No Ma'am, That's Not History!

Shirley Maclaine, Reincarnation and Scholastic Dishonesty

by Stephen F. Cannon

The final credits are rolling on Late Nite with David Letterman.

Yawning, I decide to hang on a few more minutes and see who Bob

Costas is interviewing on his NBC talk show Later. All thoughts

of sleep vanish instantly when I see that his guest is Ms. New

Age herself, Shirley MacLaine.

I make a mental wager with myself that as surely as night fol-

lows day, before this half hour is over, she will find a way to

denigrate Christianity while touting the glories of reincarnation

and Eastern mysticism. And voila! About halfway into the show she

proves that I have prognosticated correctly (even without benefit

of psychic powers). Under the questioning of the host I am treat-

ed to this "scholarly" exchange.

Costas: You get a lot of negative feedback from people who feel

strongly about Christianity or a more Western view of religion,

which basically states that we go through this life and that our

soul finds its way to Heaven; so in that sense the experience is

finite. And if people were to explore what you are suggesting

they would be untrue to their own religious belief.

MacLaine: Yeah, but, Bob, remember that in 553 A.D. there was an

ecumenical council meeting in Constantinople where the teachings

of Origen, which are the teachings of the physical re-embodiment

of the soul, were struck from the Bible by the Emperor ah, Con-

stan....; by the Emperor Justinian and ah, his Empress Theodora.

So the Bible has been written and rewritten many, many times by

people like you and me, by folks who have their meetings and they

decide that this is maybe not a good idea.

Now the reason that Theodora and Justinian, by the way, the word

justice comes from his particular reign in Rome. Ah, the pope

boycotted that ecumenical council meeting because the whole thing

was stacked, ah, by bishops who were appointed by the Empresss

Theodora, in order to strike the teachings of Origen, which the

early Christian Fathers were teaching from the Bible; because she

wanted complete control over the human soul. Whereas the teach-

ings of Origen were talking about men and women -- men and women

are responsible for their own destiny through time.

So when you say Christian doctrine, what year are you talking

about? You see, that's why all of this business of people who

object to someone else's view of time, view of God, view of

reality, view of life and death, it's all relative. It all really

depends on what you see as true for you. What is difficult, is

when some very strict, narrow , limited fundamentalist point of

view is so harsh that it makes no room and no freedom and no

democratic allowance for anyone else's point of view. That can be

very hard on the world; that's what causes war! (1)

And just as voila!, the old adrenaline starts pumping. I have

heard this accusation made repeatedly in my conversations with

and research on New Age adherents. But, as I hear America's most

vociferous missionary of New Age philosophy repeat this old saw,

I decide to respond with a resounding, "No ma'am, that's not

history!"

The Advocates

The ideas expressed by Maclaine above are not new ones. I be-

lieve that she was only repeating supposed facts written by other

New Age advocates.

In his book, bashing historic biblical Christianity, liberal

English clergyman and quasi-reincarnationist Leslie D. Weather-

head states:

"It is important, as we examine the idea of reincarnation, to

realize the immense support for what I have written above which

is provided by the fact that it was excepted by the early church

for the first five hundred years of its existence. Only in A.D.

553 did the second Council of Constantinople reject it, and only

then by a narrow majority. If some view of reincarnation had not

been held in the early church it would have been pointless to

discuss it in a church council... . Origen, a great scholar of

the church (A.D. 185-254) accepted it. Augustine (A.D. 354-430),

an even greater authority, accepted it, and speaks of his infancy

that "succeeded another age of mine that died before it". St.

Jerome supported it in his "Letter to Avitus." Reference to "The

Catholic Encyclopedia" informs me that St. Francis of Assisi

(1181-1226) accepted it. And belief in reincarnation, according

to a priest writing in "The Liberal Catholic" is accepted by many

Roman Catholics and has never been declared heretical by any

Ecumenical Council."(2)

Theosophist Anna Winner: "It was not until some five centuries

after the origin of Christianity, when it had long been the state

religion of Rome, that the belief in reincarnation was formally

declared to be not according to orthodox dogma." (3)

Authors Head and Cranston muse: "That Origen taught the pre-

existence of the soul in past world orders of this earth and its

reincarnation in future worlds is beyond question." (4)

In her book, Out on a Limb, Maclaine reports a conversation

with her friend and spiritual mentor David who states: "The

theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper

interpretations were struck from it during an ecumenical council

meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around

553 A.D., called the Council of (sic) Nicea. The council members

voted to strike those teachings from the Bible in order to solid-

ify Church Control."(5)

The problem with the above accusations of editing the Bible and

eradication of reincarnation from the doctrine of the early

church would be laughable if Christians in general knew a little

church history. However, because of widespread historical igno-

rance, many are unfortunately confounded by such statements.

There are several questioned that must be asked to determine if

there is scholastic dishonesty on the part of the advocates cited

above. Was there a widespread belief of reincarnation in the

early church and did many of the church fathers, especially

Origen, teach this doctrine? Was the Bible edited to remove

verses that taught reincarnation? Was all of this concocted in

the Church Councils of the third through the fifth centuries?

Before we attempt to answer those questions, it would be helpful

to examine:

The Formulation of Christian Doctrine

The benchmark of all doctrine is the revealed Word of God in the

Bible. Under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the

Apostles clarified the message of the Old Testament. It was

revealed through them that the entire plan of God is centered in

the person and work of Jesus Christ. This revelation is the New

Testament.

As this revelation was written and began to be disseminated

throughout the known world, it began to be interpreted and misin-

terpreted. Because of its broad appeal and success in winning

converts, many pagan religions incorporated parts of the Bible

into their own belief systems. This gave rise to many counterfeit

Christian sects and spurious gospels.

As the early church grew, it was constantly having to confront

pseudo-Christian Churches. The early Christian scholars -- the

church Fathers -- wrote entire volumes refuting false claims and

exposing their heretical beliefs. These apologetic writings

became the first step in the formulation of doctrine for histor-

ic, orthodox, biblical Christianity.

This dialectic began soon after the birthing of the church and

has continued since. A biblical truth would be proclaimed, it

would be assaulted and reinterpreted to fit some preconceived

ideas (usually of pagan origin, such as Gnosticism) and then

Christian scholars would have to answer that assault and bring

the teaching back to what the Scriptures actually said.

Eerdmans' Handbook to the History Christianity points out on

page 107, "The pioneering challenge of heresy did much to shape

Christian orthodoxy- a rounded, systematic exposition of the

implications of basic Christain convictions."

As the church became more organized, the writings of these

Christian scholars would be appealed to in connection with the

Scriptures, and certain doctrines would be established. Those who

where in general agreement with the established doctrines were

considered orthodox, those not were condemned as heretics.

It must be understood, also, that while the early Christian

scholars had the benefit of being closer to the direct teaching

of the Apostles, these men were not inspired as were the biblical

authors. Any doctrine, whether it be of a Church Father or a

modern-day theologian, must be compared diligently with Scrip-

ture. Where their writings meet with the benchmark, they are

good. Where not, they must be abandoned. This applies doctrines

from Calvin, Luther, Augustine or Origen.

Origen an His Doctrine

One cannot undertake a study of the history of the Christian

Church without encountering the theology and ideas of Origen.

Born in Alexandria, Egypt, in 185 A.D. to Christian parents,

Origen was taught a respect for the Scriptures from his youth

that would never fade. (6) Not only was there Christian instruc-

tion, but Origen's father also taught him the Greek philosophies.

After his father's martyrdom, Origen, then 17, even made his

living for a while by teaching Greek literature. (7)

Possessor of a keen and eager mind, a strict ascetic lifestyle,

and an indefatigable constitution, Origen wrote profusely. His

works include Bible translations, commentaries on Scripture,

apologies, and theological treatises. Unfortunately, "Today we

possess only some portions of his immense work, and the greater

part of it has come down to us only by means of translations, the

accuracy of which is by no means certain". (8) We do, however

possess enough of his works to chart a clear course of his theol-

ogy and unfortunately for New Agers it leads directly away from

reincarnationist thought.

That Origen took a very high view of the inspiration of the

Scriptures is undeniable. His monumental parallel Bible Hexapla

took years to compile. This work gave in parallel columns the

Hebrew Old Testament, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, the

Septuagint, and three other Greek versions. Origen's love for

Holy Writ lead church historian Williston Walker to state: "The

vast majority of his writings took the form of commentary on

Scripture, And even his occasional 'systematic' writings proceeded

by a method which was largely exegetical. ... Perhaps Origen's

most significant gift to the churches was the principle by which

he lived, of sola scriptura." (9) It is also true that this

complex thinker brought to his Christianity elements of Greek

Philosophy -- Middle Platonism -- that was prevalent in his day.

It was speculative theology formed from a synthesis of Hellenis-

tic and Christian thought that prompted Origen to formulate a

doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. This doctrine would

earn him church condemnation several hundred years after his

death. It would also provide, albeit mistakenly, a basis for

reincarnationists to assert that their belief was taught in the

early church.

Pre-existence vs. Transmigration

Briefly, reincarnation (Greek metempsychosis; English transmi-

gration) is the belief that the soul of man is divine and eternal

and is ever evolving back into an absolute oneness with God

through a system of cause and effect (law of karma) lifetimes.

Because man is so mistaken in his thinking and because of this is

so far removed from God, it will take many, many lifetimes to

progress to the point of being released from these multiple

births. As one body dies, the soul transmigrates into another and

so on until release.

This belief system and elements of it have been traced to almost

every ancient culture. Greece was no exception. From the Orphic

Mystery Schools through Pythagoras, Empedocles and down to Plato

and beyond transmigration was widely held in Hellenistic thought.

(10) As mentioned above, it was the influence of Hellenism cou-

pled with certain Scriptures that led Origen to develop his

doctrine of pre-existence. Latourette writes: "Inevitably, like

so many of the early Christian thinkers, nurtured as they were in

Greek philosophy, and indeed, like still others in succeeding

centuries who were familiar with Greek thought, in his writings

and in the formulations of his religious beliefs Origen bore the

unmistakable impress of the Greek heritage. Yet Origen believed

that he found the truth primarily in the Scriptures and in what

had been transmitted in orderly succession from the

Apostles."(11)

And the truth that he found both in these Scriptures and the

teachings of the Apostles did not include reincarnation.

"He did of course reject the Pythagorean metempsychosis, which

teaches that human souls pass into the bodies of animals (Contra

Celsum V, xlix; VII, xxx), he also set aside Plato's hypothesis

of a transference of souls from one human to another (Contra

Celsum IV, xvii)." (12) Further, in his commentary on Matthew,

under the heading entitled Relation of John the Baptist to Eli-

jah-the Theory of Transmigration Considered we read: In this

place, it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken

of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is

foreign to the Church of God and not handed down by the Apostles,

nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures. For observe (Matthew)

did not say, in the 'soul' of Elijah, in which case the doctrine

of transmigration might have some ground, but 'in the spirit and

power of Elijah". (13)

The above is most understandable. Although Origen did teach the

pre-existence of the soul, and even though he did derive that

doctrine from the influence of Greek thought, he never held to

the doctrine of reincarnation. A short examination of the extant

works of this scholar, or a cursory examination of various histo-

ries of the early church show the contrary to be true. To contin-

ually make assertions to the contrary is nothing short of scho-

lastic dishonesty!

The pre-existence that Origen taught more closely resembles some

aspects of Mormonism than those of reincarnationists. "Finally,

Origen accepted an old tradition of interpretation, already

exploited by Philo, which held that the two accounts of creation

in the opening chapters of Genesis reflected, in fact, two stages

of divine creation, the first concerned with the appearance of

the immaterial, intelligible order and the second with the forma-

tion of the visible cosmos. Accordingly, it was Origin's convic-

tion that God's original creation was a society of immaterial'

spirits', finite because created, self-determining because ra-

tional. ... Evil intruded when these spirits, becoming satiated

with the vision of God, chose to fall away from their own happi-

ness, God, into a self-willed state of separateness, variety, and

multiplicity. Some became demons and others angels and yet others

the souls of human beings, but all, to one degree or another,

fell from their original focused identity into distraction and

alienation. As a consequence and symbol of their altered state,

God then brought into being the physical, visible cosmos, to be

for these creatures a second-best world -- a world in which

harmony was imposed on disorder and in which the fallen spirits

could be 'schooled' back to their original glory." (14) This

doctrine was only one of several that brought the wrath of the

Roman emperor Justinian (A.D. 482-565) on Origen.

The second Council of Constantinople that was mentioned by

Maclaine above was convened to deal primarily with reconciling

those in the church who held that Christ had only one nature

(Monophysites), with those that believed He had two (Chalcedoni-

ans). The condemnation of Origin as a heretic was primarily a

political move to appease the Chalcedonians. (15) Absolutely no

scriptural editing took place. This council did not even concern

itself with the canon of the Scriptures.

Origen did not believe in reincarnation. He was not anathemized

because of reincarnation: " If anyone maintains the fabeled pre-

existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows

from it; let that one be anathema!" (16) And to Maclaine's state-

ment regarding the second Council of Constantinople: "where the

teachings of Origen (which are the teachings of the physical re-

embodiment of the soul were struck from the Bible by the Emperor

Justinian and his Empress Theodora," we must send a resounding

"No ma'am, that's not history!"

To Head and Cranston we respond: Yes, Origen clearly taught the

pre-existence of the soul, but as we have seen, it was not in the

"past world orders of this earth" but in the spirit world before

the creation of this earth! And the assertion that he taught "its

(soul) reincarnation in future worlds" is at best poor scholar-

ship, and at the worst scholastic dishonesty!

In light of the above, Leslie Weatherhead's statement, "Only in

A.D. 553 did the second Council of Constantinople reject it

(reincarnation)... . Origen, a great scholar of the church (A.D.

185-254) accepted it," is shown to be false. One must wonder that

if he could be so wrong in his assertion about Origen, what of

his assertions about the other church fathers mentioned. Was

there a widespread belief in reincarnation in the early church?

Gnosticism, Reincarnation, and Christianity

As mentioned above, the writings of the first- and second-cen-

tury Christian Fathers were penned to refute the claims of pseu-

do-Christian sects. The lion's share of this theological warfare

was directed against a wide-ranging world view known as "Gnosti-

cism". Early thought to have been established by Simon the magi-

cian mentioned in the book of Acts (17), it is now known to have

had a much earlier genesis, and was not confined to the Christian

church. (18) However, into the growing church it came in crisis

proportions.

"It was not so much that the Christians toyed with Gnosticism

as that the Hellenistic world was trying to integrate Christ into

its thinking without being profoundly changed by him, and pro-

posed Gnosticism to the church as a means to this end. Jesus and

his first disciples made such an overwhelming impact on the

Mediterranean world that it could not be ignored, but his message

was so contrary to Hellenistic culture that it could not simply

be accepted, and so the effort was made to adapt it to the cul-

ture." (19) The church, of course, rightly rejected these over-

tures.

It is impossible in the space alloted to define or even ade-

quately summarize Gnostic beliefs because they represented "less

a specific set of teachings than a religious mood of world rejec-

tion coupled with what might best be called a transcendentalist

state of mind." (20) Suffice to say, that in the writings of the

Fathers (who quoted Gnostic sources extensively), the recent

archeololgical finds of the Nag Hammadi Library and extant Gnos-

tic literature, we have abundant evidence that reincarnation was

a prevalent belief among the Gnostics, not the New Testament

Church! (21)

As to the assertions by Weatherhead that Jerome, Augustine and

other church fathers taught the doctrine: "No sir, that's not

history!"

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165): In his dialogue with Trypho the

Jew, in chapter IV while discussing "souls", this conclusion is

reached.

Trypho: "Therefore, souls neither see God nor transmigrate into

other bodies... Justin: "You are right, I replied." (22)

Irenaeus (A.D. 135-202): In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus

condemns Carpocrates and his followers, calls them mad, irreli-

gious, and impious because "They deem it necessary, therefore,

that by means of transmigration from body to body, souls should

have experience of every kind of life as well as every kind of

action..."(23) In the same volume, he devotes an entire chapter

to the refutation of transmigration. The chapter title says it

all: "Absurdity of the Doctrine of the Transmigration of Souls."

(24)

Jerome (A.D. 331-420): It has been charged that Jerome's letter

to Avitus shows his belief in transmigration. Albrecht cites,

"Actually Jerome's letter to Avitus severely criticizes Origen

for his Platonic ideas and nowhere condones the teaching of

reincarnation. In his Letter to Demetrius he also refutes

Origen's teaching on pre-existence..." .(25)

Augustine (A.D. 354-430): Because he was in a Gnostic Sect and

steeped in Platonic thought prior to his conversion to Christian-

ity, Augustine was certainly in a position to tout reincarnation-

ism. However, he never did. In fact in his letter to Optatus he

wrote, "For it is impossible that you should hold the opinion

that it is for the deeds in a former life that souls are confined

in earthly and mortal bodies." (26)

Once again it is seen from the writings of those that are sup-

posed to be reincarnationists, that they thoroughly opposed the

doctrine. And once again we are forced to ask the question: Poor

scholarship or scholastic dishonesty?

An Edited Bible?

The last question to be asked, and the one most easily dealt

with, is: Was he Bible edited to excise the teaching of reincar-

nation? The first negative to this question comes from biblical

textual criticism.

There is in existence today multiplied thousands of whole and

partial manuscripts of the New Testament that go back to within

100 years of the events of the Gospel. Some of these were found

only recently. It takes a real stretch of the imagination to

believe that with all of these there would not have been at least

one manuscript found that would contain the verses that were

supposed to have been edited out.

Also, if the church took such great pains to edit out references

to reincarnation, where are references to that effect in the

edicts of the different church councils that we have today? We

have seen that early Christian scholars were not shy about naming

names when it came to heresy. I have given ample evidence that

transmigration was adressed and rejected by the ante- and post-

Nicene Fathers and the church at large. However there exists no

literature from the early ecumenical councils that indicates

reincarnation was widespread in the church and needed to be dealt

with. Gnosticism was the deadly foe; the doctrine of transmigra-

tion was only a corollary to that movement.

The burden of proof of for extensive editing of reincarnation

out of Holy Writ falls squarely on the shoulders of those making

this charge. To date that proof is sadly lacking.

What are we to say then regarding the scholarship of those

advocating the teaching of reincarnation by Jesus, the Apostles

and the early Christian church? It somewhat stretches the bounds

of credulity to think that these writers and speakers make their

assertions without benefit of research. I would like to believe

that the worst accusation that we can level against them is

ignorance of the subject. If these advocates did investigate the

writings of the Fathers and church history and still make their

statements, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that

they have a hidden agenda and are being deliberately deceitful.

It is imperative that Christians, in these perilous times,

become more aware of the history of our beliefs. We desperately

need to know from whence we have come so that we are not defeated

by the mistakes and the deceits of the past.

End Notes:

1. "Later" with Bob Costas; NBC Talk Show, videotape on file.

2. Leslie D. Weatherhead, The Christian Agnostic, (New York;

Abingdon Press, 1965) pp. 296-297.

3. Anna K. Winner, The Basic Ideas of Occult Wisdom, (Wheaton,

Ill.; Theosophical Publishing House, nd) pg. 56. ð3Ð/

� 4. Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston eds., The Phoenix Fire Mystery,

(New York; Warner Books, 1977) pg. 145

5. Shirley Maclaine, Out on A Limb, (New York; Bantam Books,

1983) pg. 237.

6. Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, The History of the Primi-

tive Church, (New York; The Macmillan Co. 1946) pg. 929.

7. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, 2 vols.,

(New York; Harper and Row, 1953) Vol. 1, pg. 149

8. Lebreton and Zeiller, pg. 297. 9. Williston Walker et al, A

History of the Christian Church, (New York; Charles Scribners'

Sons, 1918) pg. 90

10. See especially Mclintock and Strongs' Encyclopedia of Reli-

gion and Ethics, section on Transmigration.

11. Latourette, Vol. I, pg. 150.

12. Lebreton and Zeiller, pg. 938.

13. Allan Menzies, ed. The Ante Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids;

Eerdmans, 1978) Vol. I, pp. 474-475.

14. Walker, pp. 91-92.

15. ibid, pps 176-179.

16. Jon F. Dechow, Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity,

(Macon; Mercer University Press) pg. 454.

17. Acts, chapter 8.

18. Walker, pp. 61-70.

19. Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, (Garden City; Doubleday, 1984)

pg. 56.

20. Walker, pg. 61.

21. see especially The Pistis Sophia, Book I, chapt. 7 and Book

III, chapt 125.

22. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds, The Ante Nicene

Fathers, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1975) vol 1. pg.197.

23. ibid, pg. 351.

24. ibid, pg.409.

25. Mark Albrecht, Reincarnation, (Downers Grove; Inter Varsity

Press, 1982) pg. 47.

26. Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the

Christian Church, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1979) pg. 283.

(c) 1990, PFO - All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Out

reach. Reproduction is prohibited except for portions intended

for personal use and noncommercial purposes. For reproduction

permission, please contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box

26026, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136, (314) 388-2648.

---

These documents are free from , providing free webcontent for websites around the world!. copy freely with this link intact. BelieversCafe.com