What are the main theological objections to Richard Rohr’s spiritual ideas?
Executive summary
Critics say Richard Rohr’s theology departs from historic Christian orthodoxy on Christ, atonement, scripture and pantheism—charges that recur across evangelical and Catholic commentaries [1] [2] [3]. Supporters and some commentators argue he is a pastoral, mystical writer who stresses practice and contemplative experience rather than precise dogmatic formulations [4].
1. “Where is Jesus?” — Objections about separating ‘Christ’ from the historical Jesus
Several critics contend Rohr distinguishes an impersonal, cosmic “Christ” from the concrete, historical Jesus in ways that undercut orthodox Christology; they say his language risks treating the incarnate Jesus as merely one manifestation of a diffusive, universal Christ and thus “leaves behind the human Jesus” [1] [3]. Catholic Answers and other conservative voices assert Rohr’s framing can look like ascribing divinity to an abstract principle rather than to the person Jesus, and they use Pauline formulations (e.g., Christ Jesus in the form of God) to push back [3].
2. Atonement and salvation — ‘False self’ language versus substitutionary atonement
Conservative evangelical critics note Rohr’s emphasis on inner transformation and the “death of the false self,” arguing he minimizes or rejects classical substitutionary atonement. CrossExamined summarizes Rohr as calling substitutionary atonement a “strange” and “transactional” idea and says Rohr teaches that the false self, not someone else, needs to die—an approach many traditionalists find theologically insufficient [2]. These critics claim that by reframing salvation primarily as psychological or mystical transformation, Rohr departs from centuries of soteriological formulations [2].
3. Scripture and authority — Alleged skepticism about biblical inerrancy
A recurring complaint is that Rohr treats Scripture more as a spiritual resource than a binding, infallible set of doctrinal claims. CrossExamined summarizes Rohr as holding that the Jewish Scriptures “offer almost no self-evident philosophical or theological conclusions that are always true,” which conservative critics interpret as undermining traditional doctrines of biblical authority [2]. Opponents present this as part of a broader move away from propositional doctrine toward contemplative interpretation [2].
4. New Age and pantheism charges — Critics see perennial philosophy at work
Multiple conservative and some Catholic writers argue Rohr leans on perennialist or New Age-friendly metaphysics, producing an “emanational” Christology that can sound like pantheism. Detractors compare his ideas to New Age interpretations and warn he “plays fast and loose” with theology, potentially flattening Creator/creation distinctions [5] [6]. These critics say his emphasis on God’s presence “in every creature” risks conflating God with the universe [6].
5. Accusations of heresy and dissidence — Catholic institutional worries
Some Catholic commentators and ministries have labeled Rohr’s work “problematic,” “uncatholic,” or even heretical because they see conflict with Church teachings on sin, the person of Christ, and salvation [7] [3]. Catholic Answers notes Rohr’s writings often lack episcopal imprimatur and argues his formulations contradict standard Catholic formulations about Christ’s person and work [3] [8].
6. Defenses and alternative readings — Pastoral reach and ‘vestibule’ approach
Not all commentators call Rohr illegitimate. Writers such as Comment Magazine and some reviewers acknowledge Rohr’s popularity and pastoral skill, arguing he intentionally writes in a “vestibule” style—accessible, pastoral theology that emphasizes orthopraxy and contemplative practice rather than academic precision [4]. Those defenses caution that his style can attract both entry and exit from traditional faith communities, and that some critics overstate the degree to which his mysticism breaks with orthodoxy [4].
7. What the debate tells us — Stakes, audiences, and rhetorical frames
The criticisms cluster around four theological stakes: Christology, atonement, scriptural authority, and metaphysics. Conservative evangelical and Catholic sources frame Rohr as a substantive doctrinal threat [1] [2] [3] [7]. Other commentators treat Rohr as a popular mystic whose pastoral emphases and rhetorical style invite misreadings but also meet real spiritual needs [4] [5]. Readers should note critics often use charged terms—“heresy,” “pantheism,” “New Age”—while defenders emphasize pastoral efficacy and nuance [1] [4] [5].
Limitations: available sources do not mention possible responses from Rohr beyond general defenses in popular outlets; specific quotations or Rohr’s direct rebuttals are not supplied in these items. The sources above represent both sustained theological critique and more sympathetic contextualization of Rohr’s influence [1] [2] [3] [4].