Customer Reviews

Children of Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

The question of legitimacy in a spiritual tradition is established by the tradition itself. The requirements for the passage of the right to ordain in the Holy Order of Mans tradition were clearly written down. The Holy Order of Mans tradition required that two teachers that had the right to ordain had to collaborate to pass to another these rights. If the authors of the book "Children of Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia" would have done the research on Holy order of Mans they would have uncovered this fact. The research itself would have proven that Mr. Bowes claim to any legitimacy to the Holy Order of Mans tradition was false.
It is not the option of authors to decide for themselves any legitimate claims to a spiritual tradition. The author must use the requirements which the tradition itself uses.
There are many elements to a spiritual tradition. Among these elements are the rituals, the teachings, the symbols, and the nature of its priesthood. Some of these elements are not subject to change, while others are. The symbols and the nature of the priesthood of a spiritual tradition are historically not subject to change. Again if the authors of the book "Children of Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia" would have done the research they would have uncovered the fact that the priesthood of the Holy Order of Mans had an absolute prohibition against defrocking priests. If Mr. Bowes was actually an ordained priest or minister of the Holy Order of Mans tradition he would have known of this prohibition and complied with it.
This prohibition was a major element to the Holy Order of Mans priesthood.

Rt. Rev. Timothy Harris President of The Gnostic Order of Christ
One of the Founders of The Holy Order of Mans

I have been reticent to wade into the debate over the lineage, or lack thereof, of the Order of Christ Sophia as it seemed to be a distraction from the Work I signed on for some 40 years ago. However, this latest attempt at representing as true that which clearly is not, has to be addressed.

I entered the Holy Order of MANS (HOOM) in early 1971 and was Ordained a Priest in 1973. I served in various capacities over the next 11 years including the running of a seminary center, pastoring a lay community and fulfilling the role of Director of Education for the entire Order. I sat on Esoteric Councils as well as many Regional Councils over those years.

While running the Seminary in Indianapolis, I became acquainted with Peter Bowes and his wife. I liked them and they seemed to be a positive presence in the Christian Community of Indianapolis, of which they were members. The Christian Community was the lay extension of the HOOM. They were, in other words, parishioners. Peter later became a member of our Discipleship program which was a correspondence-based course that had no option for life-vows nor ordination.

I also knew Master Raeson (Anthony) Ruiz and worked under his oversight when I was a new priest in Baltimore. He was my regional director. Master Raeson did, in fact, get asked to leave the HOOM and struck out on his own. While his Mastery is not in question in my mind, the statement that he had been given the Rites to Ordain in the HOOM lineage certainly is. He clearly had not been given that Rite. Now, that being said, he may very well have been given the ability to ordain from a source other than HOOM. He was after all, a Master Teacher. But those ordinations would NOT be in the HOOM lineage and those ordained by Raeson or by any of those he subsequently ordained, should not represent themselves as being the inheritors of the HOOM lineage.

The issue of "lineage" may or may not seem important however, truthfulness IS. The Order of Christ Sophia may have a wonderful, spirit-filled mission and may be helping a great number of people but they should not feel the need to validate their existence on falsehoods. It merely detracts from whatever good they may be doing.

What I have represented here is the Truth and needed to be stated publically.

Rev. Gerald (Dominic) Indra

Whatever one's personal opinion of the Order of Christ Sophia, it is a growing, intriguing new religious movement (NRM), worthy of academic attention. Thus, I looked forward to the publication of this book. However, I am sad to report that it is very disappointing. As other reviewers have pointed out, most of the book reads like an infomerical for the OCS. There are a few more interesting sections, especially the statistical comparison of the OCS to other NRMs. If one wants to understand the viewpoint of current OCS leadership, this is an excellent resource. However, if you are looking for historical accuracy and a balanced treatment of controversies around the Order, you will have to seek elsewhere. The historical errors regarding the Holy Order of MANS and groups which derive from it are especially unfortunate. The documentary evidence is available and most of the principals are still alive and interviewable, yet the authors relied almost completely on information from OCS leadership and secondary sources. Graduate students looking for a project should pay attention, as a much better, more accurate book on the OCS remains to be written.

What's the matter with Oxford? Don't their editors check sources anymore?

Dell DeChant wrote for the back cover of Children of Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia (OCS) by James R. Lewis and Nicholas M. Levine that this book "is a model for how research on New Religious Movements [NRM] is best presented." Douglas E. Cowan wrote, "Well worth the read!" As somewhat of a historian (M.A.), and Holy Order of MANS priest/teacher (of the Gnostic Order of Christ-GOC), I have to differ. And, I have to ask, did anyone really read this book and if they did, did anyone bother to check the research or think about the assertions made in this book-- rationally?

If this is an example of how "the field of NRM research breaks out of its ghetto and joins the mainstream of religious studies," the religious studies field and society are definitely in trouble (Legitimating New Religions, James R. Lewis, Rutgers University Press, 2003: 234). This book actually documents a case of one of those "entrepreneurial cult creators" NRM scholars talk about, attempting a spiritual and corporate "identity theft", aided and abetted by Lewis, the other NRM scholars who signed off on this book, and Oxford University Press.

Lewis asserts that the book is a collaborative effort; however, this book appears to be a product deliberately engineered by Lewis and Peter Bowes to legitimize the OCS as the "rightful heir" to the HOOM, in spite of the fact that the HOOM Priesthood still exists (Lewis 2010:12). There is no such thing as an ex-HOOM priest. Had any of the NRM scholars or Oxford editors bothered to check the sources, they would have found that the negative information about the OCS is true, the premise of this book entirely false, and that HOOM Priests have been having problems with Bowes misrepresenting his credentials for 25 years.

A legitimate claim to the Holy Order of MANS (HOOM) tradition and lineage may only be bestowed by the HOOM Priesthood; the power and authority to accept, confirm, deny and legitimate its own members -- is held solely by the body of the HOOM Priesthood itself. The criteria to be followed is clearly stated in Father Paul's Rite to Ordain Ceremony, the conditions of which Lewis chose to ridicule (Lewis 2010:84).

In an absurd turn of the anti-cult table, Lewis contemptuously and arrogantly asserts his scholarly opinion as the only actual evidence that the issue surrounding OCS legitimacy is "controversial" rather than factual, implying that HOOM priests are really only "anti-cult" persecutors of the OCS. Under this guise, Lewis excuses himself from accepting HOOM Priest primary source testimony, citing the cult apologetic nonsense that "...for many of the people involved in conflicts with the OCS, the cult stereotype is an ideological resource -- useful for legitimating support for their side of the struggle." He asserts they have "no deep involvement in the anti-cult cause", yet he treats HOOM Priests throughout the book with disregard, even slandering some on the basis of OCS leaders' hearsay. This book is entirely based on the OCS leaders' "mythology", not on any facts (Lewis 2010: 231).

The irony is that HOOM Priests have been attacked for years as a cult by anti-cultists. Now an NRM scholar, who supposedly believes in religious freedom attacks HOOM Priests and writes a whole book devoted to legitimating a usurper. I am beginning to think that NRM scholars are fast becoming the new polemicists. They remind me of the Early Church Fathers who wrote against the Gnostics, comparing one group against another and criticizing them all. Next, NRM scholars will be burning us at the stake. It is apparent given the derisive tone against the HOOM that some of the NRM scholars (such as the ones who signed off on this book) really have little respect for the groups they write about. In the process the author persecuted and slandered innocent individuals. What happens when a scholar, misrepresents his research, ignores the testimony of living people, and slanders them in a book to legitimate an NRM story as true, when it's not? And what about the scholars who signed off on this research and Oxford University Press that published the book? Who is responsible for this mess? Can scholars write any old thing they want to these days?

The Order of Christ Sophia is not rooted in the HOOM tradition, nor was its founder, Peter Bowes, ever trained or ordained in the HOOM tradition. He was at one time a lay HOOM Discipleship student and a lay Christian Community member (akin to a parishioner), but that is about it. Bowes was ordained in the Society for Christ's Disciples (SCD) by Master Raeson Ruiz, who, after being kicked out of the HOOM for moral and ethical violations, founded the SCD and ordained priests and teachers in defiance of the HOOM Priesthood (Fact vs. Fiction: Peter Bowes' Claims to the Holy Order of MANS by Michael Maciel).

Anyone critically assessing Lewis' sources should have noted that in order to assert the premise, Lewis ignored primary source testimony. HOOM Priests stated clearly: "Ruiz was never given the Rites of Ordination in the HOOM " and Bowes "was never actually in the HOOM." The Gnostic Order of Christ lists on its Web site the "Five Teachers of The Holy Order of MANS" who were passed the "Rite to Ordain", etc., and Ruiz is not listed. Lewis also read letters on a HOOM egroup, but using seer-like powers, misconstrued the letters as written by other than HOOM Priests. They weren't. (Q&A by Michael Maciel; Open Letter to Current Members of OCS by Carol Weis; The Historical Lineages of The Gnostic Order of Christ).

In order to knock down and dismiss what HOOM Priests have to say, Lewis contorts text, omits important information, takes text out of context, and attacks HOOM priests using subtle sarcasm, hearsay, and slander to both diminish and dismiss the import of actual testimonies and Lewis refers to the HOOM Priests as ex-HOOM throughout the book. An example of dismissal and contorted text may be seen in Lewis' misuse of the responses to a questionnaire sent out to HOOM priest Michael Maciel concerning the passage of the HOOM lineage. Apparently, it is the only actual interview Lewis conducted outside of the OCS.

First of all, Lewis calls HOOM Priest Michael Maciel, Mitchell Morris in the book (Lewis 2010:91). We are not informed of the actual source of the quotes, or that they have been taken out of context, or that Maciel is a very credible witness. In response to autobiographical questions, Maciel responded that (1) he knew all of the HOOM teachers, (2) he sat on the Esoteric Council of Priests "hundreds of times", and (3) he was a HOOM member for seven years. Maciel had also been a member of the OCS for two years and maintains a Web site in support of ex-OCS, where he tells of his experience with the OCS.

When asked about Ruiz's ordination, Maciel testified "Ruiz was never given the Rites of Ordination in the HOOM... etc. However, instead of presenting his text in full, Lewis broke Maciel's paragraphs up into sound bites, and used the fragments as if they were statements made by several different priests, as if he, Lewis, had actually spoken to several different priests when actually he had not. Lewis asserted "some critics argue that" and "other critics assert" etc., yet, the statements were all taken from Maciel's questionnaire; they were not made by a number of people as Lewis implies. Essentially, Lewis dismissed and misrepresented Maciel's testimony in an attempt to make our ordination requirements seem immaterial (Lewis 2010:84).

Maciel who personally knows the Masters McCaffery contacted them and others. The McCafferys were members of the HOOM for the entire length of time that Ruiz was a member of the HOOM and participated in the decision to exit him. Michael's interview confirms what he and others have written all along. Michael writes:

Only some of the Master Teachers of the HOOM were given the Rites to Ordain. At the time Ruiz was told to leave the Order by the Esoteric Council, there were only three teachers who had the authority to ordain priests: Philip McCaffery, Marthelia McCaffery, and Andrew Rossi. Ruiz was never given that authority. Bowes' claim to the HOOM lineage is therefore without validity. His lineage is from Ruiz and the Society of Christ's Disciples, the group Ruiz started after he was kicked out of the HOOM. And since Ruiz was never given the Rites to Ordain, his "lineage" is called into question. Simply having been initiated into mastery did not give Ruiz the authority to ordain priests, much less to ordain other master teachers (Ibid, Fact vs. Fiction).

As to Bowes' claim to have received a HOOM minister's ordination in 1974 by Master Marthelia (who oversaw the Discipleship Instructor program in 1974), she denies it. Maciel reports, she said, "Of course not. Only life-vowed brothers and sisters of the Order were qualified to be ordained" and she confirmed that never were any of the Discipleship's lay students ordained as HOOM ministers. McCaffery's husband corroborated her account (Ibid, Fact vs. Fiction).

Lewis should have known better than not to check out the OCS controversy, but due to his stereotypical prejudice against detractors, he let his bias get in the way. And yet, it is not as if the academic community is unaware that NRMs seek legitimation from scholars. Benjamin Zablocki and many others have discussed this problem. Zablocki notes, some "researchers" seem to be "naïve in understanding the ability of cults to put a favorable spin on research findings by `helping' social science investigators get in touch with subjects to be interviewed" (The Blacklisting of a Concept: the Strange History of the Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion: Nova Religion, Oct. 1997: 115-16).

As for Bowes, he looked forward to the publication of this book without even knowing of its content two years before it was published. What does this tell us? He posted a notice on Facebook: "Fr. Peter Bowes Breaking News: Oxford University Press has decided to publish Jim Lewis' book, entitled `The Order of Christ/Sophia: The Children of Jesus and Mary.' This is great news! We will let you know when to expect it".

Lewis begins this fabrication, asserting that the OCS has grown out of "predecessor movements" and lists the "Holy Order of MANS, the Brotherhood of Christ, and the Holy Order of the Sophia." His reason for spending so much time on the HOOM, Lewis states, is that "the historical backdrop for the OCS is thus the history of these predecessors and "the biographies of Earl Blighton, Bowes and Watts." Please note, Lewis completely leaves out of these lists, The Society for Christ's Disciples (SCD), the order that Bowes was actually a member of, and Master Raeson Ruiz, the man who actually ordained him (Lewis 2010:xiii; Lucas 1995:143-149).

In the next section, Lewis discusses Ruiz briefly. He attempts to bolster Ruiz's standing in the HOOM, telling us of Bowes' assertion that after Father Paul died, that Ruiz and two other teachers decided together how the HOOM was going to be run, but, in fact, Ruiz and those two teachers had no such power; Ruiz was only one of seven teachers of the HOOM after Father Paul passed on, and there were a host of brother-sister teachers (9-10) and the entire priesthood, all of whom had to vote on the next step. Teachers were not autonomous. The HOOM was run democratically by the Esoteric Council of the Priests and Teachers. Ruiz's actual choice was to go along with the program or leave the order (Ibid; Lucas wrote about Ruiz. Lewis either did not see it or ignored it). Ruiz stayed, but in fact became such a problem, especially after he took an EST seminar, that some members of the HOOM, even today, blame him for the chaos that ensued. Ruiz was notorious for rampages, mostly due to the fact that the teachers and the priesthood refused to accept his revelation that he was "the one" or pass him the rites to ordain (Ibid; Hoom Actions Reports, 1974; HOOM By-Laws,1968; Ibid Facts... Maciel; Interviews with HOOM and SCD members).

In chapter one, after asserting for twelve pages that Bowes is legitimate, Lewis tells us that Bowes' claim to being the "rightful heir" of HOOM is actually based only on Bowes' personal mythology; he had a realization that he was "the one" to follow Ruiz. Lewis reports that Bowes stated in his autobiography, that "Blighton had in fact [italics mine] handed the spiritual torch, if you will, to Ruiz, who in turn passed it to Father Peter." In other words, Bowes' "in fact" legitimacy is entirely a product of Ruiz's and Bowes' imaginations, circa 1982, eight years after Father Paul had passed and right after Ruiz been exited from the order (Lewis 2010:11-12; Bowes 2006:189; Lucas 1995:143; HOOM Action Reports 1974). I think scholars need to review William Sims Brainbridge and Rodney Stark's, "Cult Formation :Three Compatible Models" (Cults and New Religious Movements: A Reader: Blackwell Readings in Religion, edited by Lorne L. Dawson, 2003: 59-72).

Lewis eventually accomplishes the complete destruction of the premise of his whole book, but not until chapter four, after he has asserted for three chapters that Bowes is legitimate and after he has finished ridiculing HOOM priests. I guess the scholars who signed off on this book didn't notice this either, but, in this section, after legitimating Bowes for eighty pages, Lewis reveals he is actually clueless as to the real legitimacy of the OCS. Lewis declares, "it is unlikely that Ruiz would have been accepted as the provisional director-general of the HOOM .... if he had not at least been given the rights [sic] of ordination." Lewis cites Lucas, but misreads again. Lucas wrote "Steward of the Office of Director General" (Lewis, 2010: 84-5; Lucas,1995:143). Come on! Are we supposed to accept this misquoted and misconstrued conjecture as evidence of OCS legitimacy?

First of all, conjecture is not evidence. Second, beside the fact that not all masters were passed the Rite to Ordain, Ruiz was not the provisional director of the HOOM. Ruiz was elected Steward for a period of one year; Steward meant essentially, caretaker; his authority was limited to the San Francisco, CA Apostolate: the S.F. Bay Area, for business purposes (Ibid; HOOM Action Reports 1974; HOOM By-Laws 1968; Ibid Facts... Maciel; Interviews).

In chapter four, Lewis erroneously asserts, The Gnostic Order of Christ is a "splinter group" of the HOOM, yet Lewis visited the Web site which states clearly that the GOC are HOOM Priests. Under no circumstances can Lewis claim innocence or ignorance of GOC history, since the basic story is on the GOC Web site. It states clearly that the GOC was actually founded by a number of original members of the HOOM, including Master Timothy Harris and Master M Marian Carter (1951-1985). Master Timothy, President of the Gnostic Order of Christ was also one of the twelve founders of the HOOM. Master M was the Mother Superior of the Immaculate Heart Sisters of Mary (HOOM sub-order). How could Bowes possibly be the heir of HOOM?

Master Timothy was the third life-vowed brother in the Science of Man Church (SOM) ordained as a priest in1967. He was passed Rite to Ordain by Father Paul in 1970. He helped to write the HOOM incorporation papers, was the second Spiritual Director of the HOOM, wrote lessons, the basic Christian Community Charter, sat on the Esoteric Council, ran brother and sister houses, taught classes, initiated students and ordained priests. The majority of people associated with the GOC are HOOM priests; many have become teachers. The majority are the original movers and shakers who founded the HOOM. Some were former directors of various departments of HOOM and ran centers; another was a former president.

Lewis' shallow knowledge of spiritual traditions exhibits itself when Lewis underplays the importance of proving the real legitimacy of Bowes' ordination. The rationale, that the OCS is of the HOOM tradition because the OCS leader says so, they use HOOM terminology, wear clerics and use rituals that look and sound like HOOM, would be rejected by just about every spiritual tradition one could name, including those of the mainstream. (Lewis 2010:xiii). However, in the spiritual community of which we are a part, real legitimacy is an important issue. Contrary to the understanding of some in the academic world, Father Paul, while not validated by the mainstream, was validated spiritually by at least four prominent spiritual teachers of his time: Sufi Murshid Samuel Lewis, who served as the first Spiritual Director of the HOOM; Joe Miller, a Theosophist Teacher; Buddhist Master Ajari, who was also ordained as an Independent Bishop; and the Hindu Master Subramuniya (and others). These same four teachers acknowledged Master Timothy Harris as well. Sufi Murshid Samuel Lewis was numbered among the twelve founders of the HOOM and was the first Spiritual Director of the HOOM. When Murshid Lewis passed on, Master Timothy, who was well-known by all of these teachers, took over his post as the second Spiritual Director of the HOOM.

To date approximately thirty HOOM priests have become teachers and the majority have legitimate Rites to Ordain. If any were to be designated as rightful heirs to the HOOM Priesthood, it would certainly be collectively these legitimately ordained HOOM Priests/Teachers. The spiritual lineage of the HOOM is independent of any corporate organization and passed independently of any corporation(s). The Gnostic Order of Christ is not a "splinter group" of the HOOM. Such a concept does not fit our structure. The GOC is only one of a number of study groups and corporations in existence today across the country, founded by HOOM Priests. We are all of one united priesthood.

So, why did Lewis choose to use his academic pen to attack the HOOM and legitimate a usurper? Perhaps he was drawn in by charisma, but perhaps also, the money was attractive. According to a former board member of the OCS, Lewis was paid "thousands of dollars." I asked for a statement. The party wrote:

... It wasn't like we hired him but we needed to "support" him if he was going to be able to do a book. I was... [a member]... of OCS at the time and remember OCS paying many thousands of dollars up front. Jim asked for more money later on which was not part of the initial agreement. Clare and Peter explained that it would be a good investment since having a book written about OCS would be good for our image (2010).

Benjamin Zablocki addresses the problem of NRM scholars taking money, the bias it causes, and the rejection of the testimony of detractors (that I have complained about above) He wrote:

With regard to finances... The sociology of religion can no longer avoid the unpleasant ethical question of how to deal with the large sums of money being pumped into the field by the religious groups being studied and, to a lesser extent, by their opponents.... this money is not insignificant, and its influence on research findings and positions taken in scholarly disputes is largely unknown. It is time to recognize that this is an issue of a whole different ethical magnitude from that of taking research funding.... This is an issue that is slowly but surely building toward a public scandal... there needs to be some more public accounting of where the money is coming from and what safeguards have been taken to assure that this money is not interfering with scientific objectivity (Ibid:115-16).

I think public scandal time has arrived. I honestly have never seen such a biased distortion make it to publication and by Oxford no less. In another article, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, echoes Zablocki's concerns mentioning Lewis. Evidently, the taking of money and the writing of propaganda is a huge issue within the NRM community.

AWARE, led by James R. Lewis, has become a contractor for operations that can no longer claim any semblance or resemblance to research. One symptomatic product... is the Lewis volume titled From The Ashes: Making Sense of Waco (1994a).... a collection of 47 statements, authored by 46 individuals and 3 groups.... 34 are holders of a PhD degree, and 19 are recognized NRM scholars. One cannot claim that this collection of opinion-pieces is unrepresentative of the NRM research network.... The last two are clearly made-to-order PR efforts.... The whole NRM research network is involved.... Another aspect of these cases is that the reporting of financial arrangements is less than truthful.... The fact that The Family volume was financed by the group itself is never reported anywhere.... it is: a propaganda effort, pure and simple... (Balch 1996; Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Collaborationism and Research Integrity, Part 1, Chapter 1 of Misunderstanding Cults, University of Toronto Press, 2001:48-9.

The truth of the matter is that Bowes does not represent the HOOM priesthood and he has been an embarrassing problem for the HOOM Priesthood for years. In 2008, he declared himself a Western Guru and as of now runs around in purple robes to accentuate his uniqueness. While some scholars may have thought that the difficulties arising between the OCS and the HOOM priesthood are rooted in some silly religious argument, as we have seen, such is not the case. At the bottom of it all is simply, Bowes is misrepresenting himself as of the HOOM Priesthood; he was never ordained in the HOOM tradition at any time; he is not HOOM; he is not teaching HOOM; he has no Rites to Ordain.

I have to add, Lucas, who wrote the Odyssey... asserted that the HOOM move toward the mainstream was rather, more order-wide and very eclectic (Lucas 1995:5). This is true. It is also a mistake to believe that Rossi destroyed the HOOM single-handedly. And too much emphasis has been placed on the Tree of Life lessons; they were not written as dogma; they were simply ABC lessons meant to stimulate study, thought, and contemplation. These are not "the" teachings of the HOOM. The original introductory metaphysics satisfied the intellect of the young in the short term; however, HOOM members were encouraged to read, read, and read some more. As priests matured in age, conceptual frameworks shifted and inclusively expanded to accommodate a wider range of interests, spiritual practices, and life options.

The disintegration of the HOOM corporation was a natural process generated partially by a spiritual maturity gained by priests collectively. Members also began to marry and have families. Lewis' inability to comprehend the shift over time of the priesthood's spiritual growth, intellectually and collectively, lacks merit-- spiritual growth is not static; neither are life stages. The spiritual maturity gained by HOOM priests relative to a passage of time, natural intellectual growth, and the advent of shifts in lifestyle as a result of entering into marriages and family relationships was of enormous impact. But Priests were ordained forever. The Priesthood did not dissolve with the corporation. The form HOOM Priests use today accommodates a collective maturation for which each of us is independently and personally responsible. Vows are to God.

If we compare Lucas' approach to HOOM history with Lewis', we can see that Lucas' approach was at a much more sophisticated level, and that Lewis', failed to catch the nuances of the HOOM story as actually told by Lucas. An analysis of Lucas' text, the Odyssey... inherently demonstrates that Lucas was much more of a serious scholar than Lewis and that he always showed a great deal of respect for the HOOM. Lewis, on the other hand, seems to have been limited in his ability to read Lucas' text at the level of sophistication it required (or he simply scanned the book) and he demonstrates little real respect for the HOOM. The use of Lucas' book, the Odyssey..., by Lewis is essentially a very poor use of another scholars hard work. I cannot find one reference in Children... that correctly represents anything that Lucas actually said; in most cases, what Lucas actually said has been taken by Lewis out of context and misconstrued. Had Lewis performed actual research this book would have been an entirely different book.

Thomas Sowell mirrors my thoughts on this matter. He states, "Indeed, the whole point of developing and agreeing to objective scientific methods [of research] is to seek reliable information not dependent upon the subjective beliefs or predilections of a particular individual." He notes:

A scientist who filtered out facts contrary to some preferred theory of cancer would be regarded as a disgrace and discredited... an engineer who filtered out certain facts in building a bridge could be prosecuted for criminal negligence if that bridge collapsed as a result... But those intellectuals whose work has been analogized as ` social engineering' face no such liability -- in most cases, no liability at all -- if their filtering out of known facts lead to social disasters. (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, NY: Basic Books: 2009: 144)

In my opinion, this book is one of those "social disasters" spoken of above. NRMs, including Lewis, claim they support religious freedom, but this book in no way proves that notion. It is clear this book was devised from a standpoint of biased advocacy, in favor of one NRM over another, solely based on superficial appearances and the one-sided story of a misguided cult entrepreneur. It is also clear that the author failed to perform research according to accepted practices and omitted and twisted vital information that would have destroyed his premise. As a result of bias, Lewis rejected stereotypically, actual primary source testimony that conflicted with his stance, and aided an NRM in asserting a legitimacy it has no real claim to. In the process the author also persecuted innocent individuals. Since when do scholars do that!

Last, I have to say, that it is an incongruous that the HOOM priesthood has been attacked as anti-cultist persecutors. It seems apparent that from the very beginning Lewis became the tool for Bowes, who has been trying to usurp the HOOM's relatively good reputation for years. And it is my opinion that Lewis was not ignorant of what he was doing. Lewis wrote in Legitimating New Religions (a virtual bible for any NRM who wants to legitimate itself): "Nascent movements often attempt to justify a new idea or a new social order by attributing to it the authority of tradition.... it is usually only through a radical reinterpretation of the past that they [NRMs] are able to portray themselves as the true embodiment of `tradition.'" This book is definitely a "radical reinterpretation of the past"; in fact it is completely a false rewriting of history (Lewis 2003: 143). Oxford should pull this book, off the shelves and Lewis should be barred from publishing again.

So now, HOOM Priests, after being attacked by anti-cultists for years, have to deal with not only the anti-cultists, but also an anti-cult NRM community masquerading as religious freedom fighters when actually they have elected themselves judge and jury over who is and who is not legitimate.

NRMs Beware! It appears that these NRM scholars do not really support NRMs. And regrettably, Oxford may no longer be trusted. What a shame!

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. As someone who has studied early mystical Christianity, I am fascinated that something like the Order of Christ/Sophia exists today! It seems they have established themselves as the carriers of the deeper teachings of Christ. I appreciated Lewis' objective and insightful look at this new religious movement.

This is an interesting, objective, academic book comparing the Order of Christ Sophia to other new religious movements. There is one chapter where there are quotes from actual members: page after page of people describing their real-life spiritual experiences, connecting in a heartfelt way with God, in a way that is rarely available to the public. It expanded my idea of what is possible for a religion to do. No wonder the authors conclude that this group is "extraordinary."

The new religious movement is a real force in our society, but there is a dearth of information out there about various smaller groups. It is refreshing and enlightening to read this thoughtful study of the Order of Christ/Sophia, to understand what members of the OCS value about their experience, and to learn about the ways this order has grown over 10+ years.

I thought this book actually did a great job of objectively and scientifically backing up statistics from countless studies. Give it a read. James R. Lewis is considered by many to be the nations leading authority on New Religious Movements. He is an author who is well respected as non-biased and well researched. This is consistent with his other well respected works published through Oxford Press. There will be detractors who may not like how clearly it's results are displayed that perhaps people dedicating to a real spiritual life are in fact healthier, happier and in general more intelligent/educated than the majority of the populus. Apparently its emphasis on introspection and intensive psychological and emotional work has an undeniable positive effect. I did not find the book to be biased. It was quite fair in presenting both sides. It did however break some of my own concepts. It's unlikely that any readers with an existing bias against this group would actually be able to objectively read all the way through a book like this. Since it is not a leisurely work, but an extensive culmination of years of research. Not to say that the book is a difficult read -on the contrary- as far as scholarly books go, I found it intriguing and compelling at each chapter.

This book is well written and well researched. The information is presented in an accessible format; not dry like some studies can be. I enjoyed the book and found it useful for my purposes.

I greatly enjoyed reading about this new religious movement. What I found particularly interesting is that women are given the opportunity to become priests within this sacred Christian Order. I find it fascinating that this new movement is an Order, yet everyone lives full lives--with families, children, and professional careers. It feels like they have found a way to be in the world but not of it.