Contemplative Spirituality: A belief system that uses ancient mystical practices to induce altered states of consciousness (the silence) and is rooted in mysticism and the occult but often wrapped in Christian terminology. The premise of contemplative spirituality is pantheistic (God is all) and panentheistic (God is in all).
And
Spiritual Formation: A movement that has provided a platform and a channel through which contemplative prayer is entering the church. Find spiritual formation being used, and in nearly every case you will find contemplative spirituality. In fact, contemplative spirituality is the heartbeat of the spiritual formation movement.
I am convinced that the ODM’s can be likened to the Political Correctness movement that has become so popular (and abused) in liberal circles and on college campuses. Political correctness on its good side brings awareness to the things we say and how they may affect others. On the greater down side, or the manner in which it has been abused is the manner in which it is a form of censorship. We’ve all heard the stories.
Above are two statements from Lighthouse Trails Research – an ODM site. Both of which serve as an example of ODM’s abusive tactics of PC. In the former quote, a definition of Contemplative Spirituality is offered with the stated goal of inducing an altered state of consciousness. The case seems closed – except for that fact that none on the list that I saw encourage an altered state of consciousness in the same manner as Eastern Mysticism. “Silence” is not tantamount to an altered state. It is a classical example of inserting all manner of meanings into words that were never intended thus. Are there those who employ contemplation as a way to induce an altered state? – Yes. Is it therefore axiomatic that any who encourage contemplation or contemplative methods do the same – of course not. Contrary to their definitive statement: Contemplative Spirituality MAY be pantheistic/panentheistic… to say it IS, is incorrect, sloppy, and probably misleads many who think the site inquestion site employs accurate definitions.
This leads to the second quote, which builds on the false definitions of the first – the result is to outlaw spiritual formation in the church. ODM Correctness in action.
206 Comments(+Add)
“Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.”
Psalm 46:10
I don’t really get what the whole ‘contemplative spirituality’ complaining thing is about. The Bible supports praying alone and in secret, and makes it clear that God does speak through dreams and visions . . . that sounds like a pretty altered state to me.
The problem is some that men openly admit they have observed, practiced, and now implemented this practice from Eastern religions. They did not approach it from Scripture as merry quoted, they borrowed it from idol worshipers. And in fact, some meditated with Eastern mystics and claimed an epiphany through that inter-religious experience.
I remember one meeting many years ago where the preacher asked everyone to close their eyse and open their ears and hear God speak. After five minutes he asked people to tell what God had spoken to them. The answers ranged from which car to buy to God said their dead uncle was in heaven.
The operative words in your post are “some” and “admit.” This a far cry from LT’s practice of listing a host of schools that have a class called “Spiritual Formation” and assuming they’re promoting Eastern Mysticism.
As for you example. The problem there is what people thought they heard, encouraging them to close their eyes and open there ears is not mysticism.
The altered state that is the goal of Eastern Mysticism is much more sinister than this. But advocating that all meditation and/or contemplation is mysticism is like saying all sex is rape.
Neil
which I think is OK except when people make that the goal, not spending time with God.
There is a huge difference between the “Christian mystics” and eastern religions. Yet, ever a source that Ingrid quoted from, being a Puritan writer stated we can learn from the other religions… (no one seems to want to call her on that! LOL!)
It seems that if we are to take anyone who was remotely into the Christian mystics we would have quite a list.
Calvin and Luther and even Spurgeon would be on that list!
Not to mention the church father that was instrumental in putting together the canon of scripture we have today also published the first book about a desert mystic…
One of my favorites is Brother Lawrence who taught practicing the presence of God as you do your chores (he did the kitchen work) and sometimes forsook prayer time as he saw no difference between his time in the kitchen working unto God as he did in prayer time.
Spurgeon wrote a lot about the souls dark night, which is just a switching of St John of the Cross Dark Night of the Soul…
Calvin read Augustine and St Bernard both considered “Christian Mystics”.
And that is just scratching the surface as Dr. David Calhoun of Convenant Worldwide states in his lectures that the doctrines of grace were hidden in the Christian Mystics and where not widely taught elsewhere.
To cast all Christian mysticism aside is to forsake and cast our own heritage aside let alone many of these guys who attack their own historical line of theology.
iggy
Lighthouse Trails Research has listed Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Assemblies of God, and the Walk to Emmaus as teaching contemplative spirituality. For example, because Dallas Seminary calls their small groups, “Spiritual Formation Groups,” they automatically assume they teach contemplative spirituality. They also sight a board that Dr. Darrell Bock sits on as proof. I am affiliated with the above three entities and have sent proof to the contrary to LTR but they maintain their rigid position merely on what these entities call their groups not the substance of the groups. GBA is a major tactic for them.
I recently saw R.C. Sproul at Pantego Bible Church for the Cross of Christ Conference. I wonder if he knows that have a Spiritual Formation Institute.
http://www.pantego.org/spanclass2ConnectbrbtoGodbspan/SpiritualFormationInstitute/tabid/124/Default.aspx
I would venture to say that the vast majority of Christian entities that use the term spiritual formation do not have anything to do with contemplative spirituality.
“Lighthouse Trails Research has listed Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Assemblies of God, and the Walk to Emmaus as teaching contemplative spirituality.”
They list EVERYONE as teaching contemplative spirituality. Even Adventures in Odyssey. Not kidding.
“which I think is OK except when people make that the goal, not spending time with God.”
Praying and Bible reading should always come first. Godly mysticism isn’t something Christians should be obsessed with, it just isn’t a sin if it’s grounded in Scripture and doesn’t come something else, Eastern or otherwise. But Christian mysticism is only for the very spiritually mature, I think.
The fact that any of these site use the word “research” in their names is just downright laughable. I can only guess that by “research” they mean believing lies, innuendos, and half-truths. I mean it’s evident to me that they don’t really read 95% of the books they trash.
To say someone like Dallas Willard is promoting some sort of Eastern mysticism is downright laughable. I’ve struggled to come up with a reason why these people lie, and I’ve just decided it’s out of fear. They’re afraid of losing the influence they once perceived they had. They don’t really trust God can keep the Church on track. It’s really just a power grab on their part.
Moody Bible Institute made the list!
To say that someone has a different view, or that they are overreacting, or that they are filled with unfounded anxiety is one thing, but to say it is obvious they haven’t read the book because they do not agree with you is very bad research as well. But when all else fails, call them liars which indicates a great deal of research and inside information.
Please provide documentation that substantiates that invective where you know for a fact that they have purposely told a lie, not just had a distorted view. And please provide documentation that you know for a fact they have not read the book, not just because you disagree with their conclusions.
I would be surprised to learn that the Dombroskis and Lighthouse Trails was doing shoddy research. You may not agree with their conclusions, but they should not be accused of shallow research and lying.
Rick,
LOL!
Even just superficially I have covered it above… and in doing so did better research and conclusions than they have given. All I see from them is fear mongering and pleas to buy their “DVD’s” and other stuff. One cannot rewrite and distort historical Christianity at a whim to fit their own agenda. Rick, open your eyes buddy. See them for what they are.
iggy
OK, Iggy, how many of their books have you read?
And do you agree that they purposely lie in order to promote themselves and their books?
QFT.
Rick,
Go to their website and read their ridiculous write up on the book they are selling. That in itself is enough…
Now when someone tosses Rick Warren into the emerging church pile that is laughable!
Now I have read a few of those books and have heard many of the authors. You seem many are part of my denomination…
I reviewed Tony Jones’ book myself.
J.P. Moreland is not by far an apostate. I have heard him speak and he is part of Vineyard if I recall.
I also know enough about Dan Kimball to know what they wrote is garbage.
They seem to agree with Gary Gilley… surprise!
Thomas a Kempis is a must read and they attack it pulling it our of its historical understanding and purpose.
I have read enough and listened to enough Dallas WIllard to tell what they say their is crap.
That is just for starters… I don’t have enough time or energy to filter through their insanity to prove to you how bad their “discernment” is…
This is just what I saw in about 5 min. or less.
iggy
Rick,
Here’s LHT’s page on Dallas Willard. Notice that they don’t actually give any excerpts from the books themselves. They just picked names from the endnotes and endorsements. That’s hardly judging something based on its merits.
As far as the story they have in the sidebar where the guy says “In that space I lit candles, burned incense, hung rosaries, and listened to tapes of Benedictine monks.” I can attest that Willard doesn’t recommend doing any of this stuff. It’s kind of like blaming a driving instructor for a student who runs over someone. At some point, people are responsible for their own actions. Were the Beatles responsible for the Manson murders?
Phil – everything you just said is an acceptable viewpoint from your perspective about their research and about Willard’s book. But you have no evidence that they did not read those books, and calling them liars is unacceptable.
Let me be clear, I do not hold a person responsible for reading an entire book ang Iggy and I agree on that. I am saying you cannot make the statement someone did not because you don’t like their article.
LT will gladly reply to your question via e-mail.
Rick,
LHT did lie about Dallas Willard. They are claiming he wholeheartedly embraces Eastern mysticism when he does not. THis isn’t an argument about a judgment call, it is about the plain fact that what they’ve said about him isn’t true.
I suppose you can claim they just didn’t know, but they’re claiming to have researched the issue, they are going through footnotes on his book. Once you get down to examining footnotes, claims of ignorance are impossible to make.
LHT is lying, they need to repent.
Rick,
I’m not saying that everyone as to read every book to have an opinion on the author. I’m just saying if you’re going to write an piece that is commenting extensively on an author, not quoting his books seems a bit disingenuous to me. Perhaps I did go too far in calling lying, but I do think it’s shoddy “research”.
For example, if you look at the endnotes of many of N.T. Wright’s books, you would see he has people like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg listed. He hardly endorses them, though. In fact he pretty much refutes most of what they say. But, he would probably recommend people read some of their stuff. So this GBA game gets old after awhile.
I mean, as far as I’m concerned, if we’re going to hold people accountable for those they footnotes, those who quote Calvin have some ’splainin to do for quoting a murderer. Luther’s record isn’t much better…
When you reference someone like Crossan or Borg in a negative way and then footnote them, it is acceptable. When you reference someone in a positive way and then footnote them, it doesn’t mean you endorse them but it doesn give the distinct wrong impression to many readers.
Tim – LHT are not liars, they believe wholeheartedly in what they say. I have issued my opinion about MacLaren and Bell in some matters, since you claim my opinions are obviously not true am I a liar as well?
Did you resort to attributing the sum of works in the footnotes to those authors and pretending like the authors wrote what they did not write? If so, then yes, you lied about them.
They may “wholeheartedly” believe what they wrote, but what they wrote is obviously not true. IF it were they would have used quotes actually from teh authors they’re slandering. Although I suppose you could make the claim that LHT is so delusional they have no capacity to accurately assess reality.
“Although I suppose you could make the claim that LHT is so delusional they have no capacity to accurately assess reality.”
That disease is contagious and usually cannot be accurately diagnosed by the afflicted.
Rick,
I agree that we must be very careful before we call someone a liar. I will only offer one example of my experience with the type of research they do. LTR has stated Dallas Seminary teaches contemplative spirituality because they have spiritual formation groups. I e-mailed them and said those group have nothing to do with contemplative. Mrs. Dombrowski politely replied that one of the main reasons is because Professor Darrell Bock sits on a board with some people they consider contemplative. I replied that Dr. Bock teaches New Testament and has nothing to do with the spiritual formation groups. She replied that “we will just have to agree to disagree.” They will also sight other examples of DTS profs offering blurbs in various books.
I cannot find the original e-mails or I would provide them but the point is not so much their work on specific items, but the McCarthyistic/GBA tactics cause me, to dismiss any of their research. I know that I cannot trust them and must do my own research or trust another source.
Thank you Darren for a thoughtful response. In the case you just mentioned, if accurate, they still could be classified as extremely biased and maybe seeing things under every rock. The word Liar indicates knwoledge and purpose. To know what you are saying is false is lying, to believe a lie as truth is deceived and other words.
I have not seen that same personal attacks and names on LHT either and usually they are painfully scrupulous in their footnotes and bibliographies. Liars they are not. I will admit that at times the contemplative issue seems overblown to me, however I do see some substantive issues as well.
I just object to the word liar. I consider preacher X to be a heretic and I have my reasons. You (not you) defend his statements and to me twist their obvious meaning therefore you are a liar. I do not subscribe to that and it is lazy discourse.
I guess it would be one thing if Dallas Willard were really promoting heretical teaching. I mean Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster are pretty mainstream. They’re not Reformed, which seems to be the standard LHT wants, but they’re not heretical.
Phil – the standard for heresy is completely subjective. One man’s heresy is another man’s sound doctrine. That is not the issue. To call someone a liar is not to question their views and/or research, it is to question their integrity.
Over zealousness is not lying. And to fall into a trap that parlays disagreement into lying is disingenuous.
Rick,
Well, maybe. I will try not to paint with a broad brush, but a lot of stuff on the LHT site, I just consider fear-mongering.
What do these people have against mysticism, anyways? There’s a whole book of the Bible that can only be described as someone describing his own mystical experience. The Revelation is pretty mystical. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others had what could be called mystical experience. I see that new agers are offering a sad parody of the real thing. It’s not something Christians have borrowed from new agers.
And you have given a good description of the conversation that should be happening. Three times in Acts the word “ectasy” is used when someone fell into a trance. A young deacon went into a trance in a prayer meeting and prophesied just before the Hrebredies Revival.
There is a balance, however, and people like the Dromboski’s help keep us wary of many things even if they might overstate the case. No one has the actual divine balance on anything, that is the journey and people with whom you disagree can actually be used of God in our lives.
The problem is simple.
These people get certain definitions/ideas into their heads, lock on to them, link various words/phrases together – then become entrenched in viewing everything through a scenario they’ve concocted about people, events, and issues.
Then, they change meanings to suit their own heresy hunting needs. For example, as you pointed out, with the word silence — all of a sudden it means altered state of consciousness (absurd). It works with other words and phrases, too.
- being tolerant is equated with pluralism
- not viewing those of other faith as literal enemies to be attacked = acceptance of all religions as equally valid
- humanitarian work with non-Christians means endorsement of other religions and building a one world religion
- a desire to discuss rather than fight with non-Christians is interpreted as seeking a synthesis of religious beliefs
The list goes on and on and on. Odd and sad. Oh, and whatever you do, don’t ever, I mean do not EVER make a joke of any kind.
RAbanes
Rick,
The only thing I really see about many of these folk is that they come from a very narrow perspective. Not only theological but historical.
The issue though of glossing over their view of the Reformation and then attacking anything they view as heretical… seems to miss that they are tossing out much of our heritage by their own will and want.
It has nothing to do with God.
In fact. I see most make a living out of attacking others and some are even reluctant to separated themselves from the more radical attackers as their ministry would suffer from the lack of people coming to their site through CRN and others. I had one person as much as say that to me in an personal email… he stated he over looks much of what Ken and others state becuase of the growth his own ministry has had while connected to them! That is not integrity at all.
I see that groups like LHT are more in it for the money than educationing others. That is what I see when I go to their site.
iggy
An overstatement of a case doesn’t create balance it creates bias.
Well, I’m not going to ever get into motives, except for when it is painfully obvious that attacking is their desire, rather than truth.
For example, I can only throw up my hands when someone says I’m seeking to build a synthesis between Mormonism (as well as other religions) and Christianity. And as proof they pull one sentence out of my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism,” which actually refutes all major LDS doctrine.
I can only conclude these folks are living in an alternate reality and have set their mind on achieving a goal of proving me out to be a heretic, liar , deceiver, etc. etc. etc., especially when they won’t even bother reading the book or just asking ministries dedicated to Mormons what they think of my book. Really odd.
Additionally, there is a double standard. They can dedicate as much time as they want to whatever issue they feel is important, write as many articles as they wish, but when someone takes time to respond to them, then they accuse that other person of being “obsessed,” having “too much time” on their hands, not having anything else to write about, etc. etc. etc. Again, very interesting.
And here’s another fellow I just found who seems to be from the heavy Calvinist camp:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/
I also very much find it fascinating how they all self-publish out of their own houses or Vanity Presses. Nothing wrong with that – just interesting.
RA
I have to side with Rick on the issue of LHT being liars. I believe they think what they are promoting is truth – therefore by definition they should not be labeled liar.
They are, however, guilty of plenty of other crap. The engage in GBA, they redefine things to fit their own arguments, they assign meanings that are not there, etc…
You said “the Dromboski’s help keep us wary of many things even if they might overstate the case” – It’s not an issue of overstating… we all do that.
They distort what people say and do.
They create their own meanings and assign them at will.
They ignore nuances and arguments.
They assume guilt by association.
They fear-monger.
They are sloppy in their scholarship – if I can even use that word in a sentence about them…
Neil
>I see most make a living out of attacking others and some are even reluctant to separated themselves from the more radical attackers as their ministry would suffer from the lack of people coming to their site through CRN and others.
I saw this with Dave Hunt, who after visiting Saddleback, meeting Rick, and watching the PDL convention, had really changed his mind on his whole view of Warren. But that change was never made public it seems based on pressure to please his staff and supporters who were wildly against Warren. See my article on Hunt for what happened behind the scenes.
RA,
I want to say that I appreciate your contribution here… not because we agree… but it helps… LOL!
I do have some concerns about Rick’s purpose driven world that some are talking about… is he really making way for the antiChrist?
iggy
No, they don’t at all. In fact they impede any actual warning by being so over the top that those that believe them sin against their brothers, and everyone else ignores them because they are so delusional that they can’t accurately assess reality.
Iggy,
LOL – no no no no Warren is not making the way for the AntiChrist. You silly, boy. Don’t you get it already? He IS the Antichrist. LoL.
Actually, wait a minute, that’s not too funny since all we’ll probably have to do is wait about about year, if that, and we’ll see such things popping up all over the Internet.
We already have gems like these:
“The Emergent Church is a form of paganism”
” Purpose Driven is a New Religion”
” Points to Ponder- Rick Warren, Richard Abanes, Ken Blanchard, Psychics, Yoga”
I mean, really, how far away are we from having RW named the name that must not be named — yes, I’ll say it, Voldemort.
I agree they believe the general condemnation of individuals, however, I think they lie about the particulars in order to make the case for their overall belief.
For example, they genuinely believe that Willard teaches Eastern mysticism, however, they have lied about what he states in his book.
I agree with Tim. The probably is that REAL warnings get lost in a mix of wolf wolf wolf wolf about EVERYONE!
I’ve already run into this while discussing Eckhart Tolle with his fans, who see peeps like the Dumbrowskis et al. calling everyone a heretic. You have to undo their work, first, to show that there are indeed tihnsg we have to watch out for, but going over the top is not biblical. Only THEN, will these people start listening about the real dangers posed by Tolle’s teachings. The “discerners” and “watchmen” are muddying the waters.
They treat someone like a cultists as soon as they diverge from their notion of the straight-and-narrow – i.e., one that is not based on scripture, but rather, on their own views, comfort zone, personality, lifestyles, frame of reference, and likes/dislikes.
To keep this up, they force people (like myself, Warren, and others) into molds they have created. If you don’t fit the mold/profile (e.g., of a heretic, false teacher, deceiver), then they invent stories and assign beliefs to you that you do not hold.
This is happening now with me – and mind you, in the absence of evidence from my writings that would suggest I told to ANYTHING other than rock-solid biblical beliefs. The only indication of me being a heretic and deceived is the fact that I dare to disagree with them about Rick Warren. Not really biblical but it’s sure convenient. Ahh well. Conspiracy Theories are big with them, too.
If you can get past the frustration of it all, it’s actually quite fascinating as a study in the human psyche.
Oh, and yes, it seems that they do indeed lie. I have still yet to figure out the mechanism in their minds that allows them to rationalize/justify away such things. Again, it’s kind of fascinating.
I don’t believe that they are DELIBERATELY lying, but instead I think that something going on in their thought processes wherein they actually are able to convince themselves that certain words mean certain things — so they are justified in interpreting the words out in such a way as to make them heretical sounding.
I spoke to an acquaintance once who was in the branch Davidian cult with David Koresh, and he said the members did, in fact, think A LOT about what Koresh taught about God, the world, himself, others, and all of them. But, as this person explained to me, all of their thoughts were not filtered through reality. They were filtered through an alternate-reality paradigm that had been set up for them which had certain parameters and certain presuppositions. Anything outside of those parameters and presuppositions had no affect on them or their views. Those things that conflicted with their paradigm where changed to fit the world they had created for themselves.
I see your point.
Neil
Richard,
I was in a discussion with an anti-Foster type who claimed he advocated astral projection. His “evidence’ was the fact that in one of his books he gives as an example the exercise to imagine yourself looking down on the earth from heaven/outer-space… I forget the point of this exercise. But the person was convinced what he meant was for us to spiritually leave our bodies… blah, blah, blah…
Neil
I’d take it a step further and say – even if they were teaching contemplative spirituality (which would show how far they would have come from when I was a student) that in-and-of-itself proves nothing. Without investigating the content no dogmatic statements should be made… no matter what boards Bock sits on.
Neil
Neil,
Interestingly I see that John states in Revelation…”On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit,”
So was John in some sort of “altered state” or “out of body” or what?
I am not advocating the eastern idea of purposely leaving ones body to fly with their animal spirit to go to see something in some planet… or what ever…
But, if God has me fall down and begins to show me things like He did with John… I would not call that Satanic…
What I do see is that these guys just toss everything through their own myopic and narrow definitions and as someone (Richard?) stated re-defined meanings… then they justify attacking anyone they want to. That is a divisive spirit and is satanic.
iggy
According to Hal Lyndsey, John was transported to the future (our time, of course) and all the “weirdness” of Revelation was him trying to describe modern stuff with his ancient vocabulary.
Neil
OK. If this is not training in astral projection then what would you call it?
Richard Foster – Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp.27-28
A fourth form of meditation has as its objective to bring you into a deep inner communion with the Father where you look at Him and He looks at you. In your imagination, picture yourself walking along a lovely forest path. Take your time, allowing the blaring noise of our modern megalopolis to be overtaken by the sound of rustling leaves and cool forest streams. After observing yourself for a bit, take the perspective of the one walking, rather than the one observed. Try to feel the breeze upon your face as if it were gently blowing away all anxiety. . . . After awhile there is a deep yearning within to go into the upper regions beyond the clouds. In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. Imagine your spiritual self, alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere. Observe your physical body, the knoll, and the forest shrink as you leave the earth. Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal creator. Rest in his presence. Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. Note carefully any instructions given . . . When it is time for you to leave, audibly thank the Lord for His goodness and return to the meadow. Walk joyfully back along the path until you return home full of new life and energy.
neil,
A perfect example.
They seem to possess a specific body of knowledge about things in the occult or cults (e.g., astral projection, altered states of consciousness, mantras, etc.). Then, once they pick a target-heretic, they look for anything from that person (in writings, interviews, or lectures) that they can identity as one of the things they know about (e.g., astral projection, altered states of consciousness, mantras, etc.).
It’s like they have bits and pieces of information about various religious stuff — but lack the ability to tie together all the threads, discern variances in beliefs, and differentiate between terminology. And, of course, they push very hard to make links where there are no real links — as in teh example you gave.
OK, lets take the final exam.
FROM THE NON ODM PERSPECTIVE:
ODMs = liars
FROM THE ODM PERSPECTIVE:
Emergents etc. = liars
And Richard drops by to share a tidbit about Dave Hunt’s double mindednessand integrity. That is so ODMish. I guess mirrored tactics can be defined in whatever genre suits you. Gossip can be spread among people who have no need to know as long as you couch it in victimesque language.
And a David Koresh sighting to boot! And this is from someone who complained about a Hitler reference once.
RIck…
let’s look at it this way…
FROM THE NON ODM PERSPECTIVE:
ODMs = screwed up people but aware of just how screwed up they are and everyone else is.
FROM THE ODM PERSPECTIVE:
Emergents etc. = Screwed up but still believe they have some sort of special grace that enables them to attack others and judge and condemn them in the Name of Jesus. Setting themselves as the Holy Standard instead of Jesus being that.
It is deeper and more complicated that each of us as liars.
iggy
Rick,
It must be tiresome trying to defend the tactics of LHTs.
And I once spoke with someone who was at Jonestown and survived and he said to watch out for preachers who emphasize humantarian efforts.
(A fiction meant to show how useless and self serving those type of personal stories usually are)
“It must be tiresome trying to defend the tactics of LHTs.”
It would be tiresome if that was what I was doing. You set your own perspectives.
Rick,
Total garbage. They have made claims about Dallas Willard that are not true, and have claimed to have researched the work they are publishing untruths about.
“I will admit that at times the contemplative issue seems overblown to me, however I do see some substantive issues as well.”
I am not sure that constitutes a blanket defense. I think it might be more balanced than “liars”.
John H,
Astral projection actually teaches that you are able to leave your body, which is different than what you’ve quoted, which is plainly a mental exercise.
To use an acting metaphor, astral projection is like Method Acting, in which one puts oneself realistically into a situation to experience how it feels. What Willard wrote is more like the Stanislavsky System of acting, in which one visualizes a situation and acts how they believe a person in that situation would act. With method acting, the experience must be real for it to be felt. With the Stanislavsky system, experience is not important.
In the same way, astral projection seeks a higher state of being through literally leaving one’s body. What Willard wrote 30 years ago (assuming it’s even being presented in correct context) is imagining a particular situation, which would then impact one’s current emotional state. (A common understanding in psychology, clearly demonstrated by John Bargh’s ‘Long Hallway’ test and priming experiments at NYU).
In short, you’re trying to make a pineapple out of an acorn.
I agree, it would be much more accurate to say that they are pathological practitioners of deception, beginning with themselves.
To expand a little bit more, per an example in Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, you can take the Racial Implicit Association Test here (which measures your unconscious attitudes about race, gender, etc.) every day for weeks and find that your score won’t typically change all that much from day to day. However, if you read biographical accounts of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr. , Colin Powell, or other African American figures with compelling stories of success prior to taking the test, you will find that you will score much better on the test because of the mental conditioning you’ve gone through just prior to the test.
In the same way, Willard’s little exercise is not astral projection, but rather application of modern psychological observation (which is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’, but rather an observation of how God made the mind to work).
DELIBERATELY lying.” But facts are facts. if they make a statement about someone that is simply untrue, then it’s untrue. The big difference is this:
1. I am accusing them about “lying” if you will about other people.
2. The ODM’s accuse people like me of lying about……MYSELF! LoL. You don’t see a difference? They accuse Warren of lying about HIMSELF! And the Emerging peeps of lying about THEMSELVES!
The dialogue goes like this:
_____________________________________
ODM: Abanes is a lying New Ager who is deceiving others. He wants to build a one world syncretistic one world religion by blending Christianity and other faiths.
ME: No, I don’t. That’s a lie.
ODM: Yes, you do. You’re one of the new New Agers.
ME: What are you talking about? I’ve written a lot against the New Age. But just for the record, Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation. He is the one and only savior. You must repent, accept him by faith as your personal Lord and Savior, in order to be saved by grace.
ODM: You deny him by your deeds.
ME: What deeds?
ODM: You don’t believe Warren is a heretic.
ME: What does that have to do with my faith in Jesus? I just disagree with you based on what I see are terribly faulty arguments and false statements by you and others.
ODM: You attack others. If you were truly walking with the Lord, you’d see where Warren is wrong, and you’d be writing against him instead of other issues and other Christians.
ME: You attack Warren! Why is that okay?
ODM: Because he’s unbiblical.
ME: I disagree.
ODM: See, that proves your’re decieved. And you even wrote a book in which you say we need to blend Mormonism and Chrisianity called Inside Today’s Mormonism.
ME: What? That’s against Mormonism.
ODM: No, it’s not.
ME: Yes, it is! Have you read it?
ODM: I don’t have to. By supporting Warren, I know exactly what you’re trying to do. If you don’t write against him you’re compromising and deceiving. You’re not being truthful about what you really believe.
_______________________________
It’s kind of a losing battle. This quote from Dumbrowski is perfect: “we will just have to agree to disagree.” They say this about facts. Yellow is no longer yellow — it’s whatever color they say it is. Left is no longer left — it becomes right, or straightforward, or backwards. Up turns into down. This is not dealing within the confines of reality, but is an alternate reality they are creating where they are arbitrarily deciding who the bad guys are and who the good guys are — but not based on truth.
As for the word liar, if I have plainly stated that I DO NOT want to create any kind of synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity, and have books to prove that, but they insist the very opposite — then, sorry, but they are lying. There is no pretty spin to put on such false information.
RICK: And a David Koresh sighting to boot! And this is from someone who complained about a Hitler reference once.
RA: I am referring to a mindset that is typified in the example I gave. That is hardly calling these people David Koreshites. It is a generalized thought-pattern explained by someone who saw it firsthand. On the other hand, a direct implication was made between my statements about Warren (i.e., so called “propaganda”) and the supportive propaganda for Hitler that was spewed by Josef Goebbels. Big difference.
And your Jonestown analogy is not really an analogy at all – TBH.
1. I was presenting an internal mindset and process of thinking that can be found throughout various different types of people. It is a mindset has been shown objectively to be damaging to critical thinking.
2. You picked an activity (i.e., humanitarian aid) that is not inherently bad, harmful, or dangerous at all according to any sound thinking person, and appealed to the ravings of cult members who claimed it is evil.
That’s a big difference in what we presented and it is not analogous. Sorry.
Richard…
And if you talk with them they are often fueled by Rush Limbaugh (conservative but not “Christian”) and Sean Hannity (A Mormon!) and Glenn Beck (RCC) but if we listen to Rick Warren we are listening to the Purpose Driven Pope!
If I read about Brian McLaren expounding on expanding our orthodoxy from Evangelicalism, I am denying orthodoxy… ???
I wonder who at what is acceptable and what is not! If you line up politically, then you are “in”… but if you want peace or think giving your neighbor a drink of water or food… you are a heretic!
Not to mention that they all have different “Truth” which is all absolute…. regeneration comes before salvation (Steve Camp) at the moment of salvation (Pastorboy).
If all those are truth and absolute, I am confused as I see a relativism to whatever their theological bent is.
Yet, I am a heretic for not believing both of them as right!
LOL!
Mostly I am uncertain as to the “Truth” they claim and promote.. I think they lost sight of the Person of Jesus and promote theology over relationship and God.
iggy
I used to do it, and they are different. The example you gave sounds like entering a trance like state in imagination but possibly still dangerous on certain levels.
“We will have to agree to disagree” is now something to be mocked because one party is in possession of the facts. Christians cannot even agree with what the Bible says about a myriad of things and yet we assert we have the facts. One man’s bridge building can be viewed by another as compromise without either being liars.
And the Jonestown example was an accurate analogy. People were decieved because Jones used humanitarian works as a Trojan Horse for his aberrant teachings which is exactly what many claim is happening in the emergent church. A mindset gently turned by using an activity that is not inherently bad, harmful, or dangerous.
To say you strongly disagree with the overblown conclusions of the Dombrowski’s is understandable. To say they are liars not only brings their integrity into question, it adds a juvenile element to the discussion and is counter productive to the openess of the said discussion. I have personally and publicly made this same observation to the other “side”.
I believe in a collegiate debate forum calling the other person a liar is against the parliamentary rules regardless of how outrageous some proffered opinion might have been presented. See, they make you debate it in civility and win the debate on the substance of your presentation which includes unveiling the unfactual nature of your opponent.
Therefore what Chris L. said in his comments would be allowed, but calling people liars and/or strongly suggesting they did not read the material without any evidence can be used to identify the weakness in your own stated “facts”.
Rick,
Simple questions: Can anyone ever vbe accused of lying? Is it a reality? If so, what is the criteria for making that accusation? My first two questions are rhetorical, of course, since the Bible has quite a bit to say about lying (including slander).
If one knows something to be false and presents it as true that is lying. I have in my years as a believer preached something strongly as truth and later realized it wasn’t. I was not lying even if some people were frustrated that I could not see what they saw clearly.
The lying moniker usually comes from frustration and an emotional attachment to the object of what the person considers as a lie. It is exacerbated when things are said about one’s self that are not true. However, that still does not always mean your “attacker” is a liar.
Even though the LHT people are strong and sometimes see gnats as elephants, they are not liars.
Rick,
I want your opinion, truly.
Let me give you an example of the kind of lying, half-truths, and implications I am talking about. And these are MILD examples. Very Mild compared to what I have seen.
Consider Tim Wirth, who most recently has written http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/
______BEGIN
‘Keep in mind that self proclaimed apoligist and unofficial spokesperson for Rick Warren-Richard Abanes has gone on record defending the emergent church here.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/02/hot-on-the-bl-1.html
_______END
Now, let’s look at this tiny little statement and see what it contains.
1. I am NOT a “self proclaimed” apologist. His word usage, of course, implies:
a) I have no REAL credentials,
b) I have no REAL acceptance in the professional arena, and
c) I have no REAL recognition beyond my own delusions of grandeur that would cause me to “self proclaim” myself as an apologist.
Interesting perspective from Wirth, but utterly false. He might as well call the pastor of the corner First Baptist Church a “self proclaimed” pastor; or refer to an award-winning chef at a nearby restaurant as a ’self proclaimed” chef. You get the point. So, this is not exactly a blatant lie, but it is deceptive in that it seeks to poison a readers opinion of me and what I state. Ironically, if anyone is self proclaimed it is Wirth.
2. I am NOT in any way, shape, or form an “unofficial spokesperson for Rick Warren.” Yet this is something Wirth incessantly declares, despite my protests and corrections. He continues to bill me as follows:
“Slick Ricks purpose driven Unofficial spokesman for all of Warrenanity Richie Abanes”
“Warrens minister of propoganda defending Slick Rick”
“Rick Warrens unofficial spokesman Richard Abanes disappeared”
The snide remarks go on and on. Here’s what my website states: “ATTENTION: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spokesperson (official or unofficial) for Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, or any affiliates of Saddleback Church, including Purpose Driven Ministries and pastors.com. Moroever, I have never been contracted or requested by Rick Warren, Saddleback, or any of its affiliates to publicly defend or discuss criticisms of Warren, his books, or his ministry. The comments contained in these articles are my own personal opinions expressed in response to Warren’s critics, and are based on my own investigation and research into Warren (as I have detailed in my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him).
But none of this matters. The fact is that I have spoken throughout the Internet on a wide variety of topics and on many different message board/blogs. So is Wirth spreading a lie? Hmmm, perilously close, if not over the line. I am telling him that I am not a spokesperson of any kind for Warren, and yet he keeps saying I am? Out of curiosity, what would you call that? It’s certainly not the truth. Have we come to a place now in America where we can’t voice our views without being labeled?
3. I have not “gone on record defending the emergent church.” I have gone on record stating. “The Emerging Church movement is an extremely vast, non-regulated, de-centralized and disparate collection of multi-hued churches/people/teachings. Some aspects of the movement are good. Some aspects of it are resoundingly bad/unbiblical. ”
So where does Wirth get this other assertion about me “defending” the EC?? Notice his link. This is merely the title of someone else’s blog about my postings critical of Roger Oakland, Dave Hunt, and Chuck Smith. That’s the TITLE someone else put on their blog! LoL. So what would you call this? Notice, he didn’t even quote what I actually said about the Emerging Church.
Richard – I am dealing with the LHT blod and specifically the Dombroski’s. I do not know them personally, but I do not find the same tone that you have referenced. There must be somone who strongly disagrees with you and absolutely cannot see it as you do who is not purposely lying. There are those who say things about me who are just obnoxious, but there are those who disagree strongly and misrepresent me and my opinions but are really not lying.
And the link thing? I believe the point has been made ad infinitum that we cannot be tagged with agreement when we link? The LHT blog attempts to avoid hyperbole and name calling and I find their writings, even if I’m not in total agreement, dispassionately digestible.
I have heard reports from many people who have corresponded with them and found them much more courteous that some other ODM blogs. That counts for nothing? There are many who take great issue with the ODMs who can be just as obnoxious and unreasoned and there are some with whom you can have a verbal back and forth without anticipating a personal attack on your intelligence, Biblical knowledge, integrity, and that you cannot actually believe what you are saying.
“According to Hal Lyndsey, John was transported to the future (our time, of course) and all the “weirdness” of Revelation was him trying to describe modern stuff with his ancient vocabulary.”
That actually makes so much sense to me. Except for the “transported” part. Lol. And not our time, ’cause it obviously hasn’t happened yet.
merry – there would be many who would ascribe Revelation as mainly “history”. God does sometimes do some mysterious things with people. There have been people who have gone into trances as in Acts and some others during unusual times of revival. However, we cannot summon those times by techniques.
It is a legitimate concern, or should be.
Rick,
Ahh, I see LHT. Kewl. I won’t derail thread. np.
Here’s something about LHT, and Ms. Dombrowski. Care to give your insights on how these actions were in any way fair, Christian, or appropriate.
____BEGIN
(from my article “Lighthouse Trails: Walking in Darkness”)
My personal dealings with Lighthouse Trails came about after I posted an alert to an Internet email message network (AR-Talk). It contained criticisms of their Press Release regarding business leader Ken Blanchard (for information on the Blanchard controversy see this article and this article).
In response, Deborah Dombrowski quickly sent a rather threatening email to Harvest House publishers, which was scheduled to release my book on Warren titled Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (July, 2005).
Dombrowski apparently did not like the fact that in my post to AR-Talk, I noted the numerous errors in George Mair’s terrifically flawed biography of Warren (unauthorized) titled A Life with Purpose, which was a primary resource Dombrowski used in creating her Press Release.
In her email to Harvest House, Dombrowski first warned the publisher that I was publicly speaking negatively about Mair’s book, and then implied that Harvest House might find themselves in trouble along with me should the publisher of Mair’s book (Penguin) seek to bring any kind of legal action against me (exactly what Harvest House had to do with my personal posts on AR-Talk was never explained by Dombrowski). She also wanted Harvest House to know that she happened to know that Penguin had somehow been notified of my comments on AR-Talk, but that she had not yet heard whether or not the New York secular publishing house was going to take any legal actions. The questions are obvious:
• How did Penguin (a secular publisher) here about what I had said on Christian message forum?
• Who notified Penguin and how did Dombrowski know about it?
• Why would a “Christian” notify a secular publishing house with the apparent intention of causing trouble for a fellow believer who was simply exercising his God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed, American right to freedom of speech?
• Why would Dombrowski notify Harvest House of the comments I was making about a book that had nothing to do with Harvest House, or with my contract for an entirely different volume?
• What was Dombrowski hoping to accomplish by contacting Harvest House?
I believe the answers to all of the above questions are obvious. Nevertheless, despite what I believe was an attempt on the part of Dombrowski to silence me, I submit the following material that represents my corrections to only a small sampling of their “research” errors and baseless anti-Warren innuendos at their Lighthouse Trails Research Project [LTRP] website.
______________END
So, it seems that because Ms. Dombrowski didn’t like the fact that I had criticized/corrected Mair’s book (her primary source of material on Rick Warren), she tried to bring down the ire of Penguin Books on me (and Harvest House). This is an interesting course of action to take against a fellow believer, don’t you think?
Anyway, nufsad about DD and DD and LHT. My opinions appear in my web articles.
best to ya, bro.
Without Mrs. Dombroski’s input I would have to rely on your account of unpublished correspondence. I am not saying people, including me, do not act out of emotion and not in a Christian manner. I did not agree with her recent spat over some plagerized material with some lady. These publishing battles leave me cold and uninterested.
I still have not been presented with evidence that LHT intentionally lied about something. I am convinced that many Christians will never be able to engage others with patience and restraint, even when the opposition does not show the same courtesy.
I have not seen LHT posting about sinners and their sin either. Maybe I’ve missed it but they seem different and certainly not liars.
fair enough, rick. fair enough. -:)
I guess I’d call it what Foster did – using your imagination. Which, of course, by definitions is not astral projection.
Neil
When I was a kid I used imagine I was a space pilot and I could see myself blasting off in a rocket and traveling to a different galaxy to have battles with the Kundarian Confederation of space monsters…….I don’t think I ever left my body. But it was sure fun. ROFL.
I have a newer version and this quote is not found on pgs 28-29… but that just plays into the conspiracy theory that Foster “got caught” so he changed the book.
I have to go, I’m blasting off with Captain Video and his video rangers!
Rick – just make sure you don’t use your imagination…
Rick,
I used to practice Astro Projection.. my wife was very good at it. Both of us do not do that but I do practice “praying in the Spirit” which can include tongues. There is a type of trance but they are not the same thing. One is the Presence of the Holy Spirit and the other was a force of my own will.
The two are diametrically opposed… though in a way similar.
One is about using my will to empty myself to let “whatever” into me as i go around seeing whatever I wanted or the entity that was leading would let me see…
The other is the laying down of my will and thoughts to focus on Jesus by the Holy Spirit and to worship and find God’s presence and peace. In that I get insight to scripture. I do not claim I have some special “thing” as I see anyone can tap into God’s presence and that God desires us to.
To say that the practice of God’s presence is a doorway to the occult is ludicrous to me. As one who practiced the occult i see this a blasphemous. Having been in both worlds there is so much difference that I have to just laugh and assume that anyone that would confuse or insist such things has not rested in the active presence of God but seems to only have a head knowledge and not experience of the Living Christ who lives in us as believers.
iggy
I practice astro-projection. When my wife is nagging me I go to Mars!
I am surprised being married to you she does not practise it!
; )
love ya man…
iggy
Chris L said – Astral projection actually teaches that you are able to leave your body, which is different than what you’ve quoted, which is plainly a mental exercise.
Chris –
Wikipedia: Astral projection (or astral travel) is a paranormal interpretation of an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation. The concept of astral projection assumes the existence of another body, separate from the physical body and capable of traveling to non-physical planes of existence. Commonly such planes are called astral, etheric, or spiritual. Astral projection is often experienced as the spirit or astral body leaving the physical body to travel in the spirit world or astral plane.
Richard Foster (not Willard, I have not read his book(s)) said: “In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body.”
Hmmm. Spiritual body leaving your physical body to later encounter a spiritual “being” during periods of deep mediation. No pineapples from acorns here. Just some common sense fruit inspection. I really have trouble seeing how, in the gross sense of the definition, that this is not, indeed, a Christianized version of astral projection.
The point gentlemen is that this, whatever it is – Astral projection or mental exercise – these techniques are ALL extra-Biblical. God in his word tells us how to approach Him (via prayer through the intersession of His Son and via meditation on His word) not through conjuring up an apparition of our own imagines to converse with and get instructions from. Astral projection or not, this also brings up an even more serious issue. Foster, here, and in his other teachings on mediation and imagining encounters with Jesus is advocating blatant idolatry.
What color is your “Jesus” hair and eyes? What is your “Jesus” wearing today? The white robe or the blue one? The obvious point is that the Jesus of your imagination is not the real Jesus, but a virtual wooden idol. And Iggy to your point, in so creating this being in your imagination, yes, there is a real, real danger of opening your mind to deceiving spiritual entities.
Foster is advocating a “Jesus on Demand” coming to you in the glorious HD of your own imagination. Please show me any where in Scripture where we as Christians are taught to use these techniques. The Jesus you visualize and create from your own imagination CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE REAL JESUS. So how is this in any way “OK”?
“So how is this in any way “OK”?”
Oh, there will be a way. But the subject will quickly change to the ODMs.
Chris L,
Is your support of Foster because the ODM’s are against him and therefore you are for him “just because”, or have you read his works tested them against Scripture and find them “OK”?
John Hughes
I am not totally sure what you are stating here… yet if you are saying that practicing the presence of Jesus is wrong… then I recommend you read more of the Bible’s teachings.
You seemed focused on the “occult” side of this “Christ in you” and the false teaching is dangerous.. no argument, but I am seeing the tossing out of biblical teaching of “Christ in you, the hope of glory. ” Too often out of fear (which is not of God) Christians toss out the good with the bad. Especially the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
If you are stating that we no longer practice the Lord’s presence I say that is foolish as David did it before Jesus came and even more now we should. Psalms 51: 10. “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. 12. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.”
Psalm 89: 15. “Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, O LORD.”
The practice of the presence of the Lord is not just about meditating on God’s word but actively living out our faith.
Again this is what i am talking about so if you are saying that is wrong you need a better argument from scripture.
iggy
Iggy – “The practice of the presence of the Lord is not just about meditating on God’s word but actively living out our faith.”
Couldn’t agree more bro! I have not read Bro Lawrence, but I have Foster and he is not on the same page as this.
John,
So you like Brother Lawrence? But have not read him… personally he is great.
Yet, as with Foster LHT tosses the dear BL in the same pile as Brother Lawrence.
Again out with the bathwater the baby goes! LOL!
iggy
crud I think I have been spam-manated
Iggy,
I did not say I liked Bro. Lawrence. I have not read him, so I have no first hand knowledge. I really try not to base my theolgical world view on Catholic monks theology as a general rule.
What did Bro. Lawrence have to say about the BVM for example? I have read Foster, however, and was greatly alarmed by his writings.
P.S. It is about time that I did investigate Bro. Lawrence so I think I will hop over to CB and order his book today.
Cheers!
Richard as always interesting comments and it never ceases to amaze me how you can spin truth into something else.
You consistantly complain about how other’s treat you but look how you refer to Deb Dombrowski as Dumbrowski.
And in your constant obbsession of taking people to your website instead of scripture a discerning Christian can simply look at the titles of your articles and wonder why you complain about the way people treat you when you openly treat others the same way.
Now the comments you posted from me were my comments. And comments that I stated to you I said in the flesh.
And you forgave me of them.
Interesting how you mixed the comments I made in 2005 with some current comments I made.
I do however hold that even though you may be unpaid by Saddleback church, Rick Warren or one of the Warrens many foundations you go all over the internet telling people how Rick Warren feels, what he states.
Warren had the opportunity to set the record straight in the booklet you wrote about hi. He did not but let you set the record straight for him.
You are a spokes person for Rick Warren paid or unpaid.
As far as the self proclaimed comment. I have never seen any legit apoligist go through the lengths you go through to defend yourself.
Even people who have defended Warren like Lee Strobel I just dont see them spending hundreds of man hours like you do defending what you say and what Rick Warren says.
Its great that anyone would expose someone outside the camp like Oprah or Tolle.
But what about whats going on inside the camp like Ken Blanchard who continues to endorse new age books (Jim Ballards) and is still a member of new age organization like Hoffman.
You put out a warning about Ken Blanchard on your own website but left the pro Ken Blanchard stuff still up.
Thats not what I call a discerning Christian.
Yes Elkhart Tolle is a hot topic now and may sell a few books for you.
But what about people like Ken Blanchard who proclaim they are Christain while continuing to lead the flock astray by endorsing new age books.
I guess the truth is only important to you if it sells Richard?
Rick thank you for being a voice of reason here.
And hi to iggy.
Now I know even Richard Abanes thinks centering prayer is ok but consider this statement from Richard Foster from his own book “Finding the Hearts True Home”
“At the outset I need to give a word of warning, a little like the warning labels on a medicine bottles. Contemplative prayer is not for the novice. I do not say this about any other form of prayer. All are welcome, regardless of proficiency or expertise, to enter freely into adoration and meditation and intercession and a host of other approaches to prayer
But contemplative is different.” end quote
I ask you why would any God given, God approved prayer form need a disclaimer.
Thank you for letting me post here.
And for the record even though I know Richard would never admit to this I do love Richard in the Lord. I love him enough to point out the error he is involved in as well as Richard being deceived and in turn deceiving.
I also have a lot of other things I could be doing.
But the truth to me is important.
Peace
Tim Wirth
Is that in the ODM handbook, or do all of you just feel guilty after treating someone like dirt?
“Is that in the ODM handbook, or do all of you just feel guilty after treating someone like dirt?”
It is comments like that which make it difficult to have a reasoned and productive conversation with you, Tim. I wish I could say I was the only one who has this experience.
Rick,
Maybe so, but that is the excuse given by every Christian who has ever ripped apart those outside of the church for political reasons, social reasons, or just plain personal enjoyment. Read back through what Tim Wirth wrote to Richard Abanes and see if you can detect love anywhere in it.
Tim Reed where is the love here?
RA
“I’ve already run into this while discussing Eckhart Tolle with his fans, who see peeps like the Dumbrowskis et al. calling everyone a heretic.”
Number one Deb abd Dave Dombrowski does not call everyone a heretic so thats just a untruth and a generalization.
Something we ODM’s get accused of all the time.
I think sometimes we pick and choose who we call names.
If its someone we dont like then its ok.
Where is the love for the ODM’s and Dombrowski’s as well?
Try quoting the same verse to Richard Abanes.
“4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs”
Now go back up this thread and read all the comments.
And then go back to the same verse you quoted.
If Im wrong and I get in the flesh (which I do sometimes) I will say Im sorry.
I do however stand by what I state unless soemone can show I erred according to scripture.
Plus I see that there were no comments on Richard Fosters quote of warning.
Example of love from you guys here-
iggy has been a good friend to me and offered some prayers over some rough times I went through.
I disagree with iggy on much of what he states and his views on contemplative as well as his views on Christian mystics.
I still love iggy as a brother even though I think he is deceived by some current things going on in Christianity.
I love him enough to warn him of what I see as a danger to his spiritual well being.
Will iggy agree with me?
Probably not.
But that doesnt change the way I feel about him as a Christian.
iggys a adult and he can make his own choices.
I can just put out the warnings.
Peace
Tim Wirth
Tim Wirth,
Neither Iggy, nor RA included an entire paragraph professing love for the target of a vicious attack.
“I think sometimes we pick and choose who we call names.
If its someone we dont like then its ok.”
Ya think?
That “heretic” thing has gotten a bad rap. It just means someone who teaches wrong things, it doesn’t mean he isn’t saved and in some cases loves Christ. Billy Graham in his later year believed heresies connected with universalism. Calvin is my favorite heretic just like Amrninius is to some others.
Now apostate, that is THE word. If a person’s teachings get so unbiblical and so aberrant, then he can become an apostate. I personally believe this centers around those who tamper with the atonement. I don’t mean limited atonement, that is connected with election. I mean preachers who now are diminishing the sin bearing essence of the cross.
That my friends is apostasy.
Hey Tim Wirth – This
daimond ringChristianity doesn’t mean what it did before.About 4-5 years ago, a small group I was in did a 6-week study on spiritual disciplines, and Foster was one of the primary sources used in the study. The study, itself, was primarily drawn from scripture, with Foster and a couple of other authors pulled in as supporting material.
The section you quoted (which, as Neil noted, is not in the current edition of the cited work), though, is quite similar to my Sophomore Theatre class section on the Stanislavsky system of acting and a section of my Christian Counseling Psych class that dealt with visualization – which is a technique of imagining how something looks/feels, and helps in distinguishing issues which are purely emotional from ones which may be spiritual or physical. Also (while I thought it became somewhat trite after a while) the “WWJD” concept was similar in philosophy – if you stop and think what Jesus would do in a particular situation – it helps make a decision clearer than what your own proclivities might lead you to, otherwise.
While I question the usefulness of this beyond a certain point, I find it laughable that it would be classified as ‘astral projection’, which is significantly different in form and function…
Pineapple:
Acorn:
Without having to delve into the further differences in your eisegetical quote of Foster, even at the basic level – AP assumes the actual existence of a separate body, whereas Foster’s quote speaks of imagining what you look like, etc. – the first is a system of belief, whereas the second is an imagination.
Apart from that, should it not be the assumption of a charitable reader (aka one displaying an inkling of Christian love), that if Foster removed this section from later editions of his book, that he would no longer support this section for some reasonable reason (like confusion some, like yourself, might have with astral projection) and not to “hide what he really believes”?
You know what, Chris, sometimes you give a reasonable explanation and interpretation of things that seems much different than what the author seems to be saying. And many times your words could be understood as much less offensive than what the original disagreement was concerning the words of someone else.
I would say that sometimes you are correct and sometimes they meant what they said and not particularly what you said. It is worth noting you taking the time to provide food for though, though. Thanks.
WIRTH: Now the comments you posted from me were my comments. And comments that I stated to you I said in the flesh. And you forgave me of them. Interesting how you mixed the comments I made in 2005 with some current comments I made.
RA: Your apolgy, I now see, is hollow and false. You continue to: a) insist I am Warren’s apologist even after I have corrected you; b) spread false statements about me, my faith, and even allowed someone to make a post on your site wherein he falsely states that I am seeking to create a synthesized brand of Christianity+Mormonism. Ludicrous. But you let it go on. So, your actions speak louder than your pious words.
________________
WIRTH: I do however hold that even though you may be unpaid by Saddleback church, Rick Warren or one of the Warrens many foundations you go all over the internet telling people how Rick Warren feels, what he states.
RA: Er, that’s kind of based on public information and a simple analysis of the facts. As I have said elsewhere, Warren is a mere catalyst for discussions related to truth, apologetics, proper discernemnt, accuracy in reporting, facts vs. misrepresentations. He is a catalyst for discussing these things because he is a target being used by people to justify less than biblical attacks. Warren is NOT even the issue per se. I have explained this again and again. And yet you publicly declare I am more interested in defending a man than God. So, again, all of your apologies or calls for people to “pray” for me ring hollow.
________________
WIRTH: Warren had the opportunity to set the record straight in the booklet you wrote about him. He did not but let you set the record straight for him.
RA: He gave me a personal interview!!!! LoL.
________________
WIRTH: You are a spokes person for Rick Warren paid or unpaid.
RA: Everyone, please notice. As I commented above: “we will just have to agree to disagree.” They say this about facts. Yellow is no longer yellow — it’s whatever color they say it is. Left is no longer left — it becomes right, or straightforward, or backwards. Up turns into down. This is not dealing within the confines of reality, but is an alternate reality they are creating where they are arbitrarily deciding who the bad guys are and who the good guys are — but not based on truth.”
Sorry, Tim. I know that’s what you wish were true. But the fact is that you’ve just re-defined what “spokesperson” is! Using your reasoning, a “spokesperson” is someone who writes something in support of someone else, or writes something critical of others who criticize another person. That, my friend, is not a spokesperson. It is an individual expressing his personal opinions. For example, a republican voter who writes various articles defending Bush’s war on Iraq and also quotes Bush’s statemements on the economy, then refutes critics of Bush’s economic package is NOT a spokesperson for Bush. LoL.
________________
WIRTH: As far as the self proclaimed comment. I have never seen any legit apoligist go through the lengths you go through to defend yourself. Even people who have defended Warren like Lee Strobel I just dont see them spending hundreds of man hours like you do defending what you say and what Rick Warren says.
RA: Ahhhhhh, I see. So your opinion is based on absolutely nothing substantial. Just as I thought. How many hours should a person spend blogging, or playing video games, or talking about a certain issue if they are indeed a legitimate apologist? 1, 2, 10, 15, 25 a week, a month? And exactly how are you arriving at that time calculation anyway?
_________________
WIRTH: Its great that anyone would expose someone outside the camp like Oprah or Tolle. But what about whats going on inside the camp like Ken Blanchard who continues to endorse new age books (Jim Ballards) and is still a member of new age organization like Hoffman. You put out a warning about Ken Blanchard on your own website but left the pro Ken Blanchard stuff still up. That’s not what I call a discerning Christian.
RA: Okay, fine. If you disagree with my ministry calling amd how I see things, that is one thing. But you then go beyond that and start making all kinds of really serious charges against me. And if I do not do as I am told to do, then you throw all my work, my integrity, my commitment to Christ out the window. Your best accusation is the comparison between me and Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda. Yeah, Tim, you love me.
____________________
WIRTH: Yes Elkhart Tolle is a hot topic now and may sell a few books for you. . . . I guess the truth is only important to you if it sells Richard?
RA: And here we have the not-so-subtle implication that I am in it for the money. Predictable, really. But it is still so unbelievable to me. You’re hopeless.
_____________________
WIRTH: And for the record even though I know Richard would never admit to this I do love Richard in the Lord. I love him enough to point out the error he is involved in as well as Richard being deceived and in turn deceiving.
RA: Save it.
hey Tim Wirth,
You telling Richard you love him after the things you have said about him is like pissing on his leg and then telling him it is raining.
Richard – you are a friend of Rick Warrens and you do defend him, there is nothing wrong with that. Without carefully considering other perspectives we become myopic in our understandings of people. I like Rick Warren, always have. I have disagreements with him, some serious. I do not fault you for defending a friend, especially when some things are not true.
The Mormonism thing is just silly. If I posted an article about you that said you were considering Mormons as true bel;ievers because of something that you said could have been interpreted that way, and then you commented to me that you never meant that, I would post a restraction and apology. So should everyone else if that is the history of events.
I strongly disagree and reject the subtle remarks about motive and integrity (in it for the money, Joseph Goebells, etc.). We all should meticulously avoid such verbiage. We as Christians with God Himself dwelling inside our spirits should be able to disagree with conviction and even some emotion without going into the Hitler or Koresh file. From what I can glean you and Tim love Christ. My mother used to tell us boys that if we could not play without getting into a fistfight we were forbidden to play.
As you can see Tim W. is passionate in what he believes and so are you. Both of you have a strong style of issue presentation which can sometimes push the other guys buttons. Overstatement and hyperbole most of the time is not lying. Without a general respect for a person’s spiritual life there can be no Christ honoring exchange.
If I werer ever granted the opportunity to speak face to face with Brian MacLaren (for example) I would ask the Lord to help me flow in grace and respect even when asking him substantive questions. A fool uttereth his whole heart. Many times it is God’s will to let some things slide, not always defend ourselves, and accept with grace the smallest of gracious words toward you even when you may not be completely convinced of his motives.
If motives must be 100% before the Lord, then none of us should speak. I believe you are a faithful follower of Christ and a good friend for someone like Rick Warren to have. Peace.
Rick, Rich and Tim W…
I think Tim has pointed out that I am not the raving lunatic that some seem to claim I am at time. Though I admit at times my own passion gets the better of me.
I agree with Rick F that if I stated something false I put up a a correction. In fact I rarely delete the post but add the update to it. I ahve done this with Jim Bublitz who came here to correct a statement that was made about him using Wikipedia inappropriately, as it was not his website at the time that linked. I have also done this with my self proclaimed “Nemesis” (his words not mine) Ken Silva where I may have misquoted him or he has shown me I was not right.
Though this does not happen very often = ) I try to be fair.
Yet, I do not see this accept in one occasion between Chris L and Ingrid of Slice. Mostly I see ODM ramp it up and get more defensive and nasty and add more lies upon lies.
I would be easy to just not accept apologies. I can understand if Rich A. cannot accept or see an apology as real or sincere. Yet, in the spirit of reconciliation, which is our very ministry in Christ i appeal to all that if a apology is given i be accepted as sincere regardless if it is or not and forgiveness be the natural response.
I appreciate Tim W though I do nto agree with him on some things… he still owes me that CD he promised = )
Tim and I have mutual christian friends that go way back. I think that even the slightest connection should be some sign to the character of who we are. If he is a friend of my friend then he MUST be likable! = ) The mutual friend was one that helped lead me out of the occult and my wife and her sister to Christ.
Yet, even more if we have been accepted in the Beloved. Then we are nto just friends but brothers. We are family. Family may not always get along, but they should always love one another. If you hurt someone own it… fix it. If Jesus can accept Tim W, Rick F, Rich A, Chris L, and lastly me, then I think I owe it to Him as my friend to accept even those that have hurt me.
This has been my cry… my prayer… my goal… as God has laid it on my heart. i am not always successful in expressing it as i want. In that I ask for forgiveness.
Be blessed,
iggy
RICK: Richard – you are a friend of Rick Warrens and you do defend him, there is nothing wrong with that. Without carefully considering other perspectives we become myopic in our understandings of people. I like Rick Warren, always have. I have disagreements with him, some serious. I do not fault you for defending a friend, especially when some things are not true.
RA: If you only knew me better, you would understand that my “friendship” with Warren is the least of the reasons for my book on him, my online articles, and my blogging.
In fact, I would say it is not an issue AT ALL. The one and only reason I have spoken about Warren is because of the connected issues surrounding the attacks on him: truth vs. lies, the Bible’s condemnation of slander, legitimate discernment, divisive persons, heresy hunting, lack of love, apologetics in general. These are the issues to me. As I’ve stated, Warren is just a catalyst for such topics.
The correction I bring is not to defend Warren — he is a side issue. Through my correction, I am seeking to demonstrate how the noble calling of apologetics has been perverted into something that is unbiblical.
______________
TY. And you should know, if Rick EVER, and I mean ever did actually cross a doctrinal line and begin denying Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation (Jn. 14:6), the triune God, the deity of Christ, salvation through Christ alone — I’d be the first to say something.
RICK: I believe you are a faithful follower of Christ and a good friend for someone like Rick Warren to have. Peace.
RA:
I hold allegiance to one individual — my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Iggy – you definitely are not a lunatic. Raving sometimes, but not a lunatic!
I see a goal, a land of Christ’s grace and forgiveness that is powerful enough to be exhibited in the midst of great conflicts and disagreements. I see it, I know it exists and I have heard my Savior’s words when He Himself was attacked and even nailed to a cross. “Forgive them”, He said.
Now the Scriptures say I am supposed to consider Him. Consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself. And He was holy, completely innocent, and without any need to defend Himself much less defend those who fully engaged with the sin for which He now pays.
I see that, I know that, and I am convinced that is God’s will for all of us even when reproof, rebuke, and correction which God does in love. I can see that land, and I have many times taken steps toward that land only to stumble. Sometimes I stumble and know it, sometimes I stumble and mislabel it.
I have found it infinitely easier to strongly object and stand against the teachings of someone like Brian MacLaren. I can even experience getting worked up against MacLaren and include an emotional ingredient in my doctrinal confrontations. I find it very difficult to summon and experience God’s love for him on the same scale.
So difficult, in fact, that I can often dilute the definition of love so as to soothe my self righteous conscience. Oh yea, defending the doctrine of God’s love is always easier than exhibiting it. And if telling someone their errors is the depth of God’s love than His love isn’t very deep. The heathen will warn each other of danger, but only Christ will take the danger upon Himself for an enemy.
Many times the discourse among brethren only reveals we love…ourselves.
From all sides I’ve not a lot of choice but to resign to the fact that I am an apostate heretic.
Chris L said – “While I question the usefulness of this beyond a certain point, I find it laughable that it would be classified as ‘astral projection’, which is significantly different in form and function…”
Chris, it is probably useless to argue the issue with you beyond this point. What you find laughable, I find somewhat terrifying in its potential danger for spiritual disception. Whether the “projection” is physical (as in the new age construct) or “imaginary” (as in Foster’s construct) the point is moot. The simple fact is that it is an exercise in having the consciousness leave the physical body, do things outside that body and then return to that body. Call it what you will but “Chrisianized” astral projection is a pretty fair definition to me, but you’re missing the even bigger picture here. Foster is advocating ** real time, actual ** encounters with Jesus. Prior to his astral projection teaching Foster posits:
“As you enter the story [one from the Bible such as the crucifixion which the meditator selects to reflect on], not as a passive observer but as an active participant, remember that since Jesus lives in the Eternal Now and is not bound by time, this event in the past is a living present-tense experience for Him. Hence, you can ACTUALLY encounter the living Christ in the event, be addressed by His voice and be touched by His healing power. It can be more than an exercise of the imagination; it can be a genuine confrontation. Jesus Christ will actually come to you.” – Pp 26 (emphasis by Foster).
Please, come, let us reason together. Do you believe what Foster is promoting is possible? Have you practiced his techniques? Have you had an ** actual encounter ** with the living Christ in the form and meaning as promulgated by Foster where Jesus talked to you in real time? Or do you know others who have? Then why haven’t you or they shouted it from the roof tops? Why aren’t you or they hounding every family member, every friend, going door to door explaining to people it’s possible to have actual real time encounters with Jesus? Don’t you think this would have a life altering affect on a person? Could anything ever be the same again? Could anyone go with business as usual?
Again, please, just think this thing through. If you had a personal, actual encounter with the living Christ how could you bear to leave His actual presence and return to this mortal plane? Why would you not forsake all, work, food, family, to remain in or return to that beatific state? Are you telling me someone can have a conversation with Jesus and then just return home and go about business as usual and then just drop in on Christ a couple of days later whenever they can find the time to fit another visit in? This whole concept is a sham from start to finish. It reduces Jesus Christ to the guy next door who you can just drop by to visit when you have the time to get around to it. It confounds the promised eternal hope of glory we will experience with Christ in our glorified bodies with the temporal existence (and limitations) we are in now.
The Biblical truth is that temporal man, even a regenerate temporal man, is not capable of experiencing the divine presence and live. Exodus 33: 19–20 – “And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion. But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”
1 Tim 6:16 – who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.”
That one now on this side of eternity can have an *actual * real time, in person encounter with the Father or Christ is simply a great deception. Rev 1:17 – “When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,”. Here we have John one of the most intimate of Jesus’ earthly friends, who rested his head upon Christ’s bosom, fainting at the sight of the ascended, glorified Christ. Contrast this with the “Jesus” of Foster’s *actual* visitations. No, though simultaneously our friend, elder brother and even spouse the resurrected, ascended Christ, enthroned at the right hand of the Father is TERRIBLE IN SPLENDOR and for anyone to insinuate that life goes on as normal after such an encounter with the glorified Christ is at best, greatly deceived. Please, those of you into this type of meditation. Please meditate on this and think this teaching through to it’s logical conclusion.
John,
I know your comment was directed at Chris, but I’m going to butt in. I’m kind of at a loss how to really respond to you.
First, it seems like your whole problem with Foster is built on the premise of a slippery slope argument. One that says doing this could lead to something horrible. I mean, those could be made for anything. Eating one Oreo could be the start of me becoming a 600 pound man. We each have our own limits, and it’s up to us to use our freedom to decide what they are, especially on things on which there isn’t a clear Biblical mandate.
As far as experiencing Christ, I find the whole argument a little odd. I would say that being a Christian in and of itself is based on having an experience with the living Christ. It’s interesting to me that even in John’s experience in Revelation, he is told to get up, and he doesn’t die. Christ still draws him near. He is not allowed to continue in his fearful state. It’s like God wants us to get past that, and come near to Him.
I’m not saying that we just forget about the holiness and grandeur of God. I’m just saying that I don’t think Foster is minimizing it in anyway. I would actually go as far to say that Christians should be having real encounters with Christ pretty regularly. Now whether that’s just experiencing His precence or having some sort of vision, I don’t know. I think in a way, it doesn’t matter.
Well that’s certainly what the spam filter thinks…
Seriously, it does not like you.
I never realized that every time I used imagination to picture my self somewhere else I was actually leaving my body… whi knew?
Neil
Personal swipes of all kinds, such as calling twisting some one’s name to mock them is inappropriate for this site. it is something we do not tolerate – if it was not addressed when it happened, it was an oversight.
Neil
It’s also built on reading a former version of the book, since the current version doesn’t support the argument. As well, it help to insert extra meanings… for example, when Foster writes “Imagine you leave this earth…” you must insert a literal existential meaning to this… NO imagination allowed.
I’m not sure how much more I could add to what Phil and Neil have said (having been on the road the past day, most of it waiting in airports).
Imagination is just that – imagination. When you start ascribing one thing (projection of an “actual” separate being of yourself, etc.) with something completely different (imagining something about yourself from a third person view) and then ascribing heresy to the false construct you’ve created, then you’ve left the realm of anything that even looks like Christian “discernment” and entered the realm of divisiveness (Titus 3:10). This is where LHT and other GBA attacks live.
And it is not Christian.
It is exactly the opposite – anti-Christian, anti-love, anti-discernment. ESPECIALLY in this particular case, since apparently Foster has removed the offending/misunderstood passage sometime in the past 30 years.
But Chris, I was told that Foster did not remove someting that was misunderstood – he “got caught teaching what he really believed” so he edited the book to cover his tracks.
Of course, that means now you have a book that only a select few know the REAL meaning of…
Neil
Nearly every blog is doing it to me! I think the rules must have been updated or something. Dunno.
Phil Miller said: “First, it seems like your whole problem with Foster is built on the premise of a slippery slope argument. One that says doing this could lead to something horrible. I mean, those could be made for anything. Eating one Oreo could be the start of me becoming a 600 pound man. We each have our own limits, and it’s up to us to use our freedom to decide what they are, especially on things on which there isn’t a clear Biblical mandate.”
My thoughts exactly Phil, there is NOT a clear, partly cloudy or even a hint of the meditation techniques that Foster promotes ANYWHERE is Scripture. You are swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. You have totally ignored the elephant in the room. This quote from the same chapter on meditation is still included in his later versions:
“As you enter the story [one from the Bible such as the crucifixion which the meditator selects to reflect on], not as a passive observer but as an active participant, remember that since Jesus lives in the Eternal Now and is not bound by time, this event in the past is a living present-tense experience for Him. Hence, you can ACTUALLY encounter the living Christ in the event, be addressed by His voice and be touched by His healing power. It can be more than an exercise of the imagination; it can be a genuine confrontation. Jesus Christ will actually come to you.” – Pp 26 (emphasis by Foster).
“More than the exercise of the imagination” . . . Foster’s word’s. “A genuine confrontation”. So whether or not Foster’s teachings start in the imagination he is teaching these encounters in the Spiritual realm can cross over into the actual and there is the danger, Phil and here the bible ** IS VERY ** specific on contacting beings in the spiritual realm.
And I go back to if it was possible to have “genuine confrontation” with Jesus which is “more than an exercise of the imagination” would you not sell all and forsake all to obtain this pearl of great price Phil? Would you not?
Phil. “I’m not saying that we just forget about the holiness and grandeur of God. I’m just saying that I don’t think Foster is minimizing it in anyway. I would actually go as far to say that Christians should be having real encounters with Christ pretty regularly. Now whether that’s just experiencing His precence or having some sort of vision, I don’t know. I think in a way, it doesn’t matter.”
Phil, Yes it DOES matter, greatly. Experiencing the presence of God is a very Biblical concept of which the Scriptures have a lot to say. Visions, on the other hand, are quite a different animal and “visions on demand” even more so. First, Biblical visions are NEVER instigated by man. They are instigated by God for His purposes. Foster is advocating a type of vision on demand. Let’s be “charitable” and say we are ONLY dealing with the imagination, well, OK, then we are guilty of idolatry. Jesus exists. He is a real person with a recognizable glorified spiritual body complete with the scars. To ** imagine ** Him is to create a fictition, totally separated from the Christ of reality. This is literally idolatry – fashioning a god out of man’s imagination. This imaginary being cannot possibly be real, so therefore Foster’s entire premice is flawed. But Foster goes even beyond a Christ of our imagination and states it is possible to have an actual encounter with the real Christ. No it is not possible, not in this sense.
Acts 3:19-21 – Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. HE MUST REMAIN IN HEAVEN until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
Christ remains in Heaven until return and which point ** every eye ** will see him. On this side of eternity we experience Christ as “Christ in us” via the person of the Holy Spirit. We do not encounter the physical Christ (especially on demand via some learned ritual). Scripture never has an example of Christ appearing physically ON EARTH post His ascension. “He must remain in Heaven unit the time comes . . .”. And any visions of Christ to men (e.g., Stephen, Paul, John) are at Christ’s instigation, not the imaginings of men.
Foster’s entire premise is flawed. It is illogical in that it assumes life can go on as normal after an actual encounter with the physical Christ and it is inherently dangerous in that it encourages Christians to converse and take instruction from spiritual beings they, themselves conjure up.
Neil said “I never realized that every time I used imagination to picture my self somewhere else I was actually leaving my body… whi knew?”
Neil an honest reading of that passage would reveal that Foster is advocating more than that.
Neil said “It’s also built on reading a former version of the book, since the current version doesn’t support the argument. As well, it help to insert extra meanings… for example, when Foster writes “Imagine you leave this earth…” you must insert a literal existential meaning to this… NO imagination allowed.”
Neal, please. Foster goes on to posit that you have a conversation with and take instruction from this “being”. It is Foster who is migrating from the imaginary to the literal.
Chris L said “Imagination is just that – imagination. When you start ascribing one thing (projection of an “actual” separate being of yourself, etc.) with something completely different (imagining something about yourself from a third person view) and then ascribing heresy to the false construct you’ve created, then you’ve left the realm of anything that even looks like Christian “discernment” and entered the realm of divisiveness (Titus 3:10). This is where LHT and other GBA attacks live.”
Sound nice and all Chris but it is Foster who takes it beyond the imagination into actual interaction with this “Christ of the imagination”.
John,
I’m not saying I’ve ever experienced anything like Foster is describing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. I’ve heard all kinds of stories of people experiencing Christ in dreams, having conversations with Him.
To me it seems much more dangerous to start limiting what God can do. I guess I am failing to see what the actual problem of Foster’s teaching is.
“since apparently Foster has removed the offending/misunderstood passage sometime in the past 30 years.”
OK. But, most “up front” arthors would have a least a foot note explaining why such a large section of a previous version was deleted if a mistake was made or if they had just changed their theology over the years. It takes away so much amuntion from us “uncharitable” conspiracy theory types. But ** wait ** a minute. I NEVER ascribed ANY motive to the deletion. Never even brought it up.
John Hughes,
Like this verse?
And strong “prohibitions? like this one?
What I am getting at is that your statement is not scriptural.
Now also consider:
Is it not real to you? Do you not “cross over into the actual” at some point? Do you not believe, “the reality, however, is found in Christ (Col 2:17) (Don’t try to tell me that is out of context as then you deny that Christ is our reality)
In fact it is saying that the “Sabbaths and festivals and food are shadows of Christ’s Body.” If you look at the literal language.
Do we not believe that the “Spiritual realm can cross over into the actual”? If not then the Kingdom has not come as Christ stated it has.
Again, I see this tossing the baby and bathwater issue that seems to run rampant and ignores some foundational teachings of Scripture many times… out of fear.
Now, if it was in an older version of his book and now has been removed, why continue the beef? It seems that instead of forgiveness there is always this need to hold a brother at arms length in suspicion instead of accepting them in Christ. Many times I am seeing that some deem themselves the very chastisers of God instead of letting the Holy Spirit to His work. At least I see that if it is of God there is always reconciliation and forgivness, I have not seen this from LHT, CRN, SoL and on and on… When we do maybe some of what you say will carry more clout…
iggy
John,
This is exactly what i am speaking of in my last comment.
iggy
Continuing to bring it up when it has been deleted, in itself, is ascribing motive to the deletion – as it implies that the author still believes and supports that which was removed.
As for the rest of your ramblings, you’ve put WAY too much into trying to equate ‘visions’ with ‘imagination’, and carrying a metaphor/example past the point of its usefulness.
There is NOT a clear, partly cloudy or even a hint of how you should brush your teeth or apply deodorant (which I’m assuming you do) ANYWHERE in Scripture. I think you might have been looking in the mirror, though, when speaking of gnats and camels, as it is you who are trying to apply a Regulative Principal to daily life, where none exists.
Actually, no he does not – he sticks to the imagination metaphor. Even though he uses second person writing style, this has been set up with the third person imperative: In your imagination, picture yourself
This is a common literary device (switching from third-person imperative to second person). It does not imply a real, physical separate being.
This whole silly line of reasoning reminds me of the old adage:
If you’re looking to be offended, you will always find what you seek…
Phil said:
“I’m not saying I’ve ever experienced anything like Foster is describing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. I’ve heard all kinds of stories of people experiencing Christ in dreams, having conversations with Him.”
To me it seems much more dangerous to start limiting what God can do. I guess I am failing to see what the actual problem of Foster’s teaching is.”
Phil, you seem very sincere and I hope you can see I am too. Here is the rub: equating an ** experience ** with God’s written revelation in ** Scripture ** is where we can very easily go astay. This pocess has been what has lead the hyper-Charismatic movement into such error. Just because a person has a dream or vision although real does not necessarily mean it is true. It must be judged by Scripture. When we look at the several encounters between people and the ascended Christ we see striking similarities which are: they are either enraptured or terrifed at the sight of His glorious presence (even His most intimate of earthly friends). Contrast this to the often flippant “encounters” you read about today. I don’t see it as putting a limit on God to insist these things must be evaluated by Scripture. Visions may be real,. I am not going to question whether or not someone had a vision. But the real question is are they ** true**?
Really?
AND
etc.
None of these accounts ascribe “enrapturement” or some sort of hyper-spiritual/emotional ecstasy you’ve created as your own extra-Biblical test.
And besides – why are we arguing this, since Foster removed it from his book? Are just trying to prove that enough Christians are so literal and hyper-critical as to twist anything to be ominously dangerous to all other Christians? If so, I think that’s been well-settled…
Iggy,
I never said angels (both good and bad) don’t interface with humans on the physical plane. They obviously do and that is very Scriptural. The subject is contacting beings in the spiritual realm via the imagination. That biblical reference does not bear on this discussion at all.
The spirits in question in your second Bible reference refer to humans who have encounters with various spirits with John’s adomition to test these encounters. Note key word “spirits” and not physical encounters. I have not disagreed with this premise.
Chris L,
I said ** post-Ascended ** encounters, not ** post-ressurrection **. An important and deliberate distinction as Christ had not yet been exalted until His ascention and enthronement at the right hand of the Father during the 40 days of his appearances on earth after his ressurection. So please go back and re-evalute my comments in light of this purposeful distinction.
Iggy,
“To approach the Throne of Grace” is a metaphor in one sense of the word*, as no where in Scripture am I instructed to visualize actually approaching God’s throne to effect this encounter and since there are no pictures or live video feed from heaven of it, any thing I could imagine would just be that – a figment of my imagination — and could not possibly approach the awesome majesty of the actual bema seat of God. And that is the point. In your hate of all things ODM you all are glorifying the concept of fleshly imaginings. I just don’t get it.
*This is not to say it **is** literal in the sense that in our prayers to our great intercessor Jesus Christ that we have not actually approaced the throne of grace because I truly believe we do.
Chris L – “I think you might have been looking in the mirror, though, when speaking of gnats and camels,”
That was ** very ** clever. LOL. Touche!
Chris,
P.S. Yes I do wear deodorant and brush my teeth. But I do have an implant. Do I lose points for that?
Chris Said: “. . . . it is you who are trying to apply a Regulative Principal to daily life, where none exists.”
Excuse me Chris, but techniques in mediatation and contacting God can hardly be construed as apart of the routines of “daily life” and I think we had all be well served to study very closesly the “do’s and don’ts” of contacting the spiritual realm. (and to think I haven’t even touched on Foster’s underlying elitism and gnosis.)
Uh, excuse me guys, but no one has addressed the issue of an “imagined Christ” being an idol of our own making by definition. Anyone?
Chris L
I really did mean the “very clever” remark in a fun kind of among dueling friends banter-type way. It’s hard to determine tone on the internet. I truely did think that very clever in a fun sort of way. Best Regards.
John,
I think we all have an image of Jesus in our mind. It’s probably a mix of cultural conditioning, our unique background, and artists renderings. I don’t think it can be avoided, really. Nor do I think it should be.
Obviously, Jesus came to earth as a fully human being. He could be seen, and people even worshiped Him in that form.. That wasn’t idol worship. What you are advocating seems almost like a form of Docetism, where Jesus’ body wasn’t truly real.
Guys, also note I have no where attacked Foster on a personal level nor have insinuated ulterior motives to him. I see him as sincerely deceived. I am strickly dealing with problems I see with his theology and as he did not retract his “astral projection” but simply removed it, it’s still fair game. AND the more problematic sections to me, regarding the evolution from “imagined” to “actual” encounters are STILL in his current writings.
Phil,
Thanks for at least address that issue. Yes, we all have a mental image of what Jesus looks like but in the final analysis when one objectively and purposively analyses the situation that image must be declared as false. What I am saying is “Jesus is not who you imagine him to be”. He is real and exists outside of your imagination. And it *that* is true then any imagining of Him is, by definition, idolatry and a bad thing in the ultimate analysis.
What you say is true, except Christ could only be worshiped in the flesh during his incarnation and then again when one arrives in Heaven and ultimately upon his return to the earth. For those alive after His ascension up until their death or His earthly return, He can only be worshiped in Spirit. True or false? False, according to Foster. Foster is advocating an encounter in the imagination with a Jesus the participants constructs which can evolve into an actual encounter where one converses with and receives instructions from this being.
John,
Again, you are tossing out the bath water.
Consider in the original language Isaiah 26:3
The word “mind” is translated:frame, thing framed, imagination, mind, work. Strongs reference #3336
Now it is the idea of “conception”… it is what is conceived in the mind or imagination.
This contradicts most of what you stated.
It is also the same word used in Ps 103:14… it is also used in the negative way in Gen 8:21 for mans thoughts conceiving evil.
I mean, if you are right, then how do we fulfill
How do you look at things unseen without it being in our imagination?
Again, then how do you define things like “the eyes of your heart”?
When God told Abraham to look at all the stars, (Genesis 15:5) wasn’t God telling Abraham to use his imagination and see the reality that would come fulfilled in us today through Christ Jesus?
I guess what I see is still too over generalized and over simplified and that if I go with what you are saying I must deny a few if nto many “truths” of the bible.
iggy
The point where dreams and visions become unsciptural is when they are used as “techniques” to get closer to God. They happen at the sovereign will of God and not at the practiced direction of believers.
They are not common and Foster and others seem to indicate any believer can experience these “out of body” experiences if he knows the meditational secrets. That is what Buddhism and other religions teach and practice including body positions, chanting, imagery, and mental emptying.
The point is that LHT will find one thing that may be questionable then attack that person and anyone remotely associated with them and cast them all as false teachers to be avoided. That is not a good thing. It is divisive and disregards biblical teachings to edify the Body of Christ. It does more harm than good.
It is like saying Rick Frueh used to be friends with Ken and Ingrid so we should not listen to anything he has to say.
I mean Mark Driscoll once talked to Ravi Zachariah who now has denied Jesus by not ending a praying “In Jesus Name” so Mark is not saved as well as Ravi… and boy oh boy now the hits are up on my blog and the numbers are up on my radio show… Now I can rest easy as my contributors will send more money. Thanks LHT for making all imaginations “vain” imaginations! Now the Holy Spirit can take a rest!
In Jesus Name as long as i am not imagining anything,
iggy
I am still friends with Ken.
Rick,
Sorry, I can’t hear you…
TEEHEE!
iggy
Chris L said: “None of these accounts ascribe “enrapturement” or some sort of hyper-spiritual/emotional ecstasy you’ve created as your own extra-Biblical test.”
I really don’t understand how refering to the Bible’s accounts of post-ascension appearances of the Lord (vs. Foster’s accounts) is tandamount to creating “my own extra-Biblical test”. Are you saying I’m to follow Foster’s lead and not St. Paul and John’s?
No – you’re creating an extra-Biblical test for what is an “actual” encounter with Christ, based primarily upon Apocalyptic literature and the road to Damascus.
What you are doing, basically, is trying to recreate the Regulative Principal, based upon your own Preferences and Convictions, rather than upon Absolutes (see this article for more context behind these terms).
There is no “Biblical” test for what ‘meditation’ must look like, and what an experience with Christ ‘must’ look like. In fact, since we know that Jesus is timeless and existed with God before time existed, to try and treat the experience ‘post-ascention’ Christ as empirically different than the pre-ascention Christ is without foundation. In short, you’ve created your own test of ‘authenticity’ which is no better than other extra-Biblical ‘proofs’…
“As for the rest of your ramblings”.
Gee, I thought I have been fairly focused.
Chris L said: ” In fact, since we know that Jesus is timeless and existed with God before time existed, to try and treat the experience ‘post-ascention’ Christ as empirically different than the pre-ascention Christ is without foundation.”
Well, Chris I could not disagree more. Christ is timeless, but we are not. We operate within time. Our interaction with Christ does change and the two are emperically different. Before the incarnation we could not see Jesus or touch him. During his incrarnation we could. After his ascension we cannot again and will not be able to until after our death and translation to heaven the Lord or upon his physical return to earth or did Peter ere when he said ” and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,” 1Pe 1:8. If Peter had only had Foster they could have seen Jesus then and there, right?
Poor Paul I bet he also regrets not having Foster’s teachings. He could have experienced much more of Jesus while he was alive instead of teaching us that being “absent from the body” (i.e., in death, not in a self induced eastern meditational trance) was being “present with the Lord”.
Paul who himself was transported to the 3rd heaven and personally taught by Jesus said: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” (1 Cor 13:12). Foster and his ilk, not content with the future promise of the full revelation of Christ when our bodies are glorifed and transformed and we are made physically capable of apprehending the divine presence in a fuller way, want to short cut God’s divine order.
Rom 8:23-25 – And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, WAITING eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. ”
However, as we have seen, some are not so eager to wait for the relevation of Christ and teach we can have it now, on this side of eternity. But again, I choose to listen to Paul and not to the likes of Foster who lead unsuspecting believers astray teach things out of their own imagination. “Look, here is the Christ! Over there is the Christ! He’s there waiting, just inside your head!”
Let’s all go get in our straight back chairs, put our palms up and put our palms down, release all our negative energy, concentrate on a flower ouside our window, center-down and enter our trance state* and have dinner with Jesus tonight just like the Apostles taught.
*Various Meditation techniques taught by Foster.
john,
I have enjoyed the conversation here. I think that the point we differ is that I am not willing to agree that tossing out everything is better than letting someone be possible wrong.
It seems that if we cross that line then we only judge ourselves. In fact we begin to get into God only territory as we then set our own “belief” over others as being more rightly true than they are.
What I see time and time again is judging and condemning of others when we really ahve no place to do that from. The only true judge will be Jesus words and how we stand for or against them in our words and deeds. In that we all fall short and need His mercy and grace.
iggy
You do understand that in the first century cosmology, “the third heaven” simply represented the world of the invisible (”spirit”), beyond the physical world, and not some sort of ‘rapture’?
Foster’s teachings don’t alter Paul or John’s experience one iota, nor do they inform them. You’re making a sad straw man out of Foster, and simply besmirching a brother because of your personal convictions which are (at best) only tangentially related to scripture.
Hmmm… a spiritual encounter with Jesus is a dangerous thing?
Who knew?
Neil
Interesting response… so if I don’t read it your way I’m dishonest?
That cuts both ways… I could as easily say an honest reading reveals that Foster is advocating what he actual advocates – anything more is a dishonest addition by the reader.
Neil
John,
After all is said and said… I believe you are reading into Foster things which are just not there. I believe this is based on a sincere concern for a pure theology and praxis (I hope this does not sound condescending – I do not mean to be).
I further believe you are overly influenced by our Western and still very Modern world view. And this causes you to find dangers that are not there… or, if there are “dangers” to assign inappropriate motivations and theology to them.
While I do not share Foster’s bent for the contemplative methodology; I have yet to see anything from him or his detractors that is not consistent with the biblical/historical faith.
All that aside… what LHT does with words – the point of my original post – is just plain sloppy, uncharitable, and focuses solely on external appearances.
They are a poor example of what it means to apply the Bible life.
Neil
Iggy said: ‘What I see time and time again is judging and condemning of others when we really ahve no place to do that from. The only true judge will be Jesus words and how we stand for or against them in our words and deeds. In that we all fall short and need His mercy and grace.”
Iggy, did you just not quote me “test the spirits?” LOL — that’s exactly what I am doing with Foster’s writings. And how do we do that, by comparing them to God’s word. I will accept disagreement with my conclusions based on my understanding of Scripture but we are told in many places to judge what people say. You are, in fact, judging me — and that is a GOOD thing. I would hope you would take my thoughts and what I write back to Scripture to test them. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change and if my reasonings are not of God and Biblically I hope you would reject them. On the other hand I have no where condemned Foster nor said he is not a Christian. From everything I have seen of him is a kind, gentle soul. I just think he is a DECEIVED soul and is spreading that deception.
Chris L – “You’re making a sad straw man out of Foster, and simply besmirching a brother because of your personal convictions which are (at best) only tangentially related to scripture.”
Chris, I am not making anything out of FOSTER the man (other than I believe him to be a deceived individual). I am only addressing his theology.
Chris said: “You do understand that in the first century cosmology, “the third heaven” simply represented the world of the invisible (”spirit”), beyond the physical world, and not some sort of ‘rapture’?”
Chris please: 2 Cor 12:2-4 – ” I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows– was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.”
Paul could not be any plainer “caught up into Paradise” not a generic spiritual state of consciousness. Hey, here is a true out-of-body experience but sorry I’m not allowed to limit (read regulate) this as the norm (although all the other references to such occurrances follow a similar path, but I digress, errr ramble).
I’d say the discussion is methodology – not theology.
Neil
The whole discussion on Pauline experience is interesting – but ultimately moot to Foster since the latter is not adovocating such.
Neil
John,
I agree we are supposed to test the spirits, but I guess I see that you not even allowing that God can speak through such ways. If someone has say he has a vision or encounter with Christ, shouldn’t we at least judge the fruit of that encounter? To categorically say that it’s false, just seems a bit presumptuous to me.
I grew up in a Pentecostal church, and I still am involved in Pentecostal circles. I’ve undoubtedly seen and heard things that are nuts, and whether they were from the person’s own imagination or demonicly inspired, I don’t know. I do know that there are real things as well.
The false doesn’t negate the real. In a way, the fact that there are counterfeits authenticates the real. Just like counterfeit money wouldn’t exist if real money didn’t, false spiritual phenomena wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the real.
Neal,
Thanks for the kind words even though we disagree. I believe Foster’s teachings are dangerous because he advocates that the Jesus conjured up in the individual’s imagination can become the Jesus of the actual and communicate and instruct the one meditating. In addition to this being rank idolatry (i.e., creating your own god) in my understanding of the word, this potentially opens up the individual to the influence of demons masquerading as a being of light if they have bought into this concept and regularly practice these eastern-ish meditation techniques.
I was first introduced to Mr. Foster in Dave Hunt’s “The Seduction of Christianity” many years ago. As I enjoy research I purchased a couple of Mr. Foster’s books to read him in context for myself (believe it or not). I was severely amazed (in a negative way) at what I read as I have also studied the New Age movement and found the similarities too close to ignore.
Does Mr. Foster have some constructive, Biblical things to say regarding the other spiritual disciplines such as fasting and solitude? Of course, but to me the inherent dangers of his theological base far outweigh any benefits to be derived from his more benign writings.
Peace.
meditation (be it ‘eastern-ish’ or not – which is a highly subjective judgment in the first place) is no more a means to allow in demons as ‘angels of light’ than sitting in the front row/pew of Grace Community Church and nary allowing a moment of silence to intrude your life.
This is the ’slippery slope’ argument, based on personal preferences and convictions – not scriptural absolutes. (Did you read this article?)
I can give you multiple references (based on contemporary sources to Paul) where the cosmology of “first heaven”, “second heaven”, “third heaven” and such come from. Probably the most commonly referenced is 2 Enoch (which is quoted by Peter at least once), along with supporting material in the book of Jubilees. In general, you have:
Granted, these aren’t considered Scripture (as they were part of Jewish apocryphal writings), but when Paul uses the phrase “third heaven”, as a hasidim trained by Gamaliel, it is highly doubtful that he has made up something out of whole cloth.
Here is a good discussion on the subject from the Christian Research Institute.
JOhn,
Dave Hunt is an apostate by the judgement of most ODM’s… he is Arminian.
So how can we trust one apostate judging another as being truth.
This is the issue as things cross over… Ken Silva will use LHT as well as other for his own point, but then LHT will promote Dave Hunt which is not liked by Team Pyro…
Again, in all this … as one that is told I deny truth, (which I do not) Truth to these guys is relative to their preferred theology. There is no unity in it and it really causes confusion to me.
If all of the ODM’s hold different views of “Truth” and it is absolute… then someone is wrong. but none of them can see this.
“No one is right not one” that is what Paul quotes from Isaiah isn’t it?
So, tell me how I am to trust you or Ken or Ingrid or Team Pyro or whoever else that I should/ should not trust Dave Hunt… but trust LHT… and so on if none of you agree on your own versions of Truth or what Truth is. (Or rather Who Truth is from my perspective.)
iggy
John,
I had not thought of your point, that “the Jesus conjured up in the individual’s imagination can become the Jesus of the actual and communicate and instruct the one meditating” (though I think “the Jesus conjured up” is a bit loaded).
I’m thinking with the keyboard here… So, basically, I cannot use my imagination to envision myself talking to Jesus, lest anything said by this Jesus actually be a demon speaking to me. A demon that has now invaded my imagination and taken on a role in it… but that would mean the demon can read my mind, since that is where my imagination lies.
I don’t think demons can read my mind.
Neil
I still think that there is a vast difference between vain imagination and the reality that is Christ. And that there is a blurring of the two at LHT.
iggy
Iggy said: “So, tell me how I am to trust you or Ken or Ingrid or Team Pyro or whoever else that I should/ should not trust Dave Hunt… but trust LHT… and so on if none of you agree on your own versions of Truth or what Truth is. (Or rather Who Truth is from my perspective.)”
Iggy you are not necessarily to **completely** trust anyone. Even your most respected Spiritual leaders can mess up from time to time. I never say “believe ME.” Everything anyone says should be taken back to Scripture. And to your point – what is “Truth”? Good men of good intent disagree on many issues, and yet there are some absolute truths with which we all must believe and agree if we are to name ourselves as Christians.
OK – having thought about it some more I have come to this point:
1. Based on everything I have read from Foster I believe he intends all that he “advocates” to take place “within” a believer’s mind. That is, he is not expecting a person to actually leave their body, but use their imagination.
2. Therefore, any encounter with Christ, imagined or literal takes place within the person’s mind as well.
3. Since a demon cannot indwell a believer, nor read our mind’s, demonic forces neither know what we are imagining, nor can they force their way into such imagined encounters.
4. Since it takes place within the mind, the various Pauline experiences may or may not be relevant – depending on whether or not he actually left his body.
5. I suppose a believer could have a Pauline experience, even if it were “out-of-body” – but this is rare, not to be pursued, and not what Foster advocates.
6. If creating an encounter with Jesus in our mind creates an “idol” and is therefore idolatry – then so does any other representation of Jesus – e.g. The JESUS Film, drawings, or any human playing the part of Jesus in any representative form such as a movie or even church drama.
Neil
Peter rehearses his amazing experience at the Mount of Transfiguration in his second epistle. They saw the transfigured Christ and they heard the very voice of God. But, says Peter, “We have a more sure Word of prophecy..”. Peter makes the observation that God’s Word is superior to experience and in fact God’s ord is an experience.
Jesus Himself said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and that is in conjunction with Christ’s statement that more blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.
Experiences may and do come, however, we do not seek them much less formulate techniques to bring a subjective experience of the mind that has the distinct potential for error and a habitual reliance upon such experience. I have spoken to many people who have rehearsed some experience where they believe God spoke to them and it was clear that what this “god” has said was at variance with Scripture.
I am one who believes in the miraculous, and I pray for a revival in which God pours out His Spirit that signs and wonders are manifested and used to draw the unsaved. I believe that all the gifts of the Spirit are still for today, so I am no staunch dispensationalist. But we must be very careful how we allow techniques borrowed from other religions or mystic practices to be used as a conduit to reach Christ.
The only conduit to reach and draw closer to the Risen Christ is faith. Through the Scriptures and prayer we are afforded greater depths of grace through faith that bring us further and further into His glorious presence. These experiences are are a dramatic residual experience that can accompany a diligent journey of pursuit with many obstacles and frustrations. These are born of travail not technique.
Neil said: “So, basically, I cannot use my imagination to envision myself talking to Jesus, lest anything said by this Jesus actually be a demon speaking to me. A demon that has now invaded my imagination and taken on a role in it… but that would mean the demon can read my mind, since that is where my imagination lies.”
Neil. You basically have three choices here: (1) The Jesus you are “talking” to is a figment of your imagination, (2) it is a spiritual entity other than Jesus or (3) it is Jesus.
Under scenario (1) the Jesus of your imagination is by definition an idol, i.e., a god you have created. Not to restate the obvious, but Jesus exists. He is a real person outside of your imagination and anything you imagine him saying or doing is not reality by definition. Do you or I know the mind of God other than as reveiled in Scripture? In this scenario you are literally talking with yourself, putting your words in another person’s mouth – in this case Jesus’ What a horrendous thought. Of what value could this possibly be? Our hearts are desperately wicked. We as Christians (at least speaking for myself) have enough trouble keeping our thoughts pure and here we are going to put our own words into Jesus’ mouth and listen and take instruction from our own subconscious? How could this possibly edify?
Under scenario (2) another spiritual entity appears. You say a demon cannot read your mind, but I thought the whole teaching of Foster’s type of mediation was to enter an alternate spiritual state. In these instances you have voluntarily opened up your mind and are “broadcasting your consciousness” to be contacted by the spiritual realm. That is the difference I see.
Under scenario (3) which Foster says can happen, the imagined Jesus can become the actual Jesus. Let’s look at Foster’s words again (which are still in his current publications): “As you enter the story, not as a passive observer but as an ACTIVE participant, remember that since Jesus lives in the Eternal Now and is not bound by time, this event in the past is a living present-tense experience for Him. Hence, you can ACTUALLY encounter the living Christ in the event, be ADDRESSED by His voice and be touched by His healing power. It can be MORE than an exercise of the imagination; it can be a GENUINE CONFRONTATION. Jesus Christ will actually come to you.”. You must ask yourself — Do you really believe this is possible? Really? Truly?
So in my understanding, the first two options are to be avoided because you are either putting your own thoughts, wants, desires into Jesus’ mouth or you are listening to malovant spiritual beings. I do not believe the 3rd option is possible which takes me back to the “truth” must be Option 1 or 2 all of which leaves me with serious problems with Foster’s theology. It can only lead to deception – self deception or demonic deception — neither of which is a very attractive alternative to me.
Good thoughts Rick, and warnings and cautions are good.
I’m not sure I see anything in what you said that prohibits Foster’s technique.
Any prayer invokes a technique. The question is whether or not the technique violates Scripture.
Neil
I’m not sure Foster advocates an alternative spiritual state. “Alternative” to what?
Neil
Good question. My immediate answer – “I don’t know.” My follow-up thought – “Why not?”
When Fuller Seminary did a study on the factors that caused Muslims to come to Christ, the number one answer from the Muslim Background Believers was that Jesus came to them in a vision, dream, or some sort of experience.
Neil
I reject this as overly simplistic and reductionistic.
Neil
I guess, then, in rereading your conclusion that scenario 3 is impossible… said Muslim’s were deceived by something… even though it led them to Christ.
On what are you basing your rejection of the third option – that Jesus could actual come to someone in prayer?
On what are you basing your assumption that we would be putting thoughts into the mouth of God?
Neil
Neil said: “On what are you basing your assumption that we would be putting thoughts into the mouth of God?”
Well Neil, if you are ** imagining ** Jesus it could not possibly be the real person by definition and an imaginary conversation, although conceivably of some therapeutic value, is still just that – imaginary. And if this imaginary conversation is with Jesus then it is tantamount to putting words in the mouth of God. I can imagine a lively conversation with you, but as my image of you is not the real you and I cannot see into your mind and heart it would be a totally fictitious (and ultimately useless) discourse as you would not have had any part in it.
I’m sorry, but I cannot explain it any better than this.
Your explanation/illustration was sufficient.
Unlike imagining a conversation with a person, we do have access to the mind of God through Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the revealed word.
This is all very speculative, I understand. And, as I said, I’m not planning on employing this technique myself. That said, I also do not see anything unbiblical about it either… yet.
If the imagined Jesus encounter is producing a Jesus that tells me who to marry, or what college to go to, or some other such thing… I would concur that this should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
On the other hand, if the same imagined Jesus encounter is producing the words of Jesus found in Scripture, or conviction of sin (for example)… what’s the problem?
Yet, in the Fosterian model a true encounter with Jesus inside you imagination is possible – therefore it would be the real person, the real Christ.
Neil
Boy John, you dodged the question completely with adding the caveat you added.
Now, try it again. How am I to know which “Truth” is true by almost every ODM contradicting each other?
If their only unity is build around attacking others, it seems then that Christ is not their center… so I do not trust most of them.
Yet, I am told even by you to trust some even when I see they also toss the baby out with the bathwater and contradict most other ODM…
What I see is a group of people tossed to a fro by every wave of doctrine who have decided to be the judge and condemners ….. the accusers of their brothers and sisters in Christ. I see a great divisive spirit that is not of Christ at all.
In that I would just stay away from the lot of them which I do as I see that if they do not unite in CHrist, yet unite to divide the Body, there seems to be a spirit of anti Christ happening there.
I see you are being pulled in to the point of not being able to give a straight forward answer to a simple question of “which truth do I follow?” I already follow Jesus… but am a heretic by the ODM standard… what ever that is…
iggy
Iggy,
I never asked you to trust any individual. Where did I say that?
We each need to follow God’s truth as reveiled to us by the Holy Spirit. But being finite and sinful beings we do not always hear the Spirit of God or, even if we do, impose our own biases and deceive ourselves that we are hearing the Spirit of God. Hince, God gives us His Word and teachers. These teachers are also fallable, hince we should not put our complete trust in any man.
Which ODM should you listen to? You are right. They do conflict and I even agree the message has become “shrill” of late. But, God’s word stands alone, independent of the one who proclaims it. I still read Slice occasionally and think Ingrid gets it right sometimes. I read CRN.Info and that they get it right sometimes. I read Old Truth still sometimes, although they have been very rude to me on occasions also. I try to look at what is being said and not at the person saying it (unless I know for sure they are being purposively deceitful).
To not get confused I try to understand everything they say in the context of the person’s world view (e.g., Calvinist, Arminian, emergent, Catholic) and filter all they say through this world view to keep everything in perspective. That’s how I do it and stay involved in the “conversation”.
Neil said – “Unlike imagining a conversation with a person, we do have access to the mind of God through Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the revealed word.”
I could not agree more my friend. But Foster seems to see the need to add to and go beyond what you just affirmed.
Which is, of course, the basis of this conversation…
Neil
Chris L – “This is the ’slippery slope’ argument, based on personal preferences and convictions – not scriptural absolutes. (Did you read this article?)”
Chris. Yes I did, and that was a very good article. I would say my writings here on Foster definately fall in the “conviction” category and not the “personal”.
JOhn, even Satan gets it right sometimes… but that is called deception. Again, you still are not answering the question. If all these people are even right sometimes… are you still not seeing them right from your own perspective… Is that not relative to your own understanding and knowledge? That is what is called relativism… it is not based on any “absolute” truth that is profess by everyone of the ODM’s and even you here.
In fact I see that I am being asked to trust you in your own relativistic world view. Again I do follow Jesus. I filter all I know and understand through the bible and the Holy Spirit and in all humility understand I can still be wrong. I do not see this humility in anything ODM’s write even if they are right once in a while.
Yet, again the bible states no one is right, John. We are to be totally dependant on Christ Jesus. We are to understand we know nothing and in that love God and one another… we then fulfill the Higher law of Love… based on compassion.
So am I to trust you and your relativistic view point on what is right sometimes with the ODM’s? I mean if they are only right sometimes won’t someone who is trusting them as if they are right all the time be mislead and thus be deceived?
If they are right sometimes then they are wrong more times… at least as from what I see, experienced and have conversed with them over. Especially in that Truth needs our protection… Truth protects us John… Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ, not some abstract though floating detached from God and Jesus as many seem to think.
I see that many of those who these people attack understand what I am saying and in that regard show humilty in Christ and trust God’s Truth to protect and lead them… that is faith. Trusting in our own relative knowledge is man based… and that is what I see taught by Ingrid, Ken, and many others out there.
iggy
JH SAID – “It is Foster who is migrating from the imaginary to the literal.”
“CHRIS REPLIED -” Actually, no he does not – he sticks to the imagination metaphor. Even though he uses second person writing style, this has been set up with the third person imperative: In your imagination, picture yourself
This is a common literary device (switching from third-person imperative to second person). It does not imply a real, physical separate being.”
Chris, in all sincerity you need to re-read Foster’s chapter on meditation (latest published verson). He specifically states: “It can be MORE than an exercise of the imagination; it can be a GENUINE CONFRONTATION. Jesus Christ will actually come to you.” In your rush to defend Foster you are refusing to see what he plainly says — “it.can.be.more.than.an.exercise.of.the imagination.”
If words have meaning then Foster is plainly saying the exercise in imagination *can* transform into *more* and Jesus can *actually* come to you. If you cannot even admit that Foster says this then I can’t even agree to disagree with you because we would have no basis for a rational conversation as words don’t mean what they say.
And note I said “literal” and not “physical” because words do have meaning. You changed my words from “literal/actual” to “physical”. The discussion has always been in the spiritual realm not the physical. Again, I did not say that. Foster is advocating an evolution of an “imagined” Jesus to a “literal” Jesus (no one said “physical” except you) within the estatic state and that is what I take issue with.
Iggy,
The Bible also says “Thy Word is Truth”.
Are you saying this cannot happen? If so, on what are you basing this prohibition?
Now that we have entered this narrow of a discussion, we can dispel any danger of the person entertaining demons who appear as Jesus – unless of course you hold that a demon can read out thoughts and dwell in our minds.
Neil
According to Chris – the Regulative Principal and personal convictions.
john,
LOL!
Yes it does… yet you are quoting from John’s Gospel and if you look at the word “word” it is “Logos”…
Now, look at the first verse in the Gospel of John and realize who the Word is.
Look at the original language and notice it is not “graphe” which would be what John would use for “scripture”…
So you make my argument.
Jesus is stating in John 17:17 that He is Truth… for He is the “Word made flesh.”
Now let’s look at John 8: 32.
Again if you separate truth from Christ you are in a very dangerous area… they are inseparable. Truth is a Person.
iggy
Seriously,
This would be based on my convictions that (1) in this present age we experience Christ via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (via mystic union with Him, prayer and the reading of His Word) and not personal appearances by the Person of Christ. (2) The personal visits by Christ as recorded in Scripture are either with Christ in heaven or views of Christ in heaven, not with Christ coming to earth. (where the accusation of holding to the Regulative Principal would come in to play, I guess). (3) The appearances of the post-ascended Christ to individuals are miracles, not the norm and all were intitiated by Christ vs. initiated by the visitee. (4) The Apostles never taught this was possible – a huge oversight if it is IMO.
Iggy,
“Truth is a Person.” I don’t disagree.
Would you then say that the experiences of the MBB’s are the exception to the rule?
Neil
Iggy,
What you are saying is true, but the Bible also has a lot to say in that God’s written word is also the “TRUTH”.
Psalm 119:160
The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.
Colossians 1:5
because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel
James 1:18
In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
etc. Not to mention that 99.0% of what you know of the Logos of God, is from the graphe of God.
What is “MBB”?
Actually, no – the Regulative Principal comes into play when we prohibit things as if they are absolutes (rather than simply convictions) when no such prohibition exists in scripture, but rather base our prohibition on the absence of direct scriptural support.
The Normative Principal, though, which most people live by (though some only selectively) says that only those things which are prohibited in scripture are absolute prohibitions and that everything else is a conviction or preference that should be ‘regulated’ by the individual conscience or the local community instead of as a cross-cultural absolute.
Chris,
I have admitted my views on this issue are convictions which I have translated into absolutes. Further, I admit and fully realize there is no commandment “thou shalt not visualize Jesus” and yet contend this is not legitimate Biblical behavior and is prohibited. Is this not positing the Regualtive View vs the Normative? (BTW I am not a strict adherant of either). But I get the feeling if I say “black” your knee jerk reaction will be to say “no, white”. You even disagree when I agree with you!
Sorry – I thought I used the acronym before, but I wrote it out. MBB = Muslim background Believer.
When Fuller Seminary did a study on the factors that caused Muslims to come to Christ, the number one answer, the most common answer, from the MBB’s was that Jesus came to them in a vision, dream, or some sort of experience.
Neil
Chris L,
In the spirit of Monty Python this is your cue to say – “I do not.”
Neil
I do not.
My impression from your answers (prior to this one) has been that you don’t necessarily agree that you have taken a regulative approach.
However, since you admit that you are taking a personal conviction and raising it to the level of an absolute, then the logical comparison is to the sin of the Pharisees, who were quite roundly chastised for this behavior.
Conversely, I will agree that there are those who take such things (Spiritual Formation, etc.) to an extreme and worship the method and not the Maker (the equal and opposite sin to Phariseeism – Hedonism).
What I believe the most Christ-like response to such things is to observe the latter warning without falling into the former sin – allowing each brother to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide his/her conscience – even if their belief/behavior seems to insult our personal convictions. Unfortunately, LHT and their ilk are just modern-day pharisees, dining on camels from the safety of their gnat-less ivory towers…
Neil,
Not fair! I was going to bring in a Monty Python reference any time now. What we need is the “Holy Handgrenade”.
Neil,
The muslems and visions of Christ issue. The jury is out for me on this issue. However, the key word is Christ *came* to them – again a miracle of God’s grace, if true, and it is not normative. Notice, they did not initiate the encounter via techniques.
Chris,
“Dining on camels from the safety of gnat-less ivory towers…”
– sounds like the workings of a great title for a book or article to me. Rats! Why didn’t I think of that?!?
Best Regards, brother!
True enough, which narrows our discussion even farther… in the case of Foster (according to your quotes) he says Jesus “will” encounter. I’d take issue with that as a manipulative technique… I’d say “may.”
I have no problem accepting the fact that Jesus appears to a Muslim in a dream/vision in response to a prayer.
Neil
“allowing each brother to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide his/her conscience”
You have succinctly described the modern church only many times it is not the Holy Spirit but his/her own desires.
“I have no problem accepting the fact that Jesus appears to a Muslim in a dream/vision in response to a prayer.”
On one level, me either, but then such things always seem to morph into the expected normative. “Well, if he appeared to you why doesn’t he appear to me?” “What’s wrong with me, I just heard the gospel 2nd hand? etc. God can do what He wants, but per the Scriptures the Gospel is the means and is normatively spread through the sharing of it in person or written word, not by visions of Christ. I don’t totally disallow them but take them with a grain of salt.
Many times the appearance of Christ in a dream to unsaved Muslims is not as an answer to a directed prayer. If that was possible than we could pray that God would appear to all unsaved people. That phenomenon is completely sovereign.
I don’t think the so-called modern church is any more guilty of this than the… not-so-modern church.
Neil
“I don’t think the so-called modern church is any more guilty of this than the… not-so-modern church.”
I would tend to agree although to a greater degree today. However the answer is surely not more of the same.
Actually, I made a mistake, it was not the number one answer among MBB’s. But it was the answer for 27% of them. I’ll take their word for it.
Neil