In Part 1 of this series, we discussed how Tim Keller was influenced by occult mystics.

In Part 2 of this series, we discussed John Mark Comer and his advocacy for the Enneagram. There we described  what the Enneagram is as well as identifying its origins in the occult and Roman Catholic mysticism.

In Part 3 of this series, we briefly described Michael Heiser’s relationship with The Bible Project (see here and here). We also discussed how Heiser, Comer, and Radix Fidem are all tied together not only by their occult practices, but by their belief in polytheism.

Over at Facebook Marcia Montenegro of the Christian Answers for the New Age (CANA) writes:

Like polytheism, these men are tied together through the occult Enneagram and through “contemplative” (or mystical) practices. But that is not all that links them.

Michael Heiser got his PhD at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Tim Mackie—co-founder of the Bible Project—did his PhD studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Later he became an adjunct professor at Western Seminary. He has been a regular speaker at Bridgetown church.

John Mark Comer got his master’s degree from Western Seminary. He founded the Bridgetown church. Comer considered Dallas Willard to be a mentor.

Who is Dallas Willard? Dallas Willard got his PhD at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and eventually began his academic career by teaching at University of Wisconsin-Madison. He recommended men like Thomas a Kempis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Teresa of Avila, Brother Lawrence, Francis de Sales, Benedict of Nursia, and Richard Foster (John Mark Comer also quotes positively from many of these, as does Tim Keller). He has been highly influential in promoting mystical practices.

Notice a pattern? These men all have a similar educational background. They have similar influences, including their reliance on the Roman Catholic mystics. In some cases they directly influence each other, such as Heiser and the Bible Project, or Comer and Willard, or Comer and the Bible Project.

Now let’s go back to Enneagram. In 2018, there was an interesting exchange on Twitter:

Yup, that’s Michael Heiser agreeing with Kevin DeYoung that the Enneagram is occultic. I recommend reading “Enneagram: The Road Back to You, Or to Somewhere Else?”

On August 30, 2018, Tim Mackie and Jon Collins appeared on the Typology podcast where they discussed how the Enneagram helped them. On October 5, 2018, Heiser visited the Bible Project’s physical location to meet with the two co-founders. A few months later, the Bible Project published a series of videos in collaboration with Heiser promoting his views. Seven months later, Jon Collins—of the Bible Project—and his wife were in another video promoting the Enneagram.

Heiser (inadvertently?) allied himself with men who enthusiastically promoted the occult. If you’ve been following along with this series or with my article “Dr. Michael Heiser,” you’ll be unsurprised that men who are into the occult really like the work that Heiser has done.

Consider Heiser’s paper “Divine Council 101: Lesson 2: The elohim of Psalm 82 — gods or men?” There he cites Cyrus H. Gordon to claim that elohim can’t mean rulers or judges. Both Gordon and Heiser were associated with the University of Pennsylvania (albeit many decades apart). Gordon published a lot of work on the Ugarit texts, which was also important for Heiser. Gordon, a Higher Critic, believed that much of the Old Testament stories were myths based on the stories and legends from the cultures that surrounded the Hebrews (see here).

Heiser’s thesis relies heavily on these positions which deny biblical inerrancy. Thus, Heiser’s views are cited by leftists, heretics, and mystics who minimize or outright deny that scripture is the Word of God, even though Heiser himself still more-or-less clung to traditional evangelical Christianity (some call him a heretic, and some do not).

Consider this article by Daniel O. McClellan, “אלהים Does Not Mean “Judges”,” where he cites Gordon’s scholarship and this paper where he also cites Gordon^[1] (using Heiser against James White on the topic of elohim). What is the relevance? Daniel McClellan is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (known as the Mormons). Mormons are polytheists. Mormons love Heiser’s writings, because Psalm 82 is one of the Mormon’s favorite passages (as seen in this video around the 20 minute mark where John Mark Comer also relies on Psalm 82 to push his take on “creational monotheism” which is very similar to the theses of Gordon, Heiser, and McClellan).

Heiser attempted to embrace liberal scholarship that denied the inspiration of scripture. In the process, he has attracted all manner of atheists, occultist, Mormons, mystics, and heretics who appreciate the logical consequences of his work. It is not an accident that Heiser collaborated with men who dabbled in the occult, nor is it unsurprising that he failed to detect their heresy, because his entire life’s work was based on philosophies that logically lead to the occult.

To understand why Heiser’s background matters, we need only look at James White’s explanation (emphasis added):

Heiser rejected those who denied his scholarship or who he felt he was superior to. Heiser’s dismissal is on display here. He simply doesn’t take James White seriously because he doesn’t act like an academic, nor yield to the consensus viewpoint. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same leftist gatekeeping tactic that was used to silence dissenters during covid-19.

But as James White notes in the quote above, the fact is that most biblical scholars deny the authority of Christ to interpret scriptures, and so don’t consider Christ’s words in John 10:34 to have any significant bearing on how to interpret Psalm 82. So, yes, White’s view is a minority view and Heiser’s is the majority view, but popularity doesn’t make a thing true or false. In this case, presuppositional bias clearly determines which positions are defended or rejected.

James White is correct that Heiser does not allow for Jesus’ application in John 10. While most Christians in the church would start there, in this video here, Heiser doesn’t even mention it, talking about Psalm 89 and 1 Kings 22 instead! This nicely illustrates the epistemological differences.^[2]

What all of this establishes is how interconnected and influential the occult movement is in the mainstream church. Each participant participates to varying degrees. Heiser is more peripheral or indirect while Comer is at the forefront. But what they all share in common is commonality with those who oppose Christ, whether liberal scholars, non-Christians, mystics of other religions or, more commonly, Roman Catholics.

But this also applies to the rank-and-file, such as John Providence, a proponent of Radix Fidem. Here are some excerpts from his writings that highlight how he was captured (emphasis added):

This is your standard run-of-the-mill contemplative who is led by—in part—Roman Catholic mysticism right into the occult.

Notice how he uses terms like “discipline” and “practice.” These non-biblical terms^[3] are part of the standard contemplative language. Other terms can be found here and here.^[4] Many of these terms have become common within the modern church, in large part due to the slow and quiet inclusion of mysticism.

Richard Rohr, is the Franciscan monk who is behind the popularity of the Enneagram. As we discussed in Part 2, Rohr promotes the heresy of Perennialism. As John Providence notes, Rohr believes what we can become like gods (“the oldest lie in the book”). This is interesting because Heiser too promotes the deification of man (known as “theosis“).^[5]

The occult entered the mainstream church mostly by taking the indirect path. Heiser’s teaching were so effective because he was not personally participating, but those who liked the logical implications contained in his works certainty were! Both Heiser and Comer used propaganda to hide their polytheism under other terms.

Still others insist, as does John Providence above, that not all Roman Catholicism is bad and so embrace the bad that is Roman Catholicism. In fact, the majority of the occult mystics that we’ve examined have been influenced by Roman Catholic mysticism, whether Tim Keller, Heiser, Comer, and others. While not the only method, this appears to be the primary vector by which the occult and mystical has been introduced into American Protestant churches.

John Providence does do us one service: he highlights exactly what is wrong with his mystical approach.

This is very illustrative. He is correct that mystical experiences have an external source that must be granted, but mystical experiences have two sources, not one. One is godly, the other demonic. It is simply not true that only God can grant the experiences that you have prayed for. Demons can, and do, grant miracles and endow powers.^[6]

Basic doctrinal errors like this lead to deception. For example, in “On Prophets and Prophecy” I noted:

John Providence’s (apparent) inexperience with scripture led him to miss (or fail to regard) the New Testament’s teachings on authority, leadership, and submission in the church (e.g. in 1 and 2 Timothy). His question indicates that he could not come up with any idea why it might be a problem that Ed Hurst has no one to submit to in the church.

Works in this series:

“The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 1”
“The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 2”
“The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 3”
“The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 4” (this article)

Footnotes

^[1] McClellan states: “That this refers to the divine council in Ps 82:1 and not Israel has been the conclusion of every scholar who has published on the issue in the last 80 years of whom I‘m aware:”

Like Heiser did with James White, McClellan doesn’t consider the alternate view to qualify as legitimate scholarship. In their minds, the issue is closed.

^[2] Heiser has a short 4-page paper on John 10 here. Compare Heiser’s argument with the claim that “[Heiser] dismisses the common interpretation of Psalm 82, and its NT counterpart found in John 10:34. There, most agree, Jesus said that these elohim were men” by examining this explanation.

^[3] For example, the contemplative term “discipline” does not exist, as such, in the Bible. The term used in Greek is paideia. This and other related words refer to instruction, training, education, correction, and punishment, typically of a child. Another term is gumnazó, which refers to exercise and training. When a contemplative refers to discipline, he is referring to all sorts of things except instruction and training through and by scripture.

^[4] Terms include:

• Deep Healing
• Healing Care
• Inner Life
• Interior Voice
• Interior World
• Labyrinths
• Lectio Divina
• Listening (Prayer or Ministry)
• Presence
• Sacred <insert word here>
• Shadow Self
• Soul Care
• Spiritual Formation / Formational
• Spiritual Disciplines
• Spiritual Director
• Spiritual Rhythms
• Stillness, Solitude, and Silence (over words)
• The Beloved
• The Divine
• The Still, Small Voice
• The True Self

^[5] Heiser believes, like Mormons, that men will become actual gods, just not God. This is not a distinction that is going to matter to many monotheists, but it holds sway with many mystics who are fans of Heiser’s Divine Council. You can read more about Heiser’s views on deification here.

^[6] Many Roman Catholic mystics were stigmatists, including Teresa of Avila. Such miraculous experiences establish the association between Roman Catholic mysticism and demonic influence.