REVIEW: Revelations of Christ by Swami Kriyanada

"Revelations of Christ" by Swami Kriyanada (I'll call him by his
title, "Swami," for short) is a book I find difficult to review, but I
have been motivated to attempt a review because the book is important
as a modern spiritual landmark. The author is an heir of the Kriya
Yoga tradition, and an influential founder of colonies and prolific
author, and this major work is almost certainly going to become a
spiritual classic in its own right. Christians need to be able to
interact with it, since the subject matter is no less than a
reformation of the Christian message along the lines of Yogic
philosophy.

Several facts make the book difficult to review. The book itself is
lengthy, and requires chapter summaries instead of a complete
page-by-page review. The book is part of an ongoing dialogue in the
Kriya Yoga community, and presupposes the reader is familiar with the
traditions and doctrines in those circles. To fully explain this
spiritual tradition, itself a branch of larger Yoga philosophy, would
require a lengthy book. The author has a style that is prone to
wandering, and he does not often present a linear argument that can
easily be discussed. Often, he presents no argument at all, which
frustrates my attempt at a review.

Swami Kriyanada is one of the few direct disciples of Paramahansa
Yoganada (I will call him P.Y. for short; this abbreviation is
commonplace in Kriya Yoga circles) still alive, and is somewhere
around eighty years of age. In the last decade or so, Swami has been
remarkably productive, creating two massive books ("Revelations" and a
commentary on the Bhagavad Gita) and numerous articles, music albums,
and other books. His works are published by Crystal Clarity, his own
publishing imprint, which is best known as the publisher of the
original, unaltered "Autobiography of a Yogi". (The story of the
textual changes to this spiritual classic by its original publisher,
and the unusual lapse of copyright in this perennial bestseller, is a
big enough subject for an article of its own.) If Crystal Clarity gets
credit for nothing else, all the books I have seen from them have been
exceptionally well typeset and easy to read. They are a joy on the
eyes. Always, in his writing, Swami presents his own work as being
based on the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda, and takes no credit
himself for contributing original material. Much of Yogananga's
material has either remained unpublished by his own organization
(Self-Realization Fellowship) or so heavily edited as to be
unrecognizable. "Revelations" is Swami's attempt to bring to the
general reading public the essence of Yogananda's teaching about
Christianity.

What this or any book doesn't quite capture is Swami's warm,
conversational, anecdotal style that captivates audiences. He is an
engaging speaker who weaves anecdotes about his time with Yogananda,
spiritual observations, and Yoga teachings into monologues that can
sometimes stretch out over an hour (with no loss of attention from his
audience). Even if I don't agree with what he says, he's enjoyable to
listen to. This style does make its way somewhat into his writing,
where the style is easy and approachable. Sometimes, the ease of
reading actually can allow the reader to breeze through deep spiritual
points, so any chapter is worth reading several times to unlock the
content. Chapter by chapter, the discussion can often drift from the
main point as Swami meanders: This is a carry-over from his speaking
style, and the way he organizes material.

Swami deserves credit for not promoting this book as an attack on
Christianity. When the book was released, the publishing world had
discovered a cash cow in books explicitly attacking true Christianity
from the liberal, social-gospel Christian left and the atheist
left. Both non-fiction attacks on belief in God, and fictional attacks
disguised as children's books, turned into gold for publishers as
Christians read them in order to understand and refute them. Swami
could have easily raised his profile and increased sales simply by
promoting this book along those lines. I applaud the fact that he did
not. He released this book on its own merits.

Note that King James Bible fanatics will be relieved to note that
Swami uses that translation, putting him on sound orthodox
footing. (This may not be as encouraging as it sounds, however, as
will be shown later, since Swami asserts even the King James Bible's
underlying texts could be corrupt.)

The beginning of the book starts off with the assertion that something
has been lost of the true essence of Christianity by organized
religion. Organizations are said to perpetuate their own existence, at
the expense of Christian doctrines. I think any fundamentalist would
go along with this, as the separatists have to continually separate
from the large, organized churches which loose their foundations in
true, Biblical Christianity. The departure will come, of course, in
what either considers to be the true basis for Christianity. Swami
asserts that this is an understanding of Yoga (or, the "perennial
philosophy" of Huxley). He is following in the footsteps of P.Y.'s
guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri (whom I will call S.Y., again in accord
with the practice in Kriya Yoga circles). A 1894 book by S.Y. called
"The Holy Science" (a review of which I have been working on for years
but have not finished) promotes the same basic concept.

Chapter one: The key to the first chapter, and indeed the entire book,
is Swami's assertion on p. 28 that he is a post-modernist. "Religious
truths can indeed be tested and proved. The proof consists in the
yardstick of experience." This is one of the most succinct and best
definitions of postmodernism I've ever read: "The proof consists in
the yardstick of experience." If you miss this point, you won't
understand the book.

Swami suggests "it would surely show meanness of spirit to deprecate
other' efforts to rise spiritually, each according to his own
capacity and beliefs" (p. 34) which underscores the post-modern views
of the author. Nothing is true or authoritative, but everyone has
opinions, and there is no way to make any value judgements among them.

The book has a blizzard of weasel words on pp. 18-22. Swami says "the
evidence of history shows" but doesn't cite any examples. (In this
case, he is talking about enlightenment coming to individuals through
personal merit, and William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience"
is an extended study of man-made religious beliefs of this sort.)
"Translations have appeared with theological dilutions" is certainly a
point many fundamentalists would agree with, but Swami cites not a
single concrete example as proof. "Administrative types are attracted
to others of the same mentality: efficiency, executive, interested
more in how to get things done than in why they need to be done in the
first place. ... In religion, the administrative mentality tends
toward efficiency...." He could easily have backed this up by looking
at Rick Warren's "driven" church methods as an example par
excellence. He tosses off the vacuous statement "everyone knows it is
true" on p. 22 to cap this section, and this sort of assertion seems
to be the limit of Swami's ability to persuade. His style of argument
is little more than a tautology: I think I am right, so I must be
right. Those who already agree that Swami is right will not have a
problem with this tautological argument, but those of us who want to
be persuaded will find his junior-high writing style to be
frustrating.

Weasel words explode again on p. 37, as Swami asserts "a quite
unanticipated [by missionaries] corroboration of Christ's teachings in
the teaching of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita" and "the only essential
difference between Christianity and, let us say, Buddhism lies in the
names of their founders" but neither of these points is backed up with
any proof at all. Either of these points could have been supported by
evidence (Swami even wrote a book about parallel passages in the Bible
and Gita!), but they are not. What missionaries? How can Christianity
and Buddhism (which rely on radically different underlying assumptions
about mankind) be the same? We don't know, because Swami never
develops any of his points. This consistently frustrates me with the
book. Maybe he's right, or maybe not; but we don't know because Swami
never makes any sort of case to support what he says.

What Swami needs is an editor who will challenge his weasel words and
make him either back them up or get rid of them. The book drives me
absolutely nuts as I keep bogging down in these weasel words. Swami
never says anything specific or concrete. Nothing asserted is backed
up. (Often, this is to the detriment of the book, since compelling
evidence could easily be included most of the time.) There are no
footnotes or attributions, even for quotes from his own line of
masters.

Fortunately for Christian readers, Swami asserts (also p. 37) that:
"This book will be completely orthodox in its adherence to
Christianity, but its orthodoxy will not always correspond to what is
taught by Christian sects." I'm reassured, but the key weakness (as I
hopefully will bring out in the rest of this review) is that Swami
really doesn't know anything about any flavor of Christianity. I can
find no definitions of what Christian orthodoxy is in this book. The
attitude that what the author says is orthodox because the author
believes it is a hallmark of a post-modern view.

On p. 38 there is an insight: "one can never create a new truth" which
reminds me of C.S. Lewis' assertion (in "Abolition of Man") that there
are no new values.

Chapter two: The term "sanaatan dharma" is introduced as the name from
Kriya Yoga's truth. This term does not appear in the index of
"Autobiography of a Yogi" (all my references are to the original 1946
version). It does appear in P.Y.'s foreword to Swami Sri Yukteswar's
book "The Holy Science" (p. v) but it is not defined or expounded in
any way. P.Y.'s book "The Science of Religion" does not use the term,
but covers a lot of the same ground and is a good primer on the Kriya
Yoga world view.

During Swami's discussion, he demonstrates he knows nothing about
Christianity's interpretation of Christ in the the Old Testament. On
p. 53-54 Swami asks if God waited all those millennia before Christ's
appearance, and asks if that was fair. But the prophecy of Christ as
Savior in Genesis 3:15, given immediately after the fall, is not
mentioned, nor is any of the symbolism or typology of Christ, nor are
any of the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. Also, Swami seems
utterly unable to tell Roman Catholic beliefs apart from
Christianity. He asks about "'true' Christian devotion to Mary or
Jesus" (p. 55) and is consistent in how he mentions Francis of Assisi,
Teresa of Avila, and others (eg Padre Pio, about whom I had never
heard before seeing this book) as "Christians". This lack of
understanding of the Christian faith seriously undermines Swami's
credibility, because if he doesn't know the most basic distinctions
between Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholic traditions and
additions, how can people accept him as an authority on Christianity?

For someone who is discussing errors in Christianity and trying to
return it to its original form, Swami seems to be utterly ignorant of
any Christian doctrines. (This same ignorance is also found in S.Y.'s
"The Holy Science".) Covenant theology, blood redemption,
subsitutionary atonement, TULIP, and other aspects of Christian
theology are never mentioned. From reading the book, I do not think
the Swami knows anything about Christianity, because he never mentions
specifics and doesn't seem motivated to learn about current or
historical Christianity. Considering the scope of the book, which is
no less than returning Christianity to its true essence and ridding it
of error, not being conversant in even "mere Christianity" (let alone
different branches and sects, about which the Swami also seems
shrouded in ignorance) certainly undermines the credibility of the
author. Not even making a token attempt to understand basic Christian
doctrine and then presenting oneself as an expert on what is wrong
with Christianity is a recipe for getting oneself dismissed out of
hand as a crank. That would be unfortunate, because any honest
critique of Christianity from the outside is important, and I think
this is an honest critique, since those who work in apologetics need
to know what the outside world is saying.

One of the book's true insights is tossed out on p. 51 without much
fanfare, but is compelling: "The very fact that it takes considerable
human intelligence even to demonstrate that the universe has no
intelligence must itself be considered the undoing of that whole
argument!" Swami is using a Cartesian argument here: By doubting that
the universe has any purpose or design, the only way this argument can
be advanced is to use intelligence to make it.

"Christ's revelation was, above everything else, that God loves each
one of us, His children" (p. 54) ignores everything Jesus personally
said about Hell and judgment. I'm sure this is the message Swami, as
well as many others, want to take away from the Bible. It's comforting
to think that God loves every person, and every person is one of God's
children, but to believe this, a lot of the Bible has to be ignored.

Chapter three: Not much to this chapter, really, other than Swami
outlines that true religion, to be counted as such, has to play by his
rules. (Or, at least, he doesn't cite where he got his ideas if they
are not original.)  According to him, there are "three vital
ingredients of true scripture" (on p. 58-59), which include a
vibration of divine power, corroboration with life experiences, and
corresponding with universal teachings declared by every great
scripture in the world. (I am not quoting directly because he states
these negatively as qualities a "certain well-known book" do not
have.) So, the rest of the chapter is a discussion along the line that
to play Swami's game, you have to play by his rules. If you do not
accept his assumptions, you're not allowed into the game.

On a personal note, one reason I am a Christian is that Reformed
Protestant teachings correspond to my own life experiences much more
closely than Hindu or Buddhist teachings. I find the core beliefs of
other religions to be wildly unrealistic.

And every great scripture is only in harmony when these scriptures are
subjected to the same process of eisogesis and picking and choosing
that is applied to the Bible though this book.

Chapter four: To understand this chapter, the reader would have to
have a strong background in Kriya Yoga, which has a line of masters
stretching back to the (apparently mythological) Himalayan master
Babaji who is said to periodically reincarnate or materialize on earth
to promote Kriya Yoga when these teachings have been lost. Much of the
background on Babaji is found in "Autobiography of a Yogi". The basic
argument of this chapter is that Jesus Christ is another of these
incarnations. Another aspect of Kriya Yoga the reader would have to
already know before reading this chapter is the concept of "Christ
Consciousness" which was, as far as I can tell, invented by P.Y. and
his guru. Christ Consciousness is equated with the capital-s Self of
Yoga, the universal consciousness which the separated consciousness in
individual people strives to return. So Jesus is not the Son of God in
the sense of being a person who is both God and Man, but a son of God
who is one with the Christ Consciousness. The thrust of the chapter is
to introduce this concept. The discussion is a long example of
eisogesis, where proof texts are found to support what Swami wants to
find in Christianity. Swami continually suggests that the Bible's text
doesn't mean what it plainly means, but "conceals a deep teaching"
(p. 80), "intended to convey the subtle message" and "a much deeper
and richer meaning" (both p. 81) which is all code-language for
eisogesis. The discussion never reaches a conclusion, and ends with
plugs for other books.

Notice that Swami says: "It was partially for this purpose that
Paramhansa Yogananda was sent by his line of gurus and by God to the
West. They commissioned him to 'bring back the original yoga teachings
of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, and the original teachings of Jesus
in the Bible." (p. 82) Besides being total eisogesis with no Biblical
support, Swami ignores Galatians 1:6-9 (and indeed the book of
Galatians does not appear in the scripture index at all).

A point is raised but never developed that the Christian Church
"perceived a need for resolving theological controversies in unanimous
agreement" (p. 82) but then Swami never mentions what any of these
councils and creeds are. (A good summary discussion can be found in
R.C. Sproul's book "What is Reformed Theology?") Swami claims the
gnostics (again, without citing any of their writings) say "that Jesus
Christ's emphasis had been on seeking personal verification by direct,
inner experience of God" which implies that every historic council
which issued a creed to correct heresies was on the wrong side of the
truth. (A far-fetched claim, especially without a single historical
reference to any issue resolved by any council with an explanation of
why the gnostics were correct.)

Swami mentions gnosticism, but he seems to know little about it or
what gnostics teach. He says: "The insights of a few Gnostics,
however, must surely have been valid" (p. 87) and these are mere
weasel words, since he never gives any examples of who these gnostics
are, valid or invalid. He says: "Certain Gnostics" (p. 82) but never
mentions any by name.

Swami asserts: "Christians who sincerely wanted to understand the true
message of Jesus Christ were drawn to Yogananda wherever he went."
(p. 89) These weasel words are not backed up with any specific
people. Several of Yogananda's inner circle were Mormons, including
the current head of Self-Realization Fellowship, Daya Mata (Faye
Wright) and her brother Richard (who appears in "Autobiography of a
Yogi"). The discussion of the fall of man in "Autobiography" has
strong Mormon parallels and I hope I can discuss it at some later
time.

Swami says: "A pressing need exists among Christians today for a fresh
outlook on the holy mission and teachings of Jesus Christ" (p. 81)
which goes to show how out of touch Swami is with current trends in
Christianity, which have no shortage of novelty. Modern Christianity
thrives on fresh outlooks, and this addiction to novelty is one of the
most serious problems facing Christianity (as any glance at the
topical sermons on sermonaudio.com will reveal).

Chapter five: Swami loses whatever point he was going to make in this
chapter quite early, and begins a discussion of the belief in
reincarnation in Christianity. He argues that reincarnation was
believed by Jesus, and some Jews in New Testament times, by a
remarkable process of argument by speculation and begging the
question: He asserts what he wants to prove, and then rambles through
a process of speculation that the Bible texts were tampered with to
remove all traces of what he wanted the texts to say. The thinking
here is so muddled that I don't know how to review it. He also quotes
a memory of P.Y. discussing John 4:3-4 and reading reincarnation into
it, which is an example of pure eisogesis with no textual
basis. (Certainly a novel example at that.) What I take away from this
chapter is that Swami is not able to create a persuasive, coherent
argument.

The fifth chapter has another outbreak of weasel words. "Many
Christians" (p. 99), "modern scholars" (p. 100-101), and "surveys have
shown" (p. 106). What surveys? Which scholars and what books and
articles did Swami read? Which Christians?

He also claims "well-balanced people" (p. 96) want other people to be
"someone who minds his own business" where religion is concerned, and
says a fanatic is "intolerant of opinions that don't agree with his
own". In Swami's post-modern world, there are only opinions, not
truths. A fanatic is a fanatic for having wrong opinions, not for
being too zealous for a truth.

Chapter seven: This is the most breathtakingly muddled sequence of
thought I have ever read. Swami is trying to create a straw man which
he can knock over by appealing to P.Y.'s teachings. What trips him up
is his almost complete ignorance of any Christian doctrines. He has
not lifted a finger to study anything. He starts the chapter with
trying to establish the Kingdom Of God as a pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by
place (using his usual weasel words "most Christians" without citing
any concrete example) "of heavenly beauty where souls go who have
lived a good life" (p. 114) which betrays he knows nothing about the
doctrine of salvation by grace. (Or, he is simply using the
conventional wisdom view of Christians, without citing where he gets
his information.) The straw man gets a little wet when he continues:
"In heaven, they visualize themselves inhabiting bodies much like the
ones they have now, enjoying beatific happiness forever" and "in the
blessed company of angels" which, although he gives no citations, is
pretty much what the Bible says. He's trying to paint an unrealistic
picture of Christianity, but is so ignorant of Bible teachings he
can't do it. He doesn't even seem aware of the "social gospel"
teachings, and other offshoots of Christianity (like the Word of Faith
movement), which claim the kingdom of God will be realized on earth,
not in heaven. I don't think Swami knows what he is saying.

The straw man gets soaked as Swami says: "Entry into heaven means
above all, for most Christians [more weasel words!], that one is
saved. And what is one saved from?" (p. 115) At this point, an answer
to this question would be expected to come from the Bible, perhaps
with the help of a theological book by a respected and trustworthy
author as a guide. Instead, Swami engages in what can only be said to
be complete nonsense. According to "them", the "most Christians" from
the earlier weasel words, they are saved from "the terrors of eternal
hell". There is absolutely no mention of God's justice or why anyone
is sent to hell. Swami says this destiny is "in consequence of the
Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve..." which shows by this naive
explanation he has no idea what the Protestant doctrine of original
sin actually is. The nonsense comes in a torrent: "The orthodox dogma
- clearly specified by many churches - is that mankind is therefore
naturally sinful, and doomed to hell." Weasel words aside (which
churches and which parts of which creeds, catechisms, and confessions
is he referring to?), this assertion is straight out of the Bible (the
first three chapters of Romans are a good place to start), not
something superimposed on Christianity by churches. "There is a 'but'
here, however: We can be redeemed by special grace if we 'receive'
Christ, who scarified his life for us on the cross. Christians are
encourages to think of Jesus Christ, though the a penitential
offering, as their 'personal Savior'" which manages to mix up Roman
Catholic theology with an Arminian alter call. Swami then asks what
"receiving Christ" could mean, and discusses four possibilities
(p. 116-117: formal baptism/confirmation, a "single ardent act of
self-offering before the altar in a church", "emotional or even
intellectual acceptance", "a single emotional conversion"), all of
which are speculation and none of which are even close. He could have
spent a few moments and looked in Louis Berkhof's "Systematic
Theology" and found p. 473's discussion of the efficient cause of
regeneration, and seen three options, and read: "The only adequate
view is that of the church of all ages, that the Holy Spirit is the
efficient cause of regeneration. ... There is no co-operation of the
sinner in this work whatsoever." Swami instead uses his post-modern
outlook and says "I submit once more my own experience" as sufficient
evidence.

All this was to set up a straw man for him to engulf in flames, but by
this time the straw is so wet the effect is nullified. "Paramhansa
Yogananda stated that to 'receive' Christ means to receive Christ's
presence consciously and inwardly, on a soul level, which is to say,
in a deep state of ecstasy. Anything less that that is superficial and
should not be taken seriously." (p. 118) What this actually means, I
have no idea, and why this explanation, which has no Biblical basis at
all, should be accepted, is not mentioned. The point is not developed.

Swami next says "ask yourself this question" and goes on to ask: "Are
most Christians notably different from other religionists around the
world? An unbiased gaze forces the answer: No, by no means so they
seem notably so." (p. 118) This is simply silly, and is not backed up
with any evidence because there isn't any. He certainly doesn't
mention Islamic suicide bombers or the Hindu caste system.

On p. 121-122, Swami speculates that "people's understanding of
religion is limited everywhere by the narrowness of their capacity for
understanding" which he does not explain and I am not sure what it
means. In the time of Jesus: "For most people, it was simply
impossible in those days to have any concept of universal
realities..." and so forth. This pseudo-spiritual nonsense clears up
on p. 125, when an attack on orthodox Christianity begins. "If ever
orthodox Christians succeed in breaking out of their mental
limitations .... Narrow-minded Christians ..." after getting this out
of his system, he concludes: "What, however, if unbiased
investigations were to show them that the teachings of Jesus Christ
were much broader and more profound than anything Christians
themselves ever imagined: that it was simply their own understanding
that was limited?" Well, duh! We're on page 125, and Swami has given
us nothing but vagueness, unsubstantiated assertions, and weasel
words from a post-modernist perspective. Why not put some content into
the book. Remember, Swami, you are the one trying to convince
Christians that everything they've ever known is wrong. So why not do
it? Why did you waste our time writing a book about Christianity when
you can't be bothered to lift a finger to learn even the basics, and
instead spend page after page saying nothing other than personal
experience and weasel-word assertions?

And, on page 125, I stopped. What more can be said in a review? When I
started, I was hoping to engage in ideas, not critique method.

One more thing can be said: For King James Bible fanatics, a dogma of
their belief in the KJV is that the textual stream of bad, Alexandrian
texts was corrupted and these corrupt translations are the basis of
modern Bibles, while the KJV uses the good, Antioch textual stream and
is trustworthy. This comes from Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-Day
Adventist, and was smuggled into fundamentalist Christianity by
reprinting Wilkinson's book (most notably in "Which Bible?" in the
early 1970s) without telling anyone he was a cultist. So if a Swami
from Kriya Yoga talks about textual corruption, KJV fanatics ought to
listen. In Chapter 23, "The Missing Years", Swami asserts that the
text of the Bible was corrupted by the church. Since these missing
years are not present in any known manuscripts, this means even the
texts underlying the King James Bible have been tampered
with. "Clearly then, to start with, those eighteen years must have
been deliberately omitted from the official account of Christ's life."
(p. 414) This was done at one of the early councils of the church,
but, in Swami's exact words: "I forget which one it was." (direct
quotation from page 415!) But the charge that "the account of those
eighteen years was removed forthwith from the Bible" is serious enough
that this demands the same scrutiny that the SDA material
received. Swami states: "I know that there are records in India which
support the claim that Jesus lived in that country for several years"
but, characteristically, he does not say what they are. He mentions a
book by name, and it is probably the only citation in the entire book,
by Russian author Nicholas Notovich in 1887 called "The Unknown Life
of Jesus Christ" which is supposed to have details. (I had never heard
about this before, but about ten seconds into a web search showed this
was a hoax. Oriental scholar Max Mueller, a very trustworthy
translator, tried to get the same manuscripts Notovich claimed to have
access to, from the same monastery in India, and could not. Swami
claims some other person tried to go to the same monastery about forty
years later "in order to verify the account by Notovich, and actually
succeeded in doing so" which seems unlikely if a trusted scholar such
as Mueller could not almost immediately after these claims were
made. Naturally, the Swami includes no verifiable details.)

My conclusion is that Christians need to be exposed to this sort of
book. The thinking is shallow: I was surprised that I found myself
reviewing the method, which reads like a junior high essay, rather
than the content (which is almost nonexistent). The appeal to
authority (P.Y. is never critically questioned as a source, and
anything he says is taken as true, while the Bible is ripped to shreds
as unreliable and distorted) shows the importance of SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Many Christian offshoots like Pentecostalism and pseudo-Christian
beliefs like the Word of Faith movement allow for new
revelation. Swami has created a rather extreme interpretation of the
true essence of Christianity, which may be rejected by some who are
more orthodox, but by what measure is his interpretation to be
rejected, and by what measure are other "words from the Lord" to be
accepted? (And, for that matter, by what measure is the Roman Catholic
Church's additions to Christianity to be accepted or rejected?)
Without the foundational Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, the
scriptures alone, there is no way to make any such distinctions. Only
when the word of God is the final and only standard can any single,
true definition of the Christian faith be established. Otherwise,
anything goes. How can a Pope, a Pentecostal Apostle with a "word of
knowledge", or Paramahansa Yogananda claiming to be sent by Jesus and
Babaji to recover original Christianity, be judged? Without the Bible
as the sole standard, there is nothing by which to evaluate the claims
of these various people.

The value and importance of the Reformed, Protestant gospel can't be
underestimated or undervalued. Compared to this book, the simple
message that Christ died for sinners, backed up by the reliable
authority of the Bible and many centuries of careful and
well-documented guarding against error, from the early church councils
and creeds to the more recent Reformation, shows Christianity has been
tested and proven to be God's truth. Swami Kriyanada presents a
shallow, unsatisfying alternative. All the more reason to get out the
gospel: If people have only heard the post-modern unclear thought that
passes as religion these days, the gospel will ring all the more true
to them when they finally hear it.