical investigation and therational—arose in the early 19th

Century as a reaction against theEnlightenment and rationalism. Ibelieve the Emergent movement is anew Romanticism,3 and I am quite surethat this assessment is accurate.Romanticism, old and new, has a com-mon enemy which is theEnlightenment.

Voskamp is not so concerned aboutthe Enlightenment or other philosophi-cal considerations but presents romanti-cism throughout her book. In fact, OneThousand Gifts could be mistaken for aromance novel with God the desiredlover. Here is an example:

I long to merge with Beauty,breathe it into lungs, feel itheavy on skin. To beat on thedoor of the universe, pound thechest of God . . . No matter howmanifested, beauty is whatsparks the romance and we arethe Bride pursued, the Loverpursuing, and known or unbe-knownst, He woos us in theromance of all time, beyondtime. I ache for oneness(Voskamp: 119).

The Bible speaks of the church as theBride of Christ but does not describe theuniversal call of the gospel in sensualterms of a lover pursuing His love inter-est (who may have no interest inreturn). God is commanding sinners torepent. The gospel calls for repentanceand faith, not romantic feelings lookingfor satisfaction.

Voskamp’s romanticism is enhancedby her skill at describing things in amost sensual manner. The sensual ter-minology is designed to create a mood, afeeling, a sense of romantic mystery thatlongs for discovery and fulfillment.Those like me who relish clear descrip-tion of theological concepts meant to beunderstood and discerned, will be horri-bly frustrated by the book. Her book isnot meant to be a theological text filledwith ideas to be judged true or false, butis instead a literary piece filled with feel-ings to be relished. For example:

The full life, the one spilling joyand peace, happens only as Icome to trust the caress of theLover, Lover who never burdensHis children with shame or self-condemnation but keepsstroking the fears with gentlegrace (Voskamp: 146).

This sensuality finds its apex in the last

chapter of the book which begins withthis sentence: “I fly to Paris and discoverhow to make love to God” (Voskamp:201). As a true romantic, she finds theultimate intimacy (her term) throughvarious experiences in Paris. I will dealwith that in a section about mysticism,but for now I will point out that theterm “intimacy” is not found in theBible. It is a sensual term that enhancesthe romantic appeal of Voskamp’s book.

As a reviewer I would like to skirtthe subject of intimacy and other sensu-al terminology, but sensual terminologypermeates the book. There is a wholechapter inspired by a soap bubble in asink, one about driving across a bridge,and the aforementioned one on gazingat the moon. For those who have notread the book, I offer an example ofover-wrought sensual (in the broadsense of appealing to one’s senses) ter-minology:

April sun pools into a dishwatersink, liquid daylight on hands.The water is hot. I wash dishes.On my arms, just below thehiked sleeves, suds leave delicatewater marks. Suds glisten. Andover the soaking pots, the soapbubbles stack. This fragile ten-sion arched in spheres of slickelastic sheets. Light impinges onslippery film. And I only noticebecause I’m looking for this andit’s the rays falling, reflecting offthe outer surface of a bubble . . .off the rim of the bubble’s innerskin . . . and where they meet,this interference of light, irides-cence on the bubble’s arch, vio-let, magenta, blue-green, yellow-gold. Like the glimmer on ravenwing, the angles, the hues, thebrilliant fluid, light on the waves(Voskamp: 62).

This is how the entire book reads.Sensuality pervades throughout.Romanticism, which values feelings andexperience over truth and concretedata, reigns. If washing dishes can beturned into a romantic experience, thejob becomes something special, as doeslife. Yes, this is a literary style, but I’m

3J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

4J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

afraid it is employed at the expense oftruth. Voskamp delivers what she seemsto want for her readers: an escape fromthe mundane through seeing beauty inall things.

GOD AND TIME

In the soap bubble chapter Voskampteaches the theological error that timeis the essence and nature of God whenshe writes: “Time is where God is. In thepresent. I AM – His very name” (69).She gains that idea through wronglyinterpreting the self-designation of Godas I AM to be proof that time is of theessence of God, so therefore God is tobe found in the present (Voskamp: 69,70). Her ideas are remarkably similar toEchkart Tolle’s (New Age pantheist)ideas taught in his books The Power ofNow and The New Earth,4 where hespeaks of “Presence, and I AM” as real-ities to be discovered by enlightenedones. Voskamp writes: “Time is whereGod is. In the present. I AM – His veryname” (69). When God referred toHimself as I AM, His point in revealingHimself to Moses was not that God is inthe present. He was telling Moses thatHe, God, is the eternal existent Onewhose being is not contingent on any-thing outside of Himself. Finding God inthe present is the point driven home byEckhart Tolle; it is not a Biblical idea.

Voskamp makes other statementsthat teach serious theological errors: “Ihardly breathe . . . time is only of theessence, because time is the essence ofGod, I AM” (Voskamp: 69, 70).5 Thetheological debate about God’s relation-ship to time is very complex. Someteach that God is timeless based on theidea of God’s changelessness and thefact that time involves change. Butchangeless and timeless are two differ-ent things—that time is God’s essence isnot an implication of I AM terminologyand is theologically false. Tolle teaches aconcept called “being present” which tohim is linked to consciousness of deity.Voskamp has a similar idea: “When I’mpresent, I meet I AM, the very presenceof a present God” (Voskamp: 70). Whatwould it mean to be “not present”?Evidently “being present” for Voskamp

has to do with some sort of conscious-ness that is not always true.

God’s relationship to time is a wor-thy topic, albeit a very difficult andcomplex one. But Voskamp is not reallyinterested in theology understood cog-nitively, but rather in romantic feelingsabout God. Her chapter on time, basedas it is on the soap bubble, is about feel-ings and discovery, not theological con-ceptions:

I am a hunter of beauty and Imove slow [sic] and I keep theeyes wide, every fiber of everymuscle sensing all wonder andthis is the thrill of the hunt and Icould be an expert on life full,the beauty meat that lurks inevery moment. I hunger to tastelife. God. (Voskamp: 71)

This is about seeing God in the moment(an art for the spiritually enlightened)and in all things (panentheism).Voskamp’s chapter is not really aboutGod’s relationship to time, but aboutour attentiveness and awareness thatwill cause us to see God (Voskamp: 77).In her view, God’s relationship to timeis a romantic notion, not so much a the-ological one.

NEW AGE SENSIBILITIES

One Thousand Gifts is filled with NewAge ideas. For example, Voskamp citesPierre Teilhard de Chardin, a darlingwith New Age writers: “Nothing herebelow is profane for those who knowhow to see” (Chardin as cited byVoskamp: 122). It is possible that a falseteacher like de Chardin could havesome true ideas, but Voskamp cites himas part of the heading of a chapter pre-cisely at his point of error (and hers).The idea that everything is holy andnothing profane is popular, but unbibli-cal, and comports with the idea ofpanentheism. If indeed God is in every-thing, then nothing is profane. Rob Bellmakes the same error in Velvet Elviswhen he claims everything is holy.6 TheBible tells us to separate the holy fromthe profane: “Moreover, they shall teachMy people the difference between the holy

and the profane, and cause them to discernbetween the unclean and the clean”(Ezekiel 44:23). The concept of theprofane is also found in the NewTestament. What is holy and what isunholy are revealed by God, and to saythat certain enlightened ones with anelevated ability to see everything as holyis unbiblical. Heightened feelings andsensibilities that cause everything to beholy and beautiful—Voskamp’s point—is a wonderfully romantic notion, but itleads her readers astray because it iswrong. She cites de Chardin becauseshe shares his ideas.

New Age panentheist Matthew Foxalso approves of de Chardin:

Teilhard de Chardin calls theCosmic Christ the “third nature”of Christ, meaning that it takesus beyond the fourth-centuryconciliar definitions of Christ’shuman and divine natures into athird realm, “neither human nordivine, but cosmic.” He com-ments that this has “not notice-ably attracted the explicit atten-tion of the faithful or of theolo-gians.” Clearly Chardin saw theparadigm shift that was implicitin powerful celebration of theCosmic Christ.7

Fox describes himself as a panentheistwho sees God in all things.8 ThoughVoskamp may not have gotten her ideasfrom Fox, the similarity of their ideas iseasy to see. But why are Christianauthors like Voskamp teaching panen-theism and promoting New Age ideas?

Emergent writers speak of the“rhythm of God in the world.” In theirthinking one can tune into this rhythmthrough man-invented practices.9 Theideas that nothing is profane and thatGod’s rhythm can be found in all thingsare panentheistic, not Christian. TheChristian view is that the created order,because of sin and rebellion, containsgood and evil, the holy and the profane.Satan deceives people into thinkingthat they can tap into something goodby using the right techniques ratherthan by listening to what God has saidin the Bible.

5J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

Voskamp promotes a means of “see-ing” that reminiscent of Emergentteachers:

I speak the unseen into seeingand I can feel it, this steadybreathing in the rhythm ofgrace—give thanks (in), givethanks (out). The eyes focus,apertures capturing Beauty inugliness. There’s a doxology ofpraise that splits the domesticdark. (Voskamp: 128).

What she means is that seeing God(holiness) in all things is a special spiri-tual ability obtained by those who learnhow: “Contemplative simplicity isn’t amatter of circumstances; it’s a matter offocus” (Voskamp: 127). Voskamp citespostmodern mystic Annie Dillard favor-ably in regard to “seeing” in the con-templative sense (Voskamp: 127).Voskamp tells her son about “seeing” asshe understands it—which is so veryNew Age:

“The practice of giving thanks . .. eucharisteo . . . this is the way wepractice the presence of God,stay present to His presence, andit is always a practice of the eyes.We don’t have to change whatwe see. Only the way we see.”(Voskamp: 135).

Seeing God in all things in Voskamp’sview, becomes the mechanism for tran-scending the sorrows of the mundaneand finding good feelings to overcomethe bad ones. She continues to teach:“The only way to fight a feeling is witha feeling” (Voskamp: 136). I counterthat Biblical truth would be an alterna-tive. Like all postmodern panentheists,for her the subjective rules over theobjective. This, by the way, is also theessence of romanticism.

The real problem is not our failureto see God in everything, but our failureto believe what God has said, and bygrace obey. The grand claim of the Bibleis that “God has spoken” (Hebrews 1:1,2). The question is whether we will lis-ten to what God has said or not. Thosewho are totally alienated from God and

teach pagan ideas claim to see God ineverything (e.g. Echart Tolle). Voskampoffers what is also offered by the NewAge panentheists. The reality is thatfeeling close to God is not the same asthe drawing near to God as discussed inthe Bible. Voskamp offers romantic feel-ings.

A ROMANTIC ENCOUNTERWITH GOD

Voskamp’s romanticism reaches its pin-nacle in chapter 11. There she describesa trip to Paris where she has an intimateencounter with God through art andarchitecture. God “woos” her throughthis encounter and she falls in love. Shewrites, “I am falling in love. . . . I’maccompanied by this Voice whisperingto me new words, new love—urging me,Respond, respond” (Voskamp: 206). Theentire chapter is laced with sensual ter-minology.

At Notre Dame Cathedral, carriedaway by the experience, she claims tohave found the holy: “This air is old, theground, holy” (Voskamp: 207). Hold it.On the contrary, the New Testamentdoes not describe holy places, especiallynot Roman Catholic cathedrals filledwith pagan icons and grotesque gar-goyles such as at Notre Dame (whichmeans “our lady” referring to the virginMary). What exactly, from a Biblicalperspective, makes Notre DameCathedral “holy”? Are Roman Catholicbuildings and statuary inherently holy?Evidently Voskamp thinks so. But thenagain, a romantic will see that which isgood and desirable in any and all things.

There, in a Roman Catholic cathe-dral which ought to invoke our objec-tion, Voskamp, as do her role models,the mystics of the Middle Ages, finds“intimate union” with God. Shedescribes her experience in this way:

My eyes follow the stone archesrising over us, granite handsclasped in prayer over souls. Ithink of all who have gonebefore, the hands of medievalpeasants who chiseled the stoneunder which I now stand. I thinkof those long-ago believers who

had a way of entering into thefull life, of finding a passage intoGod, a historical model of inti-macy with God. I lean back tosee the spires. (Voskamp: 208).

As mentioned before, the Bible neveruses the term “intimacy.” We take ahuge leap of faith to assume thatmedieval mystics found a secret to inti-macy with God through means otherthan the gospel itself. Medieval mysticalpractices are not prescribed in the Bible.Yet Voskamp favorably cites Catholicmystic Henri Nouwen (Voskamp: 205).Mystical teachers and a pagan religioussite inspire Voskamp’s journey to findromantic intimacy with God.

PURGATION, ILLUMINATION,UNION:

MYSTICAL UNION WITH GOD

Then, without apology, Voskamp teach-es “purgation, illumination, union,” thepath to mystical union that has its rootsin ancient, pagan, Rome. This path istaught in the Catholic Encyclopedia.10

This threefold path is “common to allforms of mysticism, Christian or other-wise” writes Pastor Gary Gilley whorightly warns the church about it.11

Voskamp next extols the medievalmystics who were instrumental in thebuilding of Notre Dame (Voskamp:208). She writes about them:

I think how lives, whole genera-tions, were laid down to builtthis edifice, to find a way in. Butthey thought the steps to God-consummation were but three:purgation, illumination, union.(Voskamp: 208)

She then describes these steps in glow-ing terms as she experienced them(Voskamp: 209).

New Age teacher Matthew Fox alsoendorses these steps and others as themeans of a paradigm shift from theChrist of the Bible to the cosmic Christ:

In terms of the history of spiritu-

6J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

ality, this paradigm shift is fromthe three stages of purification,illumination, and union thatmysticism inherited from Proclusand Plotinus (not from Jesus orthe Hebrew Bible since neitherof these thinkers was eitherJewish or Christian) to the fourpaths of delight (via positive), let-ting go (via negative), creativity(via creativa), compassion, i.e.,celebration and justicemaking(via transformative). Today “toenter the mysteries” means toenter the mysteries of the fourpaths of creation spirituality—mysteries of delight, darkness,birthing, compassion. In this sec-tion we will explore more fullyhow the paradigm shift can alsobe named as moving from thequest for the historical Jesus tothe quest for the Cosmic Christ.12

Mysticism and the practices Voskampendorses that promote it, do lead to aCosmic Christ, that is a creation-cen-tered one rather than the Christ whobodily ascended to heaven and is seatedat the right hand of God. The mysticalChrist is immanent only, not transcen-dent. He is contacted by unbiblical,mystical means rather than through thegospel that saves us from God’s wrathagainst sin.

Voskamp admits that union withChrist is true for all who have repentedand believed (Voskamp: 209, 210). Shethereby has an understanding that waslacking for the Roman Catholic mysticsshe extols. So to keep the experienceand practice, she posits the union of thethreefold path as a higher order experi-ence for Christians: “An ever deepeningunion, one we experience on the skinand in the vein, feel in the deep pit ofthe being, an ever-fuller realization ofthe Christ communion” (Voskamp:210). So, ordinary Christians haveunion, but not the deep union that mys-tics enjoy. This union is what she has asa sister to Brother Lawrence (Voskamp:210). She describes the experience ofunion:

I remember this feeling. The way

my apron billowed in the run-ning, the light, the air. The har-vest moon. I remember. Theyearning. To merge with BeautyHimself. But here . . . Now?Really? . . . I am not at all certainthat I want consummation.(Voskamp: 211)

She then describes this consummationin yet more sensual terms, as being“courted by God” (Voskamp: 211).

SENSUALITY

Since this idea of consummation(union) is obviously a higher orderexperience she seeks and finds in Paris,it is therefore something beyond whatordinary Christians have. Voskamp is amystical pietist.13 She ponders: “I amnot at all certain that I want consum-mation . . . And who wouldn’t cower atthe invitation to communion with limit-less Holiness Himself?” (Voskamp: 211).Obviously, for her “consummation” is asensual term, that is not true for allChristians or reserved for the eschaton(and still true for all Christians). It is ahigher order experience for certainChristians to be had now if they havethe ability to see and experience. Thisexperience is mediated, for Voskamp, bythe romantic feelings of Paris.

To state this simply: The sensualityof her terminology is inappropriate. Shecites 1Corinthians 6:17 which is a warn-ing against fornication and is about allChristians being “joined to the Lord”and applies it to the sensual, higherorder experience to which she is wooedin Paris (Voskamp: 211). Since1Corithians 6:17 is about what isalready true for all Christians, how doesit apply to her invitation to some sort ofsensual consummation for Christians? Itdoes not. So she is abusing the passageto promote her unbiblical, pietisticexperience. Here is her description ofwhat happens (found in the same para-graph with the citation from1Corinthians 6:17):

I run my hand along the beamsover my loft bed, wood hewn bya hand several hundred years

ago. I can hear Him. He’s callingfor a response; He’s calling foroneness. Communion (Voskamp:211).

This sensually described invitation tooneness and consummation is presentedas a union that is a higher order experi-ence, otherwise she would not need itand would, frankly, have nothing specialto offer her readers. She is being“wooed” into “mystical union”(Voskamp: 212, 213) which she calls aromance (Voskamp: 213).

The sensual terms she applies arepiled one upon another, painting a pic-ture quite graphic and I think horriblyinappropriate. Terms found just on twopages include: “wooing, intimate pur-suit, passionate love, caressed, makinglove, embrace, union, burning of theheart, intercourse disrobed, and etc.”(Voskamp: 216, 217). She makes explic-it what she is speaking of: “To knowHim the way Adam knew Eve”(Voskamp: 217). This terminology goeson, page after page: “intercourse, cli-max, cohabit, delight wildly, unionexperientially, leap into Arms”(Voskamp: 218, 219).

She offers a higher order experiencefor Christians, described in the mostsensual and provocative terms. Thisexperience is to be had now, and is notthe eschatological consummation allChristians await. It helps to go to Parisand to a Roman Catholic cathedral tofind this experience. There is nothing inthis that is Biblical. There are not twotypes of Christians—ordinary ones andothers who have achieved the ultimate,mystical union. This sort of false think-ing is what led people into monasteriesto waste their lives looking for some-thing that evidently the gospel itselfdoes not offer. Do we need to mimic theerror of the monastic mystics?

CONCLUSION

As fraught with theological error thatthis book is, its basic premise is true: asChristians we ought to be thankful peo-ple who give thanks in all things. TheBible teaches us that. But do we need tojettison Christian theism in favor of

7J A N UA RY - M A R C H 2 0 1 2 I S S U E N U M B E R 1 2 0

panentheism, objective truth, romanticfeelings, and higher order experiencesto become thankful? No! God hasalready provided everything that per-tains to life and godliness (2Peter 1:3).When Peter urged Christians to grow intheir faith and in Christian virtues, hedid not point to a higher order experi-ence based on romantic feelings—hecalled them to remember:

Therefore, I shall always be readyto remind you of these things, eventhough you already know them, andhave been established in the truthwhich is present with you. And Iconsider it right, as long as I am inthis earthly dwelling, to stir you upby way of reminder, (2Peter 1:12,13)

Peter also mentions sensuality and it isnot good:

“For speaking out arrogant words ofvanity they entice by fleshly desires,by sensuality, those who barelyescape from the ones who live inerror,” (2Peter 2:18).

There is enough sensuality in the worldwithout us having sensual desires stirredup under the guise of a higher order reli-gious experience in the context of apanentheistic worldview. Voskamp’sbook feeds into the romantic sensibili-

ties of its postmodern readers, but itdoes nothing to promote the faith oncefor all delivered to the saints. OneThousand Gifts pushes the church evenfarther down the unbiblical road of mys-ticism that so many are already on. Weneed to reject this and instead return toobjective, Biblical truth.

END NOTES

1. Ann Voskamp, One Thousand Gifts;(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).All further references from this bookwill be in brackets within this article.

2. We first warned our readers aboutpanentheism in 1994: http://cicmin-istry.org/commentary/issue23.htm.

3. Bob DeWaay, The Emergent Church –Undefining Christianity;(Minneapolis: DeWaay, 2009), 204.

4. http://www.eckharttolle.com/ see myreview of Tolle’s The New Earth:http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue114.htm

5. The ellipses are in the original andused to create a pause.

6. See http://cicministry.org/commen-tary/issue104b.htm for a discussionof Bell’s misuse of the term “holy.”

7. Matthew Fox, The Coming of theCosmic Christ, (New York:

HarperCollins, 1988), 83.

8. Ibid. 70.

9. I discuss Doug Pagitt’s idea of God’s“rhythm” here:http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue99.htm

10.www.newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm

11.http://www.svchapel.org/resources/book-reviews/4-christian-living/121-finding-our-way-again-the-return-to-the-ancient-practices-by-brian-mclaren

12. Op. Cit.; Fox, 82.

13. See this article on pietism:http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue101.htm

Critical Issues Commentarycopyright © 2012

Twin City FellowshipP.O. Box 26127St. Louis Park, MN 55426952-935-3100www.twincityfellowship.comwww.cicministry.org

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture taken fromthe New American Standard Bible, © Copyright1995 The Lockman Foundation. Used byPermission

Now Available“The Battle for the Bible”

2011 Faith at Risk Conference

Our speaker was Dr. Daniel Wallace, Professor of New TestamentStudies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is also Founder andDirector of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

Topics presented:“Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”

“Did the Early Church Reject Writings that Should Have Been in theScriptures?”

See insert to order through the mail or order at www.cicministry.org