I recently read The Universal Christ by Richard Rohr. I will keep the review brief: I did not like it. Oh, there were things of value in the book: helpful truths and reminders, important insights, ideas worth some further thought. Yet all of these can be found in better books with less problems.

My main problem with the book was Rohr’s consistent poor exegesis of the scriptures. Throughout the book he uses the word “Christ” in ways that support his basic thesis but are completely foreign to the biblical understanding of the word. Rohr’s “Christ” is detached from its Old Testament foundations and the wait for the Jewish Messiah.

That said, I do not wish to spend this time and space dismantling the book or arguing against Richard Rohr. Because while I did not like the book, the experience of reading it reminded me that it is good to read and listen to perspectives with which we disagree.

It is a bad habit to only engage with material and ideas that support what we already think. Too many people who want to stay “informed” only turn to the news sources that inform them of their correctness. When we do turn a listening ear to the other side, we often choose the worst examples that support our biases as to how “stupid” or “evil” they are.

I would like to say that Christians are above such intellectual malpractice, but evidence suggests we are common perpetrators.  Whether it is politics, biblical scholarship, theology, or philosophy, we often stick to those voices that affirm our correctness. The others are “false teachers” and not worth our time.

There are, of course, false teachers and prophets. There are intellectually thin ideas and dishonest thinkers that do not require our engagement: the prosperity gospel, for example. These are usually fairly easy to spot, especially if we are trained in listening to a wide array of perspectives.

But much of what gets labeled as “false teaching” is not so easily dismissed. We would benefit from seriously engaging with the material, even if we have strong disagreements. Reading The Universal Christ helped me better understand the perspective of panentheism – what it is, what its strengths are, and why I ultimately find it wanting. In the past I have greatly benefited from reading the perspectives of open and process theologies. While, like panentheism, I found much of this unsatisfying – I also found helpful ideas that better shaped my own theological perspective. 

Reading a wide array of perspectives helps us better understand what we believe and why we believe it.

While I strongly disagreed with Richard Rohr, I found myself enjoying the conversation. I wrote in the margins, asked questions, acknowledged when he made a good point, talked back every now and again, rolled my eyes, and laughed with both delight and disbelief. When the book was over, it was as if I had enjoyed a long cup of coffee with a potential new friend.

We would all benefit intellectually and spiritually if we practiced this regularly. So go, find some friends with whom you can disagree! We all need more of them.