Oprah Winfrey - Priestess of Spirituality and Preacher of Strict Exclusivism, part 2

Conflicts Between Winfrey/Tolle Spirituality and Christianity:
A caller states that she "had a Catholic upbringing…married a Catholic, and we're raising our children this way" and she recognizes that while Eckhart Tolle's book has "really opened my eyes up to a new way of thinking; a new form of spirituality" it "doesn't always align with the teachings of Christianity" and so she asks, "Oprah, how have you reconciled these spiritual teachings with your Christian beliefs?"
Oprah explains that she "took God out of the box" and recalled that a "great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent, and God is everything." Pause not note that any preacher who preaches that "God is everything" is not preaching Christianity but is preaching some form of pantheism (for more on pantheism see On Omnipresence and Pantheism).
Oprah continues by stating that "god is in all things" which again, is pantheism. Note what the Bible states that God said to Elijah:

"Go out, and stand on the mountain before the LORD." And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind;
and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire;
and after the fire a still small voice (1st Kings 19:11-12 NKJV).

Apparently, Oprah and Eckhart are right and the Bible is wrong. Surely, they would love the reference to the still small voice as their neo-spirituality (which is merely rehashed old spirituality) is premised upon listening to the still small voice but, and we will come to this, not if it leads you to traditional/biblical Christianity. What Elijah heard was not the voice of his conscience, or the voice of spiritual awareness but the voice of the God of Bible Himself. When we hear such a voice we are to compare what it is stating against what the Bible states.

Oprah continues elucidating her and Eckhart's neo-theology:

Oprah Winfrey: Eckhart has, this is one of my favorite quotes in chapter one where he says, "Man made god in his own image, the eternal, the infinite, and unnamable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my god or our god"…
Jesus came to show us Christ consciousness…Jesus came to show us the way of the heart…Jesus was saying that to show us the higher consciousness…Jesus came to say, "Look I'm going to live in the body, in the human body and I'm going to show you how it's done." These are some principles and some laws that you can use to live by to know that way. And when I started to recognize that, that Jesus didn't come in my belief, even as a Christian, I don't believe that Jesus came to start Christianity.

Apparently, Jesus came to do everything except that which the Bible records Him as stating He was here to do and anything except that which traditional/biblical Christianity understood Him as being here to do.
If Oprah can "as a Christian" not "believe that Jesus came to start Christianity" then why be a Christian? I would be stunned if she would positively affirm any traditional/biblical doctrine at all. In fact, if "as a Christian, I don't believe that Jesus came to start Christianity" how does she explain the fact that Jesus stated, "I will build my church…make disciples of all the nations"? (Matthew 16:18, 28:19).
The answer is fairly clear: Oprah Winfrey refers to the hodge podge of her neo-spirituality as "string a necklace all your own" which means take from Jesus the half verse here and there that sound nice and throw away the rest (and do the same with all theologies) as she further states, "Jesus was a revolutionary who got misinterpreted a lot."
But who is misinterpreting Jesus? Christians; the church. But who is correctly interpreting Jesus? Oprah and Eckhart. But how do we know? It is based on historical, cultural, grammatical context via Jesus' words and deeds in the Bible? No, it is based on the voice that tells Oprah and Eckhart that traditional/biblical Christianity is wrong and they are right:

Eckhart Tolle: _I love reading the New Testament and I also read the Old Testament. Sometimes there's some incredible jewels in there…
I started reading and I immediately recognized the deep truths that is there and I realized the truth that is deeper, that is expressed in what Jesus said is much deeper than what you, how the church interprets it…
if you go deep enough in your religion, then you all get to the same place. It's a question of going deeper so there's no conflict here.

What are the "incredible jewels"? That which he can twist into fitting his neo-spirituality as we saw with the lilies of the field. Who is misinterpreting the Bible? The church. What is the purpose of reading the Bible or practicing any religion at all? To "go deep" until "there's no conflict"; meaning that you disregard all that disagrees with neo-spirituality and you make every doctrine malleable enough to be bent in whichever direction you like.

As the discussion continues another person references conflict between the bad/wrong old and good/right new as they ask:

…in a lot of books such as Tolle's, we get teachings from Buddhism or Hinduism, and those thoughts don't go along with, you know, what I was raised to believe as a Christian. So that's been the biggest thing that I've struggled with, I think, so...

Oprah Winfrey: Well, I am a Christian who believes that there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity…I'm a free-thinking Christian who believes that, who believes in my way, but I don't believe that it's the only way, with six billion people here on the planet…

Eckhart Tolle: …who uses, who might appeal to you, who uses Christian terminology but goes very very deep, using Christian language.

The bottom line is that if there is a conflict between Eckhart Tolle, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. and Christianity then Christianity is wrong and miscellaneous is right.
Oprah is a Christian and Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6 NKJV) and it was said of Him, "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth…Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:10-12 NKJV).
Well, Jesus was wrong and Oprah is right. Those who spoke of Him in such terms were wrong and Oprah is right. Jesus was misinterpreted by Himself and those who personally knew Him and Oprah is interpreting Him correctly-on her authority.
Now, "there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity…with six billion people here on the planet." Since there are "many" but not "all" or "every" then she does reject some as wrong, some are not a way-some are excluded. For example, traditional/biblical Christianity is old, wrong and excluded. But with six billion people just how many ways are there?
How about one for each? There are six billion ways. Thus, blowing up yourself and innocent people in order to achieve paradise with virgins is a way. You see, we are all exclusivists and we, inevitably, become exclusivists when we exclude the exclusivists-there is no way around it. Not even Oprah says that "all," "any" and "every" path is a way; we all have our limits and thus, we all exclude something.

Eckhart Tolle knows how to please and he got it precisely right in referring the conflicted questioner to an author "who uses, who might appeal to you, who uses Christian terminology but goes very very deep, using Christian language." See the point; if you are conflicted about the contradictions between Tolle, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. and Christianity then, since it is certain that traditional/biblical Christianity is wrong the conflicted Christian should still accept Tolle's neo-spiritual pseudo-gospel but do so in the guise of Christian terminology and Christian language.
This has been going on for a very long time as Christian terminology/language is employed and yet, redefined into neo-spirituality that has nothing to do with traditional/biblical Christianity, nothing to do with the historical, cultural or grammatical context of the Bible.