By Apprising Ministries special correspondent Bob DeWaay

Church history tells us that the charge pietistic reformers level against the church is that the church practices “dead orthodoxy.” Some years ago I hosted a pastor’s meeting at which pastors could discuss theological ideas. Position papers were presented and then critiqued by the group. Some of the pastors came from the Charismatic movement (also pietistic). A common theme from the Charismatic pastors was their distain for doctrine. Because theirs was a reform movement, they were fighting “dead orthodoxy.”

I spoke after one of our meetings with a pastor who told me that when he was a Lutheran, reciting creeds and doctrines caused him to be spiritually dead. I responded, “So believing that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, who lived a sinless life, who died for sins and was raised on the third day and bodily ascended into heaven killed you spiritually?” He said, “I didn’t really believe those things.” He had assumed that the cause of his unbelief was not sin, but a church that recited creeds. I believe that it is much better to preach those doctrines from the pulpit and call for people to repent and turn to Christ than to make recitation part of a liturgy. But nevertheless the creeds were not the problem, unbelief was.

Christian orthodoxy simply means holding to the true beliefs revealed in Scripture. These beliefs are often systematized as topical teachings such as the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of justification, and so on. Genuine faith in the truth of the gospel is saving faith. No one having saving faith is “dead.” In Ephesians 2:1-8 Paul teaches that we were dead, but that God made us alive, and that He did so by grace through faith. It is also true that where genuine saving faith exists, it produces evidence in the lives of those who have it as Paul asserts in Ephesians 2:10. So when James says that faith without works is dead, he refers to something other than the type of faith that Paul says is a work of grace. It is the type of faith demons have (see James 2:17-19). In the gospel of John, John uses the term “believe” in two ways.[1] There are those, for example, who “believed” in John 8:30 but when confronted with their need to be set free began to debate Jesus and later accused him of sin (see John 8:31-47). Jesus told them they were definitely not from God. But in many other places in John those who believe are true believers who have eternal life.

My conclusion is that “dead orthodoxy” is orthodoxy that people might fight for because of parochial reasons (“this is our tradition and no one is going to change it”) but in which they put only mental assent faith. I gave mental assent to creeds when I was 12 years old because it was my duty to join the church at that age; but I was a dead sinner. But it most assuredly was not the truth contained in the creeds that killed me; it was my unbelief. Those “believers” in John 8 proved themselves to be unbelievers by refusing to become Jesus’ disciples, learn the truth, and be set free.

Pietism misdiagnoses the problem and creates a false solution. It sees a compromised church that is apparently caught in dead orthodoxy. The real problem is not dead orthodoxy but spiritually dead sinners who give mental assent to orthodox truth but show no signs of regeneration. If indeed such a church existed (if truth really is there God has His remnant there as well), that church would be characterized by worldliness and sin. This is the case because dead sinners do not bear spiritual fruit. There was a church in Revelation that Jesus called “dead.” Pietism that holds to the true gospel but goes beyond it imagining that the dead sinners who are church members are Christians. When some of them become regenerate through the efforts of the pietists, they assume they have now entered a higher class of Christianity. They posit two types of Christian: “carnal” Christians and “spiritual” Christians. But in reality there are only Christians and dead sinners.

Furthermore, pietism sees the lack of good fruit in the “dead orthodox” churches to be a sign that teaching doctrine is of no value and that what really matters is practice and not doctrine. So they gravitate to works righteousness. This is precisely the mode of the Emergen Church. It has been the approach of pietists throughout history. But works that do not result from a prior work of grace (which is the result of God’s work through the gospel to convert dead sinners) are in fact “dead works” no matter how pious they look. Mother Theresa did good works but denied the exclusive claims of the gospel. That “piety” is of no eternal value if those who were the recipients of the good works never hear or believe the gospel and thus end up in hell.

God’s revealed truth is never dead, but sometimes it falls on dead ears. In John 6 multitudes who were interested in following Jesus for bread left Him when He spoke the truth to them. The few who did not have dead ears were asked if they would leave too. Peter answered for the group: “Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God’” (John 6:68, 69). Genuine faith like that is not the domain of higher order pietists who learned the secrets of the deeper life, it is characteristic of every one of Christ’s true flock who ever exists. Pietists think that adding some man made process to what Christ has provided for all Christians throughout the centuries can cure a problem that never existed: being “dead” because of believing the truth. Instead of a cure, they create an illness as they lead people away from the finished work of Christ.

Pietistic Misuse of 1Corinthians

The favorite proof text for pietists of all sorts has been this passage: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ” (1Corinthians 3:1 KJV). I cite the KJV because that is where the term “carnal” as in “carnal Christian” came from. In my early pietist days, as I said, I was influenced by Watchman Nee. He made a strong point about a passage just before this verse: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man” (1Corinthians 2:14, 15). The word “natural” from the Greek is literally “soulish.” Nee used that as proof for his anatomical sanctification scheme. In that scheme, the spiritual man is one whose soul is inclined to the spirit (i.e. their spirit as joined to the Spirit) rather than to the external world through the body. My other early teacher, Kenneth Hagin, had a similar teaching but it was based on the idea of following one’s spirit rather than what he called “sense perception” (lying symptoms that you were sick when God said you were healed for example). The result of these teachings is a two tiered schema for the church: the carnal Christian and the spiritual Christian. In pietism there is always a process that leads to an experience that brings one into the more favorable category.

But was Paul teaching that some Christians are actually not spiritual but carnal or “soulish”? I used to think so until I read Gordon Fee’s excellent commentary on 1Corinthians. The “carnal Christian” teaching fails to take into consideration the larger context of Paul’s letter. The “natural man” who does receive the things of God on the ground that he thinks them “foolish” is not a carnal Christian, but a person who has rejected the gospel. This can be seen by Paul’s prior use of “foolish” in chapter 1: “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:23-25). The lost who are not “the called” are the ones who consider the message of the cross “foolish.”

Furthermore, 1Corinthians 2:14 teaches complete inability, not merely a lack that is only due to not having the right teaching. In the pietist scheme of things, the carnal Christians could remedy their problem if they would only adopt the teachings and practices promoted by the pietists. But the Greek of 1Corinthians 2:14 literally says that the natural man is “ou dunatai gno_nai” not able (i.e. without power) to know. He cannot know because he is unregenerate, he does not have the Holy Spirit. Believers have the Holy Spirit, unbelievers do not. The natural man is an unbeliever, not a carnal Christian. Paul makes this clear in Romans:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:5-9)

In Romans it is made explicitly clear that those who are “fleshly” and “without power” (the same word as used in 1Corinthians 2:14 – dunamis) to serve God, obey God, or please God are not Christian. They are not carnal Christians, they are lost in sin.[2]

Gordon Fee points out that this section in 1Corinthians has been subjected to misuse for a very long time:

This paragraph has endured a most unfortunate history of application in the church. Paul’s own point has been almost totally lost in favor of an interpretation nearly 180 degrees the opposite of his intent. Almost every form of spiritual elitism, “deeper life” movement, and “second blessing” doctrine has appealed to this text. To receive the Spirit according to their special expression paves the way for people to know “deeper truths” about God. One special brand of this elitism surfaces among some who have pushed the possibilities of “faith” to the extreme, and regularly make a “special revelation” from the Spirit their final court of appeal. Other “lesser” brothers and sisters are simply living below their full privileges in Christ. Indeed, some advocates of this form of spirituality bid fair to repeat the Corinthian error in its totality.[3]

The great irony is that those who find a hyper-spirituality doctrine in 1Corinthians are falling into the very error Paul wrote to correct, as Fee so eloquently pointed out. If you have been subjected to pietistic teachings of one form or another, I urge you to buy Gordon Fee’s commentary that I cite here and read it. It was very instrumental in helping me find my way back to the truth.

But you may be thinking, “Paul did call the Corinthians ‘carnal’ did he not? So how can you say there are no ‘carnal Christians’?” That is a very good question. The answer is found in Paul’s use of irony. Some of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible are misunderstood when an ironic statement is taken to be literal. Another example is the passage in Revelation 3 where Christ is standing at the door knocking. This is an example of irony—Christ on the outside of His own church seeking to come in for table fellowship when the table fellowship of the church is supposed to be all about Christ! But not seeing the irony, people take this as an evangelistic passage and teach that the sinner has to open the door or Jesus will be stuck outside.

Similarly, when Paul says to the Corinthians that they are “carnal” (1Corinthians 3:1) he is issuing an ironic rebuke! They were the ones listening to the “super apostles” who suggested Paul was not spiritual like they were. The Corinthians prided themselves in their supposedly superior spirituality. Paul said that true spirituality was always centered on the cross, not the wisdom of men. The Spirit’s work in our lives is because of the cross. But the Corinthians were thinking and acting like unbelievers, i.e. the “carnal.” Again, Fee helps us:

First, picking up the theme of being “spiritual” from what has just preceded, Paul makes a frontal attack and pronounces the Corinthians as not spiritual at all. Indeed, they are just the opposite: they are “fleshly”—still thinking like mere human beings, those who do not have the Spirit. With this charge Paul exposed himself to centuries of misunderstanding. But his concern is singular: not to suggest classes of Christians or grades if spirituality, but to get them to stop thinking like the people of this present age.[4]

So Paul’s use of irony to rebuke the Corinthians is interpreted as literal in order to set up an elitist version of Christianity which is the very thing the Corinthians did that Paul was rebuking. (source)

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

1. Ryan Habbena’s article Formulating a Theology of pistueo_ (believe) in John’s Narative:HTTP://CICMINISTRY.ORG/SCHOLARLY/SCH007.HTM published at cicministry.org under“ARTICLES/SCHOLARLY.”
2.  See Gordon Fee, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” in The NewInternational Commentary on the New Testament; (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1987) 115 – 120 for an excellent scholarly discussion of what Paul means by the “natural man.” It is noteworthy that Fee is a Pentecostal and as such belongs to a denomination that tends to pietism; but Fee warns against such interpretations of 1Corinthians.
3.  Ibid. 120.
4.  Ibid. 122.

See also:

RICHARD FOSTER—CELEBRATION OF DECEPTION

MATT CHANDLER AND VILLAGE CHURCH PROMOTING CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

HENRY BLACKABY’S MYSTICISM-LITE NEGATES SOLA SCRIPTURA

The following by Dr. Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, is republished at Apprising Ministries with permission:

(April/May 2012 – Volume 18, Issue 2)

Of all the spiritual disciplines the Spiritual Formation Movement promotes, none is more important than prayer and the intake of God’s Word.

On the surface we would expect little resistance to these two disciplines since they have been recognized as essential to spiritual growth by virtually all Christians from all traditions. Sadly, upon closer examination we discover that what is meant by most evangelical Christians when they reference prayer and Bible intake is not always what the leaders within spiritual formation mean. We begin with Donald Whitney, Associate Professor of Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary, who agrees with Carl Lundquist,

The New Testament church built two other disciplines upon prayer and Bible study, the Lord’s Supper and small cell groups. John Wesley emphasized five works of piety by adding fasting. The medieval mystics wrote about nine disciplines clustered around three experiences: purgation of sin, enlightenment of the spirit and union with God. Later the Keswick Convention approach to practical holiness revolved around five different religious exercises. Today Richard Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline, lists twelve disciplines – all of them relevant to the contemporary Christian. But whatever varying religious exercises we may practice, without the two basic ones of Emmaus – prayer and Bible reading – the others are empty and powerless. [1]

In future articles on spiritual formation we will shine the light of Scripture on many of these disciplines, but it is only proper and wise to begin with the two universally recognized as most important. As Whitney and Lundquist state, without prayer and Bible reading, all the other disciplines are empty and powerless. We begin with prayer, for its place in spiritual formation teachings is even more prominent than Bible study. Of course the position of prayer in the life of the believer is without question and needs little defense. Prayer is taught, modeled and expressed throughout the Bible. After the disciples had been with Jesus for a while and witnessed His life and power, they brought a request to Him: “Lord, teach us to pray.” Jesus responded, not by giving them a rote prayer to repeat, but what we often call “The Lord’s Prayer” as a model. The need and command to pray are seldom debated. Why we need to pray in light of God’s sovereignty and omniscience and how we pray are two different things. We pray, not because we have unraveled all the mysteries of prayer but because God tells us to pray and somehow our prayers really do make a difference.

How to pray gets more complex and is at the heart of the subject at hand. Scripture does not dictate a set amount of time to pray, nor does it approve or disapprove of particular postures in prayer. It does teach the need for both corporate and private prayers and it does model and instruct us on reasons to pray: to worship God, to bring our requests to Him, to thank Him, and to confess sin. What is important to notice throughout Scripture is that the individual who prays is speaking to God. While God communicates to us through the Bible, we respond to Him in prayer. A biblical model of prayer is that of the believer approaching the Father in faith, through the mediatory ministry of Christ Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to communicate to God praise, thanksgiving, supplications and confession. While this paradigm, which I will call throughout this paper “biblical prayer,” is never denied by those in spiritual formation circles, it is usually not what they have in mind when they speak of the discipline of prayer. Biblical prayer is our communication with God. As the Lord speaks to us through His Word, we speak to Him in prayer. Such prayers are rational, intelligent and flow from our minds. Paul said that he would pray with his spirit and with his mind also (1 Cor 14:15), not either/or. When we pray we are making use of our God-given intellect as we worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24). We are to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17) and in those prayers we are to make our requests known (Phil 4:6). In prayer we praise God for His known attributes. In prayer we confess specific sins (1 John 1:9). Unfortunately biblical prayer, as described above, is not what spiritual formation advocates mean by contemplative prayer.

We need to take a hard look at contemplative prayer and ask some important questions: What is it and how does it differ from biblical prayer? How is it practiced? What is its goal? What is its origin? And why does it concern us?

What Is Contemplative Prayer?

First, as is common throughout the Spiritual Formation Movement, the catalyst offered for investigating the disciplines, including contemplative prayer, is the supposed insipidness of biblical praying. Larry Crabb, in his book The PAPA Prayer, frames it this way:

[Biblical] praying to God is something like e-mailing a relative you’ve never met, who lives in a place you’ve never been. In return correspondence (to embellish the analogy), your relative never sends a picture of himself, never sends a picture of his house or land, and always writes a generic letter addressed to “My much loved relatives,” like the ones we receive every Christmas. His e-mails never come only to you and are therefore never addressed only to you. He never calls. And you can’t call him. He has no phone. [2]

Crabb contrasts this impersonal type of prayer (as found in Scripture) with a contemplative form he calls the PAPA prayer making a promise to all who will use it, “I am promising Papa will speak to you. He loves a good conversation.” [3] Who wouldn’t be intrigued by such an offer?

So exactly what is contemplative prayer? It begins with detachment. Richard Foster, in his original 1978 edition of Celebration of Discipline wrote, “Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it” (p. 15). Fill it with what? In Eastern religions a person empties his mind in order to become one with the universe (or the Cosmic Mind). In Christian mysticism one empties the mind in order to become one with God. Foster quotes a number of mystics to describe this experience. For example there is Russian mystic Theophan the Recluse who said, “To pray is to descend with the mind into the heart, and there to stand before the face of the Lord, ever-present, all seeing, within you.” ^[4] What Foster and Theophan mean by this is anyone’s guess, but it is a vital part of the mystical experience.

Following detachment is the step of illumination, in which the newly emptied mind and heart is filled with supposed communication from God. The primary means of accomplishing illumination is through the use of the technique we are discussing: contemplative prayer. Contemplative prayer is the constant theme of the mystic, yet it is merely a means to an end which is union with God. The ultimate goal of the mystic, no matter what religion or tradition, is union with God (or gods of the universe) made possible through contemplative prayer. Mystics often claim to find union with God deep within their souls. Teresa of Avila states, “As I could not make reflection with my understanding I contrived to picture Christ within me.” ^[5] She is quoted as also saying, “Settle yourself in solitude and you will come upon Him in yourself.” ^[6]

These types of experiences supposedly result not only in extrasensory contact with God but also communication from God. Richard Foster tells us, “We are to live in a perpetual, inward, listening silence so that God is the source of our words and actions.”^[7] Through these methods, especially that of contemplative prayer, a person is to empty his mind (detach) then fill it with imaginative experiences with Christ (attach) who he will find in the silence of his soul, resulting in God becoming the source of his words and actions. All of this unquestionably sounds attractive to many, even if no such teaching is found in Scripture.

The Goals

Digging a little deeper, there seems to be two overlapping goals to contemplative prayer. The first is to encounter God in an inexplicable way. Ruth Haley Barton, well-known in spiritual formation circles and formerly on staff at Willow Creek Community Church, describes this desire,

There are many terms that seek to capture this dynamic – silent prayer, centering prayer, contemplative prayer, interior prayer, prayer of the heart. Each carries a slightly different nuance, but they all are attempts to capture the same thing: the movement beyond words to an intimacy that requires no words. This intimacy is the kind that lovers know when they give themselves over to the act of lovemaking [8]

It should be noted that this type of erotic/romantic expression of the believer’s relationship with God is historically common among the mystics.

Ruth Barton gives more details. She quotes Carlo Carretto, a Catholic mystic living just prior to the Reformation, “Thus the time comes when words are superfluous…The soul converses with God with a single loving glance, although this may often be accompanied by dryness and suffering.” [9] Barton describes contemplative prayer as a “deeper level of intimacy that will move us beyond communication, which primarily involves words and concepts, into communion, which is primarily beyond words. If there are any words at all, they are reduced to the simplest and most visceral expressions.” [10] Later she writes, “You don’t think your way into your breath prayer; you discover it by listening to your deepest longings and desires in God’s presence.” [11]

Those promoting contemplative prayer are not particularly interested in the mind. As a matter of fact, the mind gets in the way. It is the experience of somehow encountering God in an indescribable way that is desired. This is the goal of all true mysticism no matter what religion, and contemplation is the primary means used to accomplish this goal.

The second goal of contemplative prayer is to actually hear from God. John Ortberg, a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, states, “It is one thing to speak to God. It is another thing to listen. When we listen to God, we receive guidance from the Holy Spirit.” [12] While many evangelicals talk about the promptings of the Holy Spirit, Ortberg seems to be going further when he explains,

I certainly have no way to prove it was God speaking to me. A few friends have told me that early in life they were given a clear sense of what God was speaking to them. They learned to recognize certain movements of heart and mind as being the voice of God the way children learn to recognize the voice of their mother…I must be open to the possibility that sometimes God does speak directly to me…We must learn to listen for the still, small voice…In fact, being open and receptive to the leadings of the Holy Spirit is a nonoptional part of transformation. [13]

Bruce Demarest writes, “Growing intimacy requires that I pay careful attention to the other person. When that other is God, it’s necessary to still my own voice and listen in quietness. Then I can detect the gentle whispers of the Spirit. Too often we fail to hear God speak because we are not attentively listening.” [14]

Richard Foster, the modern day authority most often consulted by contemplatives, wrote an entire book to convey this point. He opens Sanctuary of the Soul with these words, “Jesus Christ is alive and here to teach his people himself. His voice is not hard to hear; his vocabulary is not difficult to understand. But learning to listen well and to hear correctly is no small task.” [15] He continues two pages later as he reviews his own experiences, “Now, I am not speaking here of an outward voice that can be captured by electronic equipment. That no doubt is possible, as the Bible gives ample witness. But here I am speaking of an inward whisper, a deep speaking into the heart, an interior knowing.” [16] It is instructive to note that Foster does seem to recognize that this “interior voice of God” has no biblical base. When he speaks of the audible voice of God, Foster can point to chapter and verse to at least indicate that God spoke audibly on occasion in biblical times. [17] But he cannot do so with inner voices from God, for in fact the Bible never mentions this type of interior message from the Lord. When God spoke in Scripture it was audible and objective, not internal and subjective. Foster, the contemplatives, and many others aligned with evangelicalism have invented a form of divine communication never found in Scripture. Even the “still small voice” borrowed from Elijah’s experience (1 Kings 19:12-18) and used in almost all spiritual formation books was an actual voice, not an inaudible one heard only deep down in the interior of one’s soul. Yet so important is it to hear God’s voice in prayer that Foster quotes Elizabeth O’Connor saying, “This may be extremely difficult, for the churches have no courses on meditation, despite the fact that it is an art that must be learned from those who have mastered it, and despite the fact that the supreme task of the church is to listen to the Word of God.” [18]

There are a number of things wrong with this statement. Foremost, the author is equating the supposed inner voices, which are being interpreted as from God, as the very “Word of God.” This is important to note throughout spiritual formation literature. There are often disclaimers given by contemplatives to the effect that such revelations are not on par with the Scriptures, nor do these communications ever contradict Scripture. But the reality is that these perceived words are considered the very “Word of God” as O’Connor and Foster affirm. Tricia Rhodes writes, “Once I’m in that place of quiet, I often ask, ‘Lord, what would you have me know right now? What would you have me consider?’ Surprisingly enough, I often hear a specific word for that which lies in front of me.”[19] Former evangelist Leighton Ford states, “In helps me to think [20] of ‘abiding’ as a continual conversation in which I listen for God’s voice and speak back to him.” Larry Crabb tells us that “Prayer is more about us hearing God than about Him hearing us. We’re the audience.” [21] This idea that we will hear directly from God, deep within the recesses of our souls, and therefore have a far more intimate relationship with Him, explains the draw of contemplative prayer. And while attractive, we have to ask: Where in Scripture is contemplative prayer taught? And where in Scripture are we told that prayer is about God talking to us rather than us talking to Him? And where in Scripture do we find any reference to God speaking to us within our spirits in an inaudible voice?

Another flaw in O’Connor’s statement has to do with the idea that this form of listening to God must be taught by the spiritual masters (“those who have mastered it”). First, when the Lord spoke in Scripture, which was always audibly, no one had to teach the listener how to hear Him – they knew without taking lessons or reading books from anyone else that it was God speaking. Secondly the direct implication is that left to ourselves we will never be able to learn the art of hearing from God and if we don’t become skilled at this art, we will be deficit in our spiritual development. Spiritual formation stands or falls on one’s belief in extra-biblical, inner words from God that will be given only while practicing the art of contemplative prayer as taught by the “spiritual masters,” i.e. Catholic and Orthodox mystics and their disciples.

Larry Crabb assures us, “I’m hearing from God in a way I haven’t before. Sometimes, though never audibly, I hear the Father speak more clearly than I hear the voice of a human friend… Let me tell you this: once you hear from God, you’re hooked.” [22] But Crabb and other contemplatives are not learning these doctrines and methods at the feet of Jesus as revealed in Scripture, but from the ancient Desert Fathers and Mothers and Catholic mystics both past and modern. The reason these techniques must be learned from the “spiritual masters” is because the inspired authors of God’s Word said nothing about them, nor did Jesus. This certainly ought to say volumes to anyone truly wanting to know and do the will of God.

The Techniques

Speaking of techniques, just exactly how does one go about practicing contemplative prayer? Some of these have already been touched on above where the three-fold process of detaching, illumination and union are described. But let’s take a closer look at the actual practices. When we do, we find that the techniques used and promoted by Christian contemplatives are virtually identical to those of Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jewish Kabala, and so are familiar to most of us through media presentations of transcendental meditation (TM) and yoga. Gary Thomas gives these rather common instructions to those wanting to practice contemplative prayer with the goal of encountering God in mystical fashion:

Choose a word (Jesus or Father, for example) as a focus for contemplative prayer. Repeat the word silently in your mind for a set amount of time (say, twenty minutes) until your heart seems to be repeating the word by itself, just as naturally and involuntarily as breathing. But centering prayer is a contemplative act in which you don’t do anything; you’re simply resting in the presence of God. ^[23]

So, the repetition of words or short phrases, a mantra, is key to this experience. Barton agrees, but first she sets the mood: “Settle into a comfortable position that allows you to remain alert. Breathe deeply in this moment as a way of releasing any tension you might be holding and become aware of God’s presence, which is closer than your breath. Allow yourself to enjoy God’s presence in quietness for a few moments.” [24] Mark Yaconelli, in his book Downtime which is designed to aid teens in developing the contemplative life, writes, “I sometimes invite students to a time of prayer by asking them to focus on the very simple act of breathing…Close your eyes and simply notice your breathing…Imagining with each in-breath that you are breathing in God’s love, and with every out-breath you are releasing every distraction, every anxiety, every tension and resistance to God.” [25]

Once you are in the right frame of mind you are ready for a mantra. Barton writes, “Choose your favorite name or image for God as you are relating to him right now, such as God, Jesus, Father, Creator, Spirit, Breath of life, Lord, Shepherd…” [26]

What else? While Richard Foster suggests a number of methodologies, he says, “he finds it best to sit in a straight chair, with my back correctly positioned in the chair and both feet flat on the floor…Place the hands on the knees, palms up in a gesture of receptivity. Sometimes it is good to close the eyes to remove distractions and center the attention on Christ. At other times it is helpful to ponder a picture of the Lord or to look out at some lovely trees and plants for the same purpose.” ^[27] Brennan Manning gives these instructions in his book, The Signature of Jesus: “The first step in faith is to stop thinking about God in prayer…Contemplative spirituality tends to emphasize the need for a change in consciousness…we must come to see reality differently…Choose a single, sacred word…repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly and often…Enter into the great silence of God. Alone in that silence, the noise within will subside and the Voice of Love will be heard.” ^[28]

Apparently the repetition of the mantra triggers the blank mind, or allows the mind and heart to detach. With the mind in neutral and the heart open to whatever voices or visions it encounters, accompanied with a vivid imagination, the individual enters into the mystical state. This is the state prized by mysticism and made possible through contemplative prayer. Concerning all of this Foster encourages, “Though it may sound strange to modern ears, we should without shame enroll as apprentices in the school of contemplative prayer.” ^[29] By contrast, we search in vain to find any such encouragement or instruction in Scripture.

One of the most important aims of contemplative prayer, as we have already seen, is to hear the voice of Jesus, not audibly (at least not as a norm) but as “an inward whisper, a deep speaking into the heart, an interior knowing.” [30] Foster assures us that many characters in the Bible had this experience, including Moses and Elijah. [31] What Foster and all promoters of mysticism fail to notice is that when biblical characters heard from God or angels they heard an audible voice, not an “inward whisper.” For that reason, rarely does anyone in the biblical accounts ever question that he or she had heard from God. Not so the mystic who must “learn to hear the voice of God.” [32] Foster assures us that in time we will be able to distinguish the voice of God from all others, including Satan’s and our own. One way to determine this, we are told, is to remember, “Satan pushes and condemns, God draws and encourages. You can tell the difference.” [33] Of course this is a gross over-generalization. We know, for example, that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin and judgment (John 16:8) and that God pronounces warnings and judgments throughout the Scriptures. Jesus Himself pronounced “woes” of judgment on the Pharisees who saw themselves as the spiritual leaders of Israel (Matt 22:13-36); He clearly called Peter “Satan” at one point and told him to get behind Him, for Peter was a stumbling block to Him (Matt 16:23). To characterize the Lord’s voice as only one of drawing and encouragement would mean we would need to ignore huge portions of the Word of God.

In his book Sanctuary of the Soul, Foster offers three basic steps for contemplative prayer: recollection, beholding and listening.[34] He defines these as follows:

• Recollection – letting go of all competing distractions, even good ones, until we have become truly present where we are. This can be done by focusing on a name, word or phrase.
• Beholding the Lord – “An inward steady gaze of the heart upon God, the divine Center…The soul, ushered into the Holy Place, is transfixed by what she sees.” [35] During this phase some have experienced intense heat around their hearts;[36] others speak in tongues. [37]
• The prayer of listening – it is at this step that God speaks to us and we enjoy His full presence [38] (pp. 80-88).

The ultimate goal of these techniques is union with God, or what Foster calls, borrowing from the Cloud of Unknowing, “the contemplative life.” Foster explains:

The highest level, the contemplative life consists entirely in learning how to live in the presence of God. There is darkness here, but it is not a darkness of absence, but rather a darkness of incomplete knowing. We are carried into the “cloud” by love and sustained in it by gazing on God alone. We shut out every other source of stimulation – sensual, intellectual and reflective – in order to focus on God alone. At this level, we even move beyond our thoughts of God in order to dwell in his presence without thought or distraction. Of course, no one in this life can sustain this level of concentration for long…But our calling is not to sidestep the opportunity but to recognize our own limits. [39]

This quote sums up both the methods and the aims of the contemplative life. Through various extra-biblical techniques, one enters into a sphere which is devoid of thought and feeling in an effort to experience the presence of God in an inexplicable manner. This is the union or ecstasy so prized by the mystic and found in all forms of mysticism. However it is not found or encouraged in Scripture. Contemplative life, as expressed by the spiritual formation leaders, put me in mind of something found in Isaiah in a different context. In Isaiah’s day the people were turning not to God but to spiritists for hidden information. Isaiah tells them,

And when they say to you, “Consult the mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (Isa 8:18-19).

I am not accusing the contemplatives of being spiritists, but much like the spiritists they are seeking experiences and knowledge not sanctioned in Scripture. Thomas Merton wrote, “The life of contemplation…is the life of the Holy Spirit in our inmost souls. The whole duty of contemplation is to abandon what is base and trivial in [your] own life, and do all [you] can to conform…to the secret and obscure promptings of the Spirit of God.” [40] When Christians begin looking “to secret and obscure promptings,” supposedly from the Holy Spirit, as taught by men and women of errant doctrine rather than Scripture, we are surely on shaky ground. We might do well to pay attention to the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah’s warning to the Jews of his day is applicable to us now. He tells Judah, if people do not speak “according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” That is, the very ones who are claiming enlightenment and esoteric knowledge not found in Scripture don’t know what they are talking about—so don’t follow them. Instead turn to the law and to the testimony,” i.e. the Word of God, for our source of truth.

Examples

Many evangelicals are turning to spiritual formation and the spiritual disciplines. Here is a sampling: Leighton Ford, former evangelist associated with Billy Graham, is now a strong adherent of spiritual formation. He describes his practice of contemplative prayer in this manner, “Often in the morning I will sit in a favorite chair in my study with a cup of coffee, with classical music playing, not trying to form a prayer with words but waiting, listening, until perhaps I sense the Spirit bringing to the surface a word from God. Then I offer just a simple ‘Thank you.’” [41] Tricia McCary Rhodes draws on the fourth century Desert Fathers and Mothers to learn the art of “breath prayer” which is “to choose a phrase that is simple and heartfelt and can be offered to the Lord in one breath…Once we’ve decided on the particular phrase, this then becomes the focus of our communion with Christ for a season. Some people like to repeat the prayer numerous times as they breathe in and out, quieting their heart before the Lord.”[42] She tells us, “In this practice we take a few minutes to slow our breathing as we mentally inhale the reality of God’s presence and exhale the noisy clamor inside us. We inhale the peace of Christ and exhale the anxiety of the day. We inhale cleansing for sin and exhale guilt and condemnation.” [43]

On Rhodes’ first attempt at breath prayer she “almost immediately…heard the words, ‘Give me a heart for you,’ and I knew this was what I wanted and needed most – a renewal of yearning for the Lover of my soul.” [44]

One of the most popular forms of contemplative prayer makes use of the “Jesus Prayer.” Mike King, a pastor at Jacob’s Well Church in Kansas City, writes in his book Presence-centered Youth Ministry,

In the centuries after Jesus’ resurrection, his followers sought ways to commune deeply with God. One form of prayer [was] respiratory prayer…The most ancient prayer of this type is called the Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner…With the inhale, pray the first part, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God.” With the exhale, pray the second part, “Have mercy on me, a sinner.” [45]

A more extensive example comes from the pen of Ruth Barton as she leads a leadership retreat,

Recently our leadership community went on retreat to listen for God’s direction…Later on that day, one of the people who had heard about our decision [concerning a particular issue] sensed God saying, “You can help with that!” Having learned what the office space would cost, they sensed God’s prompting to contribute the funds that would enable us to take the space for the year…[In response Barton] sensed God saying very clearly, “You don’t know what your future holds, but I do, and I know what you will need for that future. That is why I am giving this to you.” [She then heard God ask], “What do you do with gifts?” “You receive them,” I heard myself answer. I heard God saying, “Stop your clinging and grasping, just receive what I am giving you and then build your ministry with that.” [46]

Professor Bruce Demarest points his readers toward two post-Reformation mystics to illustrate the spiritual riches of the contemplative life. [47] The first is Counter-Reformation nun Teresa of Avila whose “classic” book Interior Castle is a virtually incomprehensible description of mystical fantasy that spiritual formation disciples love. Having read the book, I seriously doubt that many have any idea what she is talking about as she describes her supposed visions from the Lord detailing seven rooms (or layers) of progressive experiences with God. Even more concerning is Demarest’s second hero, Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk from Kentucky who died in 1968. No modern mystic besides Richard Foster has had more influence on the Spiritual Formation Movement than Thomas Merton. His work and promotion of contemplative prayer cannot be overestimated. Yet even Demarest admits that toward the end of Merton’s life he became attracted to Eastern mysticism and believed that Zen meditation and Christian contemplation pursue the same goal. Ultimately he saw no difference between Buddhism and Christianity and once visited the Dalai Lama to “discover truth in dialogue.” [48] Demarest disagrees with Merton at this point; nevertheless, he and most contemplatives look to Merton as a spiritual master and a guide to spiritual formation.

Conclusion

Spiritual formation seeks to lure evangelicals into ancient Catholic and Orthodox contemplative practices in order to draw closer to God, experience His presence, and hear His voice apart from Scripture. In order to embrace this mystical form of spirituality, contemplatives are willing to compromise at virtually every turn. Central doctrines such as sola fide and sola Scriptura are shrugged off as secondary. Methods never found in the Bible as the true means of spiritual growth and of knowing God, are emphasized. And complete heretics such as Thomas Merton are seen as reliable spiritual guides to spirituality. The contemplatives have sold out to Catholic mysticism and abandoned the clear teaching of Scripture. Sadly, in the process many undiscerning evangelicals will follow suit.

[1] Donald Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1991), p. 66.

[2] Larry Crabb, The PAPA Prayer, the Prayer You’ve Never Prayed, (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publishers, 2006, p. 111.

[3] Ibid., p. 143.

[4] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline, (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 19.

[5] Ibid., p. 25.

[6] Ibid., p. 96.

[7] Ibid., p. 166.

[8] Ruth Haley Barton, Sacred Rhythm, (Dowers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 68.

[9] Ibid., p. 62.

[10] Ibid., pp. 64-65 (emphasis hers).

[11] Ibid., p. 71.

[12] John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted, Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140.

[13] Ibid., pp. 141-143.

[14] Bruce Demarest, Satisfying Your Soul, Restoring the Heart of Christian Spirituality, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1999), pp. 108-109.

[15] Richard Foster, Sanctuary of the Soul, Journey into Meditative Prayer, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 11.

[16] Ibid., p. 13.

[17] In all of the Old Testament fewer than 20 specific dreams to fewer than 15 people are recorded and only six in the New Testament. There are less than 25 visions to not more than 15 people in the Old Testament and even fewer in the New Testament. And none of these was ever given for mundane purposes (see The Master’s Seminary Journal Vol. 22 #2, pp. 160-161).

[18] Richard Foster, Sanctuary of the Soul, Journey into Meditative Prayer, p. 17.

[19] Tricia McCary Rhodes, Sacred Chaos, Spiritual Disciplines for the Life You Have, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 65.

[20] Leighton Ford, The Attentive Life, Discerning God’s Presence in All Things, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 92.

[21] Larry Crabb, p. 71.

[22] Ibid., pp. 8, 13.

[23] Cited in James Sundquist, Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?, (Rock Salt Publishing, 2004), p.93.

[24] Barton, Sacred Rhythms, p. 28.

[25] Mark Yaconelli, Downtime, Helping Teenagers Pray, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), p. 74.

[26] Barton, p. 76.

[27] Richard Foster, Sanctuary of the Soul, Journey into Meditative Prayer, p. 28.

[28] Cited in Ray Yunger, A Time of Departing, (Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails, 2002), p. 84.

[29] Richard Foster, Sanctuary of the Soul, Journey into Meditative Prayer, p. 15.

[30] Ibid., p. 13.

[31] Ibid., p. 18.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., p. 130.

[34] Ibid., pp. 62-88.

[35] Ibid., p. 71.

[36] Ibid., pp. 71-73.

[37] Ibid., p. 78.

[38] Ibid., pp. 80-88.

[39] Richard Foster and Gayle D. Beebe, “Longing for God, Seven Paths of Christian Devotion, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 252.

[40] Bruce Demarest, p. 157 (emphasis mine).

[41] Leighton Ford, p. 77.

[42] Tricia McCary Rhodes, pp. 106-107.

[43] Ibid., p. 64.

[44] Ibid., p. 107.

[45] Mike King, Presence-Centered Youth Ministry, Guiding Students into Spiritual Formation, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), pp. 121-122.

[46] Ruth Haley Barton, Strengthening the Soul of Your Leadership, Seeking God in the Crucible of Ministry, (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 64.

[47] Demarest, Satisfy Your Soul, pp. 269-277.

[48] Ibid., p. 276.

The original appears right here.

See also:

RICHARD FOSTER SAYS BIBLE RELIABLE GUIDE DESPITE “INCONSISTENCIES”

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR

IS DALLAS WILLARD A CHRISTIAN?

As a direct fruit of the the sinfully ecumenical Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church, a neo-liberal cult now operating within mainstream of the church visible, the heart of the evangelical community is fast becoming congested by pietism and superstition.

No doubt I’ve told you many times that a key core doctrine of this evil EC was corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM).

The truth is, it’s long been masquerading as spurious Spiritual Formation ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard. So I present the following here at Apprising Ministries as further example that, even within the more conservative mainstream of ostensibly Protestant evangelicalism, highly subjective “experience” is now beginning to trump the written text of the Bible.

As an illustration let’s once again consider the 2009 post Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God’s will — 1 from Dan Phillips over at the respected Pyromaniacs blog. First, as a Southern Baptist pastor, 1) I’ve personally been through Blackaby”s magum opus Experiencing God (EG), and 2) I can also testify that within the SBC he’s essentially considered a prophet of God.

It’s my opinion that Henry Blackaby laid the groundwork for the awful influx of CSM into the SBC. Here’s an example of just how bad it is; consider Alabama Baptist Convention (SBC) Encourages You To Learn Lectio Divina From Apostate Tony Jones. Secondly, just as Phillips, AM also wants you to know that what is written “is not about the Blackabys, but about the view they advocate in this book” which will be mentioned below.

Nor “is it about them as Christians or men.” With this out of the way, we will turn to the very serious point of contention that must be addressed within the evangelical community now that it has also embraced the so-called “Christian” mysticism of CSM; which was introduced into younger sectors of that camp by the EC. Actually, it truly is the next logical step down after Blackaby’s lite version of mysticism.

It’s important to remember that one of the goals of the EC was to drag ascetic and pietistic so-called “spiritual disciplines” into the Protestant community itself. Also note here that, in the aforementioned post at Pyro, Dan Phillips is reviewing a chapter of the book How Then Should We Choose?, edited by Douglas S. Huffman; Phillips tells us:

This chapter  [called the "Specific-Will" view...written by Henry and Richard Blackaby,] is just about the single most appalling trainwreck I’ve read in recent memory, whether viewed exegetically, hermeneutically, theologically, or pastorally. The implications, if taken and followed out seriously by anyone (—God forbid!), are absolutely catastrophic. (Online source)

The central issue with the Blackabys, as well as with gurus teaching the CSM of Foster-Willardism, is that their “experience” always ends up interpreting the Bible for them. However, this is absolutely backward—and sure to lead to spiritual disaster. In fact, this is really the exact same dead-end road that would end up producing the centered on the self (i.e. mankind) theology of apostate Roman Catholicism in the first place.

As I said earlier, I’m quite familiar  Blackaby’s EG program having gone through it when it was first a rage within the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid 90s. So, I can tell you that Phillips is absolutely correct when he says:

Non sola Scriptura. The insufficiency of Scripture is a major pillar to the Blackaby position. About this they are emphatic — in all but the use of that phrase. They do say many nice things about the Bible, allowing (for instance) that it is “the primary way God communicates with His people” (p. 55). “Primary,” but not nearly the sole way.

Language that the Bible reserves for binding, inerrant, verbal prophetic revelation is repeatedly applied indiscriminately to normal Christian living. (Online source)

As a matter of fact, what Phillips has just said above concerning Henry Blackaby is just as dead-on-target for a rapidly increasing amount of evangelical notables as well. Take for example Southern Baptist megapastor Rick Warren and wildly popular SBC Bible teacher Beth Moore who tell us on a regular basis what God has supposedly “said” to them personally.

To illustrate my point, let’s takee Moore, who is beyond question a major promoter of Henry Blackaby’s work. The video clips below come from my copy of Moore’s classic 2002 series Believing God (BG), which as you can see below, is still promoted by Lifeway—the publishing arm of the SBC:

(Online source)

So, this SBC LifeWay-sponsored BG Online Bible Study is important evidence and serves as representative of its own views. Moore will tell us:

tonight I’m going to do my absolute best to illustrate to you something that God showed me out on that back porch. He put a picture…I’ve explained to you before I am a very visual person…so He speaks to me very often putting a picture in my head.

And it was as if I was raised up looking down on a community, as I saw the Church in that particular dimension- certainly not all dimensions, not even in many, but in what we will discuss tonight, the church, as Jesus sees it, in a particular dimension.”
(Online source, emphasis mine)

This is Moore’s own testimony; these are her own words:

Now notice as Moore goes on to illustrate her vision in the video below, where God supposedly showed her the Church “as Jesus sees it,” she also includes the apostate Roman Catholic Church who long ago condemned the the very Gospel of Jesus Christ itself:

I’m not going to say Beth Moore didn’t have a vision; what I will say is, it wasn’t given to her by God Himself. As bad as this flawed mysticism is, the Emerging Church is even further along in their delusions. Space allows just one quick example. Former Emergence Christianity icon Rob Bell illustrates this well.

He has long practiced of the crown jewel of CSM, a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness commonly known asContemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP). This would lead the highly influential Bell to say such stupid things as:

It’s interesting how many traditions (pause) When you read the great enlightened ones; meditation, centering prayer, reflection—in every tradition you can find the mystics—and what’s always at the heart of the spiritual lives, the everyday lives of the great ones was always a period of time.

Whether it’s prayers, chanting, meditation, reflection, study—whatever you call it—what is it essentially; it’s taking time to breathe. Because when you’ve been breathing, (slight pause) in a proper sort of way, you’re far better equipped to handle what life throws your way. (5:41-6:23) (I will say it again, and again, and again,  [5:41-6:23])

As I said in Through Rob Bell “The Great Enlightened Ones” Tell Us Man Has Divine Greatness, it’s my opinion that if one doesn’t recognize here Rob Bell is praising “the mystics”—of  [insert whatever religion here]—for their supposedly superior spiritual understanding, which is but a reimagined Gnosticism, it’s simply because they just do not wish to see.

But the truth is, this is the rancid fruit of “what does this verse mean to you” Bible studies. For years now evangelicals really have been steadily moving away from sola Scriptura and directly toward the more existential neo-orthodox view of Scripture. With all of this in mind, we return to the Dan Phillips post concerning this evangelical mysticism-lite.

He then asks the critical question:

How to divine the Divine? Say you are convinced that you must hear God’s voice, must receive this flow of extra-canonical revelation that the Blackabys say is essential for a relationship with God. How do you do it? How do you hear God’s voice? (Online source)

And as we close this for now, I point you to back to Beth Moore and another glaring example of just how deeply this negation of sola Scriptura has now slithered into the mainstream of evangelicalism. In How Would You Know Beth Moore?, I actually looked at the very question Phillps asks above.

There I showed you in a video commercial for her latest study at time that Moore has said: “Several years ago Christ began to place a tremendous burden on my heart for the people of God to know the freedom of God.” Really; do we now have a prophetess among us with special revelation from God concerning His “freedom” because the Word of the Lord came to Beth?

Just how will we know who’s really “hearing” from the Lord? Now suppose that I, as a pastor-teacher, was also to come forward with a Word from God. What if I now say that, “A couple of years ago Jesus placed a tremendous burden on my heart for the people of God to know the freedom of God.” Now what do we do with dueling revelations?

What is going to happen if I then went on to say, based upon Scripture, I believe the Lord says come away from false teaching advanced by all of these contemplative dreamers because the best way to embrace the freedom of God is simply to read the Bible; pray consciously, and then do what it says in His Word where we know He has spoken.

And as it concerns Henry Blackaby et al, in his Criticial Issues Commentary piece Unbiblical Teachings on Prayer and Experiencing God: How Mysticism Misleads Christians, Christian apologist Bob DeWaay issues a very needed warning when tells us that such as these are only leading us into the realm of subjectivity:

The flaws of [Henry] Blackaby’s subjectivism are rather obvious when you examine his claims objectively. God’s revealed will is not found by subjective experiences, but in Scripture. Looking around in the world hoping to discover “where God is working” is impossible since God is always working everywhere as He providentially brings history along toward His ultimate purposes.

We will be fooled by our own prejudices because we think “God working” must look something like whatever our religious inclinations tell us it will look like. Furthermore, he has elevated fallible words that may or may not be from God to the level of infallible Scripture and elevated every believer to the status of Moses and Abraham as recipients of special revelation.

Following his approach is not how we “experience God.” We cannot not know if we are experiencing God in any way other than to come to Him on His own terms, by faith. When we do, we are assured that God is with us no matter what experiences we have. (Online source)

See also:

HENRY BLACKABY AND “EXPERIENCING GOD”

JOHN PIPER, RICK WARREN & FOSTER-WILLARDISM

BETH MOORE AND JOHN PIPER LEAD LECTIO DIVINA-LITE AT PASSION 2012

The following by Dr. Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, is republished at Apprising Ministries with permission:

(February/March 2012 – Volume 18, Issue 1)

Almost everyone on the cutting edge of Christianity is talking about spiritual formation.  From books to magazine articles to sermons to seminary courses, spiritual formation is a hot topic.  What is spiritual formation?  What does it teach?  Is it something to embrace, ignore or fight?  With this edition of Think on These Things I want to begin an examination of these questions and more.  Lord willing, all of the TOTTs articles in 2012 will be devoted to detailing and evaluating some aspect of what some have called the “Spiritual Formation Movement.”  In this lead article I intend to offer a definition of spiritual formation, trace its origins, mention a few of its practices, illustrate its recent popularity, and briefly identify its strengths and dangers.

In Search of a Definition

When the average person speaks of spiritual formation they assume that it is a modern or trendy synonym for discipleship.  Throughout church history, in obedience to the Lord’s command found in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20), the church has dedicated itself to the task of making disciples, or followers of Jesus Christ. Perhaps growing weary of using the same word all the time, some more creative people have substituted other words such as mentoring, although that word is taken out of a secular context rather than a biblical one.  Mentoring usually implies a one-on-one effort in which a more mature Christian is training a less mature believer as in, “I was mentored by Joe.”  I think the word mentoring, simply because of its implications, common use, and background, is not the best word to describe what Scripture calls “making disciples.”  When we examine the New Testament we find that disciple making is not the prerogative of individuals only, but also of the church.  That is, disciples are made not by one-on-one relationships so much as by the ministry of the fuller body of Christ.  While we can all point to special people in our lives who have been instrumental in our spiritual growth, and while we should all be actively involved on some level in discipling others, and while most dedicate their discipling efforts to a few people, potential disciples need the balance of the wider membership of the church to become the followers of Christ that the Lord intends (Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12).  It is best, it seems to me, to stay with the biblical terminology which serves us well in understanding the task before us.

While the term “mentoring” is still used by some, it would appear that “spiritual formation” has supplanted both it and “discipleship” in the vocabulary of many. However, spiritual formation is not equivalent to discipleship, or mentoring for that matter.  Some trace the roots of the Spiritual Formation Movement to 1974 when Father William Menninger, a Trappist monk, found an ancient book entitled The Cloud of Unknowing in the library at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts.  This 14^th century book offered a means by which contemplative practices, long used by Catholic monks, could be taught to lay people.  As Menninger began teaching these contemplative practices, his abbot, Thomas Keating, along with Basil Pennington, another Trappist monk, began to spread the concepts Menninger was teaching.[1]  But it was Richard Foster’s 1978 book, The Celebration of Discipline, that launched the popularity and present interest in spiritual formation.  It was by this landmark book, described by Christianity Todayas one of the ten best books of the 20^th century, that Catholic and Eastern Orthodox disciplines, practiced by the Desert Fathers and Mothers[2] as well as monks and hermits, were introduced to evangelicalism.  These disciplines were not completely unknown to evangelicals who were familiar with church history, but they were now being repackaged and offered as a means of spiritual growth and maturity.  In fact, the implication was that without the use of these ancient contemplative methods true “spiritual formation” was not possible.  Long accepted biblical disciplines, such as Bible study and prayer, were framed as quaint and simplistic. Worse, believers were told that these biblical disciplines were forged from a Western “worldview of the head.”  If the believer wanted to move deeply into the things of God, such practices were not enough, for they never really reach the heart, leaving the unsuspecting Christian with little more than a superficial intellectual knowledge of the divine with no depth. Bruce Demarest, long time Professor of Christian Theology and Spiritual Formation at Denver Seminary states, “The heart discovers and experiences God; reason demonstrates and explains God.”[3]  The same author quotes Brennan Manning as saying, “The engaged mind, illumined by truth, awakens awareness; the engaged heart, affected by love, awakens passion.”[4]  The rather explicit implication throughout spiritual formation literature is that Bible study feeds the head, but if one wants to feed the heart they must turn to the spiritual disciplines.

As more and more authors, teachers, publishers and schools began to echo the same refrain evangelicals became intimidated.

They did not want to be left out of the newest, and supposedly best, means of discipleship and so they began to read and listen to these new contemplative teachers.  As they did so they found that almost every spiritual formation book and sermon opened by tapping into the innate dissatisfaction that all believers recognize.  It goes something like this: “Are you not tired of the Christian life you have been living?  Don’t you grow weary of reading the Bible, praying, and going to church?  Wouldn’t you really like to enter into the very depth of your soul and encounter God in indescribable experiences that will radically change you forever?  If so, then you must learn and live out the disciplines that have been used by the historic church almost since its inception. Read this book (or take this course or go to this renewal retreat or work on this degree, etc.) and we will teach you what the spiritual masters of the past knew but that we have long forgotten.”

On the basis of such promises the modern Spiritual Formation Movement was birthed and now flourishes.  It sometimes goes by different handles such as Contemplative Spirituality or simply the Spiritual Disciplines, but they all refer to the same thing. Bruce Demarest offers this definition in his book Satisfy Your Soul, “Spiritual formation is an ancient ministry of the church, concerned with the ‘forming’ or ‘shaping’ of a believer’s character and actions into the likeness of Christ.”[5] Richard Foster would agree, “Christian spiritual formation is a God-ordained process that shapes our entire person so that we take on the character and being of Christ himself.”[6] This sounds much like the definition of discipleship as found in Scripture, but before we relax let’s return to Professor Demarest, who tells us that spiritual formation is not only concerned with orthodox doctrine but with “many practices that open [us] up to the presence and direction of God.”[7]  This rather benign comment actually unlocks the door to the Spiritual Formation Movement and how it differs from biblical discipleship.  What distinguishes spiritual formation from discipleship is not in its basically similar definition, but its source, its practices, and its philosophy.

Source 

Perhaps one of the most important factors to understand when analyzing spiritual formation is its source or origin.  Its teachers are fond of stating that their disciplines have old roots, going back to the earliest days of the church.  Dan Kimble, in his book The Emerging Church, calls this the vintage church, while Robert Webber, author of Ancient-Future Faith, refers to it as the classic stage of church history (approximately the second through the sixth century).  Such men have grown tired of superficial church life that has dominated much of Christianity since the insurgence of the “seeker-friendly” model.  They desire something with more substance and more historical connection than what the modern church experience offers. They suggest we study the past and pattern our lives and churches after the rich and vibrant spiritual dynamics that we supposedly find there.

I believe these men almost get it right – almost.  In fact, we do need to look to the past to see how we should live and function in the present.  The problem is that the spiritual formation leaders do not go back far enough.  In their march into the past they stop at the classical or vintage age of church formation instead of returning to the New Testament Scriptures.  This is the fatal flaw in the whole movement.  The early church (post-apostolic, not New Testament church) did many things right and many things wrong.  Its pronouncements, views, rituals, organizations, and structures can be examined with profit, but they were not without error.  I recently taught a course on the history of Christian doctrine using as a textbook John Hannah’s excellent book Our Legacy.  In that course of study I found it most discouraging to discover how very quickly the early church departed from the teaching of the epistles. Both doctrinally and ecclesiastically the church, during the “classical” stage, moved beyond the inspired Word of God to establish its own views, doctrines, philosophies, rituals and formats.

On a doctrinal level all one has to do is read a few pages in the highly acclaimed (by those who promote spiritual formation)Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series.  This 27-volume set (including the Apocrypha) is designed to enlighten this generation concerning the views of the early church fathers and theologians.  The need for such a series is stated in the flyleaf of each volume, “Today the historical-critical method of interpretation has nearly exhausted its claim on the biblical text and on the church.  In its wake there is a widespread yearning among Christian individuals and communities for the wholesome, the deep and the enduring.”  In other words, it is time to abandon the historical-grammatical hermeneutical method and return to the fanciful and allegorical methods of the early church fathers. When you read the interpretations found in these volumes, you begin to wonder if some of the early church fathers are even reading the same Bible.  Many (not all, of course) of the comments on the various texts are so whimsical and imaginative that any hope of a normal understanding of Scripture is lost.  What this commentary series demonstrates very well is why and how the church went astray early in its history.  When you twist Scripture to mean anything you want it to mean, where you end up can be quite bizarre.

A good example of what emerged from this type of hermeneutic is the monastic movement in which the so-called Desert Fathers and Mothers migrated to the Egyptian wilderness to live as hermits and supposedly contemplate God.  In misguided zeal (and without direction from Scripture) these men and women would often starve themselves, expose their bodies to the elements, go as long as possible without sleep and live isolated from civilization.  Under these peculiar and extreme conditions many of them claimed to have visions and encounters with the Lord that normal Christians did not have. As a result, some declared these individuals super-saints and their visions and dreams as revelatory words from the Lord.  They were elevated to the status of Christian celebrities.  These are the very ones that Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, and Bruce Demarest call “spiritual masters” and from whom they draw their understanding of spiritual formation.  As we will see time and time again, the teachings, methods, and concepts behind the Spiritual Formation Movement are drawn from these early contemplative hermits, as well as the medieval monks and nuns, principally from the Counter-Reformation period, not from Scripture.

It is absolutely essential to get this connection early in our study.  Many, if not most, of the disciplines and instructions found within spiritual formation are not drawn from Scripture; they are drawn from the imaginations of men and women passed along through tradition.  Demarest tells his readers that for help in spiritual formation we are to “turn to our Christian past – to men and women who understood how the soul finds satisfaction as we grow in God, and how His Spirit finds a more ready home in us.”[8]  And just who are these people to whom we are supposed to turn?”  Demarest suggests John of the Cross, Henri Nouwen, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, the desert fathers and mothers, and the Christians mystics.[9]  Other highly touted mystics include Thomas Keating, Thomas Merton, Francis De Sales, Thomas Kelly, Madame Guyon, Theophan the Recluse, Ignatius of Loyola, Meister Eckhart, and Julian of Norwich.  Virtually every author who has written a book on spiritual formation draws his understanding of the Christian life, and especially Christian experiences, from this stable of mystics.  In other words, spiritual formation is not founded on the New Testament Scriptures but mostly on the experiences of Roman Catholic mystics, with a few Eastern Orthodox and Quakers thrown into the mix.  This is important to understand from the beginning of our study, so I will repeat: the Spiritual Formation Movement is not based on Scripture but on the experiences, writings, and imaginations of those who teach a false gospel and misunderstand the Christian life as detailed in God’s Word.

With this in mind, we need to turn to the practices deemed absolutely essential by the mystics for spiritual formation.  These are usually termed spiritual disciplines. What disciplines are we talking about?

Disciplines

John Ortberg, a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, describes spiritual disciplines as “any activity that can help me gain power to live life as Jesus taught and modeled it.  How many spiritual disciplines are there?  As many as we can think of.”[10]  Is this the case? Can virtually any activity be turned into a spiritual discipline?  Does God sanction all spiritual practices and endorse them as means of progressive sanctification?  Biblical disciplines, which are indispensable for spiritual growth and discipleship, are, of course, positive things.  But man-made disciplines are at best optional and are certainly not essential for spiritual growth, or else God’s Word would have commanded them and provided instruction for their use.  Scripture clearly speaks of the discipline of Bible study (John 17:17; Psalm 1; Psalm 19; 2 Tim 3:15-4:6) as necessary for sanctification.  Likewise prayer is mentioned as being a source of spiritual development (Heb 4:15-16).  And the need for the body of Christ, both in the teaching of truth and mutual ministry (Eph 4:11-16; Heb 10:24-25), can be clearly found.  But when we stray much beyond these we run into trouble.  Nevertheless, the Spiritual Formation Movement offers long lists of disciplines that are essential for spiritual development.

Foster, in his Celebration of Discipline, provides a chapter each on the following disciplines:  mediation, [contemplative] prayer, fasting, study, simplicity, solitude, submission, service, confession, worship, guidance, and celebration.  InterVarsity Press has a line of books it calls Formatio which offers individual books designed to teach each of the above disciplines plus the sacramental life, silence, journaling, spiritual mentoring, pilgrimage, Sabbath keeping, sacred reading (lectio divina), and the need for spiritual directors.  Thomas Nelson Publishing has recently published an 8-volume set they call “The Ancient Practices Series.”  The first book, written by Brian McLaren (which ought to tell the discerning reader something), is Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.  The other books in the series are: In Constant Prayer, Sabbath, Fasting, Sacred Meal, Sacred Journey, The Liturgical Year and Tithing, all teaching spiritual disciplines derived from the mystics rather than from the New Testament.  NavPress offers its “Spiritual Formation Line” to promote the spiritual disciplines.  Many other major Christian publishers are following suit including Zondervan, which links with Youth Specialties to offer books aimed toward teaching young people and adults the contemplative life.  Even from the pens of more conservative authors it is almost rare to read a recently published book that does not quote at least a few mystics.  Some of the more prominent authors in the field include: Richard Foster (of course), Dallas Willard, Phyllis Tickle, Robert Benson, Dan Allender, Scot McKnight, Nora Gallagher, Adele Calhoun, David deSilva, Ruth Barton, Jan Johnson, Lynne Baab, Diana Butler Bass, Helen Cepero, Leighton Ford, Larry Crabb, Calvin Miller, Tricia McCary Rhodes, Mindy Caliguire, Albert Haase, Eugene Peterson, M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Gordon Smith, Brian McLaren, John Ortberg, Mark Yaconelli, Brennan Manning, Bruce Demarest, and Kenneth Boa.  And this might be barely scratching the surface.

Future Think on These Things articles will directly address and critique many of these disciplines but for now it is important to note that Scripture does not teach that any of these (as defined in most spiritual formation literature) are a means of spiritual growth, sanctification or discipleship.  Some of the spiritual disciplines encouraged are mentioned in the Word, yet very little specific detail is given on how they are to be observed or their purpose.  Take fasting for example.  Every reader of Scripture knows that fasting is mentioned on numerous occasions, but few comprehend its purpose and function. At no point in the Bible are we told that fasting enhances spiritual growth, or produces spiritual formation, although it has spiritual implications (we will look specifically at fasting in a future article).

If the spiritual disciplines, as are being taught by the leaders of the Spiritual Formation Movement, are not actually found in Scripture, how can Christian authors be so assertive in recommending them?  They often do so because they are convinced that the human authors of Scripture were strong practitioners of the spiritual disciplines, but the disciplines were so much a part of first century life that the inspired authors saw no need to mention them in the New Testament.  Dallas Willard, the “mentor” of Richard Foster, writes that Paul, for example, lived out the spiritual disciplines but did not write about them in the epistles for, “Obviously…for him and the readers of his own day, [there would be] no need to write a book on the disciplines for the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind…But quite a bit of time has passed – and many abuses have occurred in the name of spiritual disciplines [since that time].”[11]

What Willard is saying is that the only reason Paul and the apostles did not write about the disciplines is because they were already being practiced and modeled by the apostles to such an extent that no one at the time needed more information and insight into them.  This is of course not only an argument from silence but a bit ludicrous as well.  Did not the believers see Paul modeling prayer, preaching, body life and the study of Scripture?  If so, why did he bother to write about the importance of these while completely ignoring many of the disciplines about which spiritual formation leaders are excited?  The answer to this question is of extreme importance.  Willard believes that, if Christians today are to live as the apostles and early disciples did, it is important that they somehow share in their experience but since, of course, we do not live with them, all we can do is read about their lives.  This leaves us alienated from the lives of early disciples and therefore lacking in their spirituality. What can we do?  “The only way to overcome this alienation from their sort of life,” Willard suggests, “is by entering into the actual practices of Jesus and Paul as something essential to our life in Christ.”[12]  By this he means that we must engage in the spiritual disciplines that heassumes the early believers practiced (although we are never told so in the New Testament, nor mandated to do so).

This leads us to a fork in the road early in our studies.  Do we, as believers in sola Scriptura, take our marching orders from the written Word, or do we look to the “white spaces” in Scripture to determine how we live?  Do we actually believe that the Lord has given us in Scripture the teachings and practices He wants us to follow, or do we believe that we must supplement the authentic words of God with our imagination and traditions of men?  This is increasingly becoming an issue within almost all branches of evangelicalism.  Once it is accepted that we can enhance the Christian life by augmenting the inspired words of Scripture there is no limit to where we might end up.  Take Bruce Demarest for example. As a lifetime conservative professor at a strong evangelical seminary, when he was first exposed to spiritual formation he resisted but in time he claimed he got over his biases and accepted the teachings behind it.  He writes, “Admittedly I found that certain beliefs and traditions remained foreign to me, being based more on tradition than solidly on Scripture.  All denominations have their blind spots.  But I also found that, once I got past my old prejudices and misunderstanding, I accepted more than I rejected.”[13]

Philosophy

The Spiritual Formation Movement is concerned more about individual experience than biblical knowledge or truth.  This does not mean that adherents are totally uninterested in the Bible, and some would know it well. But the emphasis is on what a person experiences through the Bible more so than what they learn.  Contemplatives, such as Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, will strongly encourage Bible reading and prayer but they mean something different from what most Christians mean when they reference the same terms.  As we will see in future articles, contemplative prayer is not the same as prayer defined biblically; “sacred reading” (also called lectio divina) of Scripture is not the same as Bible study; meditation (mystically encountering God) is not the same as knowing God and so forth.  Many of the same terms are used, but as the classical liberals, and the more recent emergents, are fond of doing, they take our terms, including biblical ones, and give them new definitions and twists.

Many of the spiritual disciplines that are supposedly necessary for spiritual formation are either not found in the Bible, or have been redefined to mean something foreign to the scriptural meaning.  We are being told that disciplines such as silence, journaling, or observing the liturgical calendar will transform our lives even though God’s Word does not advocate these things as means of spiritual growth.  This puts the sincere Christian on the horns of a dilemma:  Does Scripture actually “equip [the believer] for every good work” (2 Tim 4:17) as it promises, or does it not?  If the Word is in need of being supplemented by the traditions, practices, and methods of people, which ones are we to choose – and, more importantly, how would we know which ones would be helpful?  Do we determine such things by looking to the past and decreeing a particular set of hermits or mystics, who claimed visions and dreams and supernatural encounters with God, as our guide?  And if so, which of the mystics get the nod as “spiritual masters” since many of their claims were mutually contradictory and highly fanciful?  Or perhaps we should look to pragmatism as our guide.  In other words, if it works for you then go for it.  This seems to be the collective wisdom of spiritual formation teachers – if it works it must be from God, even if not sanctioned in Scripture.

There are at least two ways spiritual formation leaders attempt to establish a biblical foundation for the disciplines.  The first has already been alluded to: ancient people were already practicing disciplines and so direct revelation from God was not necessary.  Willard writes,

Thoughtful and religiously devout people of the classical and Hellenistic world, from the Ganges to the Tiber, knew that the mind and body of the human being had to be rigorously disciplined to achieve a decent individual and social existence.  This is not something St. Paul had to prove or even explicitly state to his readers – but it also was not something he overlooked, leaving it to be thought up by crazed monks in the Dark Ages.  It is, rather, a wisdom gleaned from millennia of collective human experience.[14]

In other words, the wisdom of collective human experience has recognized the need for religious disciplines, therefore a word from the Lord was unnecessary in biblical times.  But the reality is that “collective human experience” and wisdom, especially in regard to religion, is self-deceiving (Prov 14:12).  Man cannot comprehend God apart from divine revelation.  The wisdom of collective human experience has resulted in every sort of human-created religion, all of which ultimately lead people astray.  The wisdom of man never draws people to God or His ways (James 3:13-18).  This was one of the key reasons that Jesus Christ came to earth; it was necessary for Him to “explain” God to us, otherwise we could never understand Him (John 1:18).

This takes us directly to the second way spiritual formation leaders attempt to lay a biblical foundation for what they teach.  They make the claim that spiritual disciplines were practiced by Jesus and the apostles followed suit, therefore we are to do the same thing.  Willard tells us, “The key to understanding Paul is to know that…he lived and practiced daily the things his Lord taught and practiced…Paul followed Jesus by living as he lived.  And how did he do that?  Through activities and ways of living that would train his whole personality to depend upon the risen Christ as Christ trained himself to depend upon the Father.”[15] What kind of practices does Willard have in mind?  Here is a sample, “It is solitude and solitude alone that opens the possibility of a radical relationship to God that can withstand all external events up to and beyond death.”[16] None of us would deny that Jesus went away on occasion to pray or rest, as did Paul and the other apostles.  Nor would any doubt the benefit of spending time alone with the Lord.  But when we are told that “it is solitude and solitude alone that opens the possibility of a radical relationship to God,” I think it would be nice to have at least one proof text that actually says this.  Where in Scripture does God make such a statement?  One of the problems facing the evangelical church today is that too many men and women are setting themselves up as the final authority on the Christian life. We need to remember that no matter how famous, successful or popular Christian leaders may become, their authority rests solely on the revealed Word of God, not their own personality or intellect.

One of the points that spiritual formation adherents miss is that the New Testament does address their approach to spirituality.  InColossians 2:20-23 Paul clearly tells us that many of the disciplines that were being promoted then, as well as today, have no spiritual value at all.  He asks the Colossians, “Why do you submit yourselves to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) – in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?  These are matters which have to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

The essence of the Spiritual Formation Movement is that through the use of their recommended disciplines our fleshly nature will be tamed and we will grow to become like Christ.  Willard writes, “[Paul’s] crucifixion of the flesh, and ours, is accomplished through those activities such as solitude, fasting, frugality, service, and so forth, which constitute the curriculum in the school of self-denial and place us on the front line of spiritual combat.”[17] But the inspired apostle says the exact opposite.  Bodily discipline does not control “fleshly indulgence.”  Victory over sin and spiritual growth is the work (fruit) of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16-26) which is cultivated when we make use of the means that Scripture specifically prescribes, not the practices that have been invented or distorted by men.

Strengths and Dangers

On the positive side, we applaud anyone who sincerely wants to become more like Christ.  The Spiritual Formation Movement has recognized a genuine lack in the spiritual lives of many who claim to follow the Lord.  Many have gone to church, read the Bible, spent time in prayer, and have a good handle on doctrine, but they have no quality of spiritual life.  Admittedly, all of us experience dry spells in our spiritual journey and at such times we are vulnerable to a charismatic speaker, a well-written book, or a moving retreat.  None of this is negative, unless what is being taught lacks biblical authority.  At times these dry seasons are instruments of God to prepare our hearts for lessons He will teach.  At other times we need to recognize that we may very well have left the path of true discipleship and need to return to the way laid out for us in the Word.  The real danger is that we will turn to the wrong sources for our answers.  This is what spiritual formation is doing.

Richard Foster wrote in 2004,

When I first began writing in the field in the late 70s and early 80s the term “Spiritual Formation” was hardly known, except for highly specialized references in relation to the Catholic orders. Today it is a rare person who has not heard the term. Seminary courses in Spiritual Formation proliferate like baby rabbits. Huge numbers are seeking to become certified as Spiritual Directors to answer the cry of multiplied thousands for spiritual direction.[18]

This demonstrates well the popularity and spread of spiritual formation.  Something that was only known in esoteric Roman Catholic circles less than 40 years ago is now demanding a front row seat in evangelical life.  What has changed?  The doctrines and teachings of Catholicism have not budged, but the willingness of evangelicals to compromise with the theology and practices of Rome have.  As a matter of fact, even those who are soundly in conservative evangelical camps are willing to ignore huge doctrinal differences in order to experience a vitality of life that they, for whatever reason, have come to believe the Catholic contemplatives have to offer. Yet I believe that Michael Horton is correct when he warned,

We want to have direct, intuitive supernatural experiences.  But God has determined that we derive all our knowledge of Him, not through direct encounters, but through the written Word, the Bible, and in the Person and work of His incarnate Son.[19]

What Scripture offers in the way of Christian experience and what spiritual formation offers are two different things, as I hope to demonstrate in the articles to come.

Conclusion

While some use “spiritual formation” as a synonym for discipleship, this is a mistake.  However spiritual formation is officially defined, the means of spiritual formation within the movement is always spiritual disciplines drawn almost entirely from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics. Some evangelicals attempt to clean the disciplines up and redeem them for non-Catholic use, but the fact remains these disciplines are not taught in Scripture as channels for spiritual growth and discipleship.

Many are turning to spiritual formation at this time due to their own disappointments with their spiritual lives.  When someone recommends the spiritual disciplines “which the church has always practiced throughout its history” (without mentioning that this is a reference to mystics within the Catholic and Orthodox traditions), some will naïvely jump at the opportunity.  But as John MacArthur warns in another context,

Lifeless, dry orthodoxy is the inevitable result of isolating objective truth from vibrant experience.  But the answer to dead orthodoxy is not to build a theology on experience.  Genuine experience must grow out of sound doctrine.  We are not to base what we believe on what we have experienced.  The reverse is true.  Our experiences will grow out of what we believe.[20]

Spiritual dry spells and dead spots are an inevitable part of the Christian life.  Sometimes they are just normal mood cycles, at other times they are rooted in true spiritual concerns and sins.  The disciple of Christ should pay attention to such times, for the Lord is at work.  But the solution is not to turn to experiences and methods springing from the traditions of the past; it is found in returning to Scripture and through the power of the Holy Spirit living out the revelation the Lord has given us.

I must caution that the position I take will draw heavy criticism.  Demarest attempts to ward off critiques of the Spiritual Formation Movement by saying, “The criticisms levied against the renewal of evangelical spirituality today reflects a lack of humility and charity.  The excoriation of many Christian movements and leaders communicates the message that ‘I alone have the truth’ and ‘the majority of faithful Christians today are wrong.’”[21]  But this constitutes no argument at all, rather it is an attempt to silence and intimidate those who challenge spiritual formation.  The proper rebuttal to Demarest is to argue that anyone claiming that “I alone have the truth” would be truly arrogant and lacking in charity.  However, to claim that the Lord alone has the truth and He has revealed that portion of truth He wants us to know in Scripture (Deut 29:29) is a different matter.  If in fact the Lord has given us the authoritative Word to teach us that which we should know and how we should live, it would seem the wisest, kindest and most God-honoring thing we could do to believe, teach and live exactly as He has instructed us. In fact, it is the height of arrogance to do otherwise.  Instead of chasing after the experiences and traditions of men we should rather delve deeply into the Word of God and live out the experiences He has designed for His followers.

[1]James D. Maxwell III, www.faith.edu/seminary/printerfriendly.php?article=./faithpulpit/2009_03-04.

[2] Desert Fathers and Mothers were hermits, ascetics, monks and nuns who lived in the desert of Egypt during the third and fourth century A.D.  There ascetic lifestyle was viewed as an alternative to martyrdom which previously has been seen as the highest possible sacrifice for the Lord

[3] Bruce Demarest, Satisfying Your Soul, Restoring the Heart of Christian Spirituality, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1999), p. 84.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bruce Demarest, p. 23.

[6] Richard J.  Foster and Gayle D. Beebe, Longing for God, Seven Paths of Christian Devotion, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 12.

[7] Bruce Demarest, p. 26.

[8] Ibid., p. 23.

[9] Ibid., pp. 26-27, 34.

[10] John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted, Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 48.

[11] Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines, (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), p. 95.

[12] Ibid., p. 97.

[13] Bruce Demarest, p. 35.

[14] Dallas Willard, p. 99.

[15] Ibid., p. 106.

[16] Ibid., p. 101 (emphasis mine).

[17] Ibid., p. 109.

[18] http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=744

[19] As quoted in Demarest, p. 79.

[20] John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 65.

[21] Demarest, p. 89.

The original appears right here.

HT: Better Than Sacrifice

See also:

STRAIGHTENING OUT BETH MOORE ON DISCERNMENT

JOHN PIPER RECOMMENDS BOOK BY EMERGING CONTEMPLATIVE LAUREN WINNER

PETER SCAZZERO INTRODUCING ENNEAGRAMS INTO MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM

by Rev. Jeffrey W. Ware

Presented to the Circuit 33 Meeting / Texas District Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 11-7-07

Introduction

An age old devotional technique called Lectio Divina is gaining popularity  again here in the 21^st Century. Its growing popularity has made it the subject of lay and clergy studies,  retreats, and literature, not only within Roman Catholicism but also in wider  Protestantism including the Lutheran church. But what, exactly, is Lectio  Divina and does it have a place within confessional Lutheranism?

Lectio Divina is “divine reading” or “holy reading.”  In its most basic form Lectio Divina  is simply a technique for learning, meditating upon, and praying the Holy  Scriptures.  Various other  definitions shed light upon the contemplative aspect that is most usually  thought of as the goal of Lectio Divina.

Lectio Divina… represents an early monastic technique of  prayer which continues in practice though less widely, intended to achieve  communion with God as well as providing special spiritual insights and peace  from that experience.  It is a way  of praying with Scripture that calls one to study, ponder, listen and, finally,  pray from God’s Word (Wikipedia).[Lectio Divina is] a slow, contemplative praying of the Scriptures which enables the Bible, the  Word of God, to become a means of union with God (Dysinger).

History ofLectio Divina

It was most likely Origin (185-232) who laid the groundwork  for Lectio Divina as he put forth the  idea of reading to discover a deeper meaning that lay beyond the literal sense  of the biblical text.  “He used the  Greek phrase thea anagnosis to  describe scriptural reading for the purpose of finding a hidden message from  God” (Hagan).  This tradition  continued into monasticism where it became an important part of the daily  horarium. “It was, by the 5^th century pretty well an institution of  all monasteries.” (Hagan)

Benedict (480-543) extolled the value of “divine reading” in his Rule, making it a part of the  daily ritual of monks in the Benedictine Order.

Benedict envisaged his monks making about three hours a day  available for personal lectio. He  sees reading as one of the sources of spiritual energy, something that puts us  into contact with grace and thus makes possible an enhanced level of fervor and  unselfishness in daily living.  It  is clear that what Benedict has in mind is a very existential, life-related  reading and not just mindless paging through any volume that comes to hand  (Casey, 5).

He makes extensive mention of the specific times, during  each season of the church year, which are to be devoted to reading. Throughout the year he has at least two hours a day set aside for such  reading (Benedict).

Guigo II (1140-1193) was  the first to systematize Lectio Divina  into four steps or moments: reading, meditation, prayer, and contemplation. Sometime around 1150 he wrote his famousScala Claustralium, “The Monk’s  Ladder.”  In this writing uses the  image of a ladder, reminiscent of Jacob’s ladder (Gen. 28) stretching from earth  into heaven.

This spiritual ladder is the means by which people “can climb from earth to heaven. It is a  marvelously tall ladder, but with just four rungs, the one end standing on the  ground, the other thrilling into the clouds and showing the climber heavenly  secrets.  Understand now what the  four staves of this ladder are, each in turn.Reading.   Lesson, is busily looking on Holy Scripture with all one’s will and wit.  Meditation is a studious insearching with the mind to know what was before  concealed through desiring proper skill. Prayer is a devout desiring of the heart to get what is good and avoid  what is evil.  Contemplation is the  lifting up of the heart to God tasting somewhat of the heavenly sweetness and  savour. Readingseeks, meditation finds, prayer asks,  contemplation feels.  The first  degree is for beginners, the second for those profiting from it, the third for  those who are devout, the fourth for those who are holy and blessed of God  (Guigo).

Guigo understands the four moments as a progression whereby  one ultimately achieves contemplative union with God. He “affirms that simple dedication to God’s word, if carried to its  logical conclusion, will conduct us to the lofty zones of contemplative intimacy  with God.  Thus it can be said that  the ultimate goal of lectio divina is  contemplation” (Casey, 59).

The Goal ofLectio Divina

Most understand the goal ofLectio Divina to be contemplation. That is to say, Lectio Divina  is radically different from the kind of reading that we commonly engage in  today.  “One does not engage in  Lectio Divina to acquire disinterested, intellectual knowledge. The intent of  Lectio Divina is to make the reading of Scripture a prayer, to create a two way  street for God and us” (Hagan).  This is a spiritual reading that has as its chief characteristic an attitude of  surrender to the word of God rather than the restless attempt to “get something” out of the text.

The gratuity of Lectio Divina is different from the utility of study. Study endeavors to master the word,Lectio Divina surrenders and yields  before it.  Lectio Divina also differs from  spiritual reading.  The last can  have as its end the acquisition of knowledge, the formulation of convictions or  the stimulus for generous self-giving. The aim of the former is union with God in faith and love (Olivera).

The four moments in Lectio Divina are to be seen as a progression. “What begins as reading becomes reflection or meditation; this leads to  prayer and ultimately to contemplative union with God. The Latin terms used traditionally arelectio >meditatio >oratio >contemplatio” (Casey, 57). However, this progression is by no means a rigid “method” of prayer  intended to be mechanically performed in one session. Neither is it a progression in the chronological sense.

Sometimes the steps of the ladder are not chronologically  connected. The prayer latent in  meditation on Scripture is released unpredictably later when engaged in an  entirely different activity.  Some  people combine reading, reflection, and prayer in a single ‘exercise’; others  separate them in time and space.  Many experience a delayed reaction.  The impact of their lectio may strike  months later.  There is a lot of  flexibility here that takes seriously different characters, different vocations,  different opportunities, and the changing seasons of life (Casey, 59).

A Deeper Look at  Lectio Divina

The selection of reading material is very important inLectio Divina. “The earliest interpretations, and some current ones, see Lectio Divina  limited exclusively to Holy Scripture” (Hagan). This is the most conservative position. Most modern practitioners would include other Christian writings. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will limit our discussion to  the application of Lection Divina in  the reading of Holy Scripture.

It is also important to set a definite time for reading  each and every day.  Lectio Divina requires a time  commitment each day from as little as a half hour to three or four hours a day. “Saint Benedict insists that the monk’s day includes definite times for  reading.  This is to say that such  periods are known in advance they are not subject to whim…” (Casey, 23). Location is also important.  Lectio Divina should take place in an  area that is free from distractions. It also helps if the location has some kind of spiritual significance.

Engaging in Lectio  Divina should not be taken lightly. Commitment is key. “Spasmodic periods of a few minutes of spiritual  reading may be of very positive value, but it is notLectio Divina. Lectio Divina as a formal discipline contemplates reading an entire  book from beginning to end.  Not at  one sitting, but from beginning to end” (Hagan). The importance of this fact will be discussed later.

It is also important to prepare the heart and mind. Modern practitioners of Lectio  Divina stress the importance of engaging in “transitional activity” prior to  reading in order to achieve the proper state of mind.  Deep breathing, proper posture, and prayer prior toLectio Divina helps to give the  reader focus helps the reader prepare for the encounter with God.

Now that we have a general idea of what is involved in  Lectio Divina let’s take a closer look at what takes place in each moment. Casey  shows that behind the four moments of Lectio Divina lies the ancient teaching that there are multiple “senses” of  Holy Scripture.  Each sense is  apprehended with a different faculty of human consciousness.

The Four Moments of Lectio Divina (Casey, 57).

Lectio engages  the literal sense of Holy Scripture by use of the human intellect in order to  understand the “historical” meaning of the text. This moment of Lectio Divina  is characterized by study of the text. This may range from a mere reading of the selection multiple times to  full blown exegetical study. Of key  importance is the reading of complete texts rather than mere selections of  texts.  This helps to avoid  misinterpretation.  As one appliesLectio Divina to Holy Scripture this  means reading whole books of the Bible. However, there is an aspect of this kind of complete reading that may be  unfamiliar to our western mindset.

Lectio Divina is not reading in the sense that our society  has educated us to understand reading. Our western culture has taught us to consider reading as a purely lineal  progression.  We start on page 1 and  proceed consecutively to ‘the end.’ Lectio Divina does in fact begin at the  beginning and end at the end, but it presumes much wandering in between. Repetition is critical to Lectio Divina. Back and forth, up and down, savoring and balancing what is presently  being read with what was recently read (Casey, 7).

Another aspect of properlectio is an attitude of passive,  silent receptivity.  One is to  become quiet during the reading in order to hear the voice of God.

Lectio is reverential listening; listening both in a spirit  of silence and of awe.  We are  listening for the still, small voice of God that will speak to us personally – not loudly, but intimately.  In  Lectio we read slowly, attentively, gently listening to hear a word or phrase  that is God’s word for us this day” (Dysinger).

A sense of expectation accompanies this receptive attitude. The Bible was written for salvation, therefore, we approach the text  expecting to hear from God.

However, we also recognize that God works in ways that we  often do not expect.  “What we  sometimes forget is that this gift of salvation often runs counter to our own  perceptions and expectations.  The  disposition that makes us capable of receiving salvation includes a willingness  to be guided and to be changed” (Casey, 6). Submission is an important aspect ofLectio Divina. We are to approach the  reading defenseless and ready to be changed and influenced. “We open ourselves to the text, we approach it in a spirit of faith and  obedience, ready to perceive in what we read the word of God, the will of God,  the action of God coming to save us.… We approach our reading as a disciple comes  to a master: receptive, docile, willing to be changed” (Casey, 6).

The lectio inLectio Divina lays the groundwork for  the three moments which follow and yet it is only the beginning. “The literal meaning of the text is always the point of departure: the  letter reveals the deeds and presents the persons, history is the foundation. The Spirit takes us beyond the letter, our theological life opens the  door of meaning to us” (Olivera). Meditatio  naturally flows from this first moment.

Meditatio  engages the Allegorical sense of Holy Scripture by use of the human memory in  order to contextualize the meaning of the biblical text. In this moment human memory is used to discover Christ and the Church  within and behind the biblical text in order to build faith.

In its most basic sensemeditatio could be described as  reflection and application. “We must take in the word – that is, memorize it – and while gently repeating it to ourselves, allow it to interact with our  thoughts, our hopes, our memories, our desires” (Dysinger). The individual engages the biblical text in a new way by beginning to  focus on a word or words that are of particular import. These words are repeated multiple times in order to commit them to  memory.  In the process the memory  is used to call forth prior knowledge and experiences. The individual applies the text to himself as he begins to see himself  within the context of Christ’s passion and as a member of the Church.

Meditation is not to be confused with exegesis. Rather, it is an intensely personal reading of Holy Scripture with  application to one’s own life. “To meditate is to chew and ruminate, for it is  to: repeat, reflect, remember, interpret, penetrate… One who thus meditates on  the Word is transformed according to the Word and becomes a mediator of the  Word.  When the text speaks to your  heart, you have reached and received a precious fruit of meditation” (Olivera).

This personal application of scripture inmeditatio serves two purposes. It effects both moral and experiential change.

Memory is more than the ability to recall information. In the traditional sense it involves living in the presence of what is ‘remembered,’ just as mindfulness of a loved one may accompany all our  activities.  This is what Jesus  meant when he spoke about ‘abiding’ or ‘remaining’ in his word (John 8:31; 15:7). To live in the presence of God alters our behavior and also effects a  qualitative change in our experience. It is a dynamic element in ongoing conversion.” (Casey, 72).

Oratio engages  the Tropological or behavioral sense of scripture by use of the human conscience  as the individual begins to live out the meaning of the text. The first expression of this is prayer. Oratio may simply be described  as praying the text, using the words of the text itself to form the words or  theme of one’s own prayer.  It has  also been described as opening one’s heart to God or even as conversation with  God. “Prayer understood both as dialogue  with God, that is, as loving conversation with the One who has invited us into  His embrace; and as consecration, prayer as the priestly offering to God of  parts of ourselves that we have not previously believed God wants” (Dysinger).

The application of the text to oneself inmeditatio reveals our lowly sinful  condition and creates in us a desire for a clean heart that we might know God. In this situation the heart itself is enflamed and led to pray for these  things.  In the midst of such prayer  God grants contemplatio.

What does God then, whose help is ever upon the righteous  and our ear at our prayer?  He  doesn’t wait until the prayer is fully ended, but he pierces in the midst of the  burning desire of that thirsty soul, and with a secret balm of heavenly  sweetness softens the soul and comforts it, and makes it be so overcome with  delight and joy that it forgets all earthly things for that hour, and he makes  it to lose itself in wonder, as if it were dead from knowing ourself. And as in fleshly works we are so overcome that we lose the guidance of  reason and so become all fleshly, right so in the ladder of contemplation our  fleshly stirrings are so cancelled out that the flesh does not win over the  spirit but is become all spiritual” (Guigo).

Contemplatio  engages the Anagogical or mystical sense of scripture by a special gift of the  Holy Spirit applied to the spirit of man such that God is met and personally  experienced as one reads text.  Contemplatio has been described in  various ways.  Central for most  authors is the concept of subjective experience of the divine. It is sometimes described as mere listening to God as one gains freedom  from one’s own thoughts as one’s mind, heart, and soul is opened to the  influence of God.  The idea of “resting” in the presence of God is also a common theme. It is perhaps best thought of as an indescribable experience of the  divine characterized by silence and feelings of delight, thirst, knowing, etc. The following two definitions attempt to get at the heart ofcontemplatio:

What is contemplation? It is a change in the consciousness  marked by two elements.  On the one  hand, there is a recession from ordinary sensate and intellectual awareness and  all the concerns and programs that depend upon it. At the same time, more subtly, it is being possessed by the reality and  mystery of God.  Having emptied  oneself in imitation of Christ (Philippians 2:7), one is filled with the  fullness of God. ‘Of his fullness we have all received, grace for grace’ (John  1:16).  The endowments of Christ  become ours – in particular his relationship with the Father. In graced living Christ becomes the doer of our actions; in contemplation  we become the subject of Christ’s prayer. There is a mysterious interpenetration of subjectivity in the realm of  supernatural existence.” (Casey, 39)To contemplate is to take silent delight in theTemplewhich is Risen Christ.  To  contemplate is to encounter the Word, beyond words. To contemplate is to live in the Risen One, rooted in the now of this  earth, reaching out to the beyond of the heavens. Contemplation is vision.  The  contemplative sees the resurrection in the cross, life in death, the Risen One  in the Crucified. Contemplation is the thirst caused by the seeming absence or  the satiety of mutual presence.  The  contemplative is at a loss for words, simply because he knows (Olivera).

Contemplation is, therefore, the final goal. Incontemplatio the individual finally  makes actual contact with the divine by ultimately transcending the text itself. “He who has revealed truth engraven in the innermost depths of his heart,  does not depend on the sacred text and is for others a living Bible” (Olivera).

Luther andLectio Divina on the Word of God

John Kleinig has shown that Luther’s life in the monastery  most certainly exposed him to the practice ofLectio Divina.

“Luther distinguished his own practice of spirituality from  the tradition of spiritual foundation that he experienced as a monk. This tradition followed a well-timed, ancient pattern of meditation and  prayer.  It’s goal was ‘contemplation,’ the experience of ecstasy, bliss, rapture, and illumination  through union with the glorified Lord Jesus.” (Kleinig, 4-5)

This “pattern of meditation and prayer” was none other thanLectio Divina. Luther’s reformation discovery of the Gospel led him, finally, to reject  this brand of spirituality.

Oswald Bayer shows how Luther’s “reformation discovery” led  him to a new understanding of Language. In his early years Luther dealt with the Word in terms of Augustinian and  Stoic theology, namely, that “language is a system of signs that refer to  objects or situations or of signs that express an emotion. In either case the  sign is – as a statement or as an expression – not the reality itself” (Bayer,  76).  In the case of holy absolution,  for instance, the word of absolution was understood to be a declaration of that  which has already happened in heaven. The absolution, in this case, is not the reality itself, rather, the  words signify or point to a reality that already exists.

Luther’s theological breakthrough was his discovery that  the word of God is the reality in itself. “That the linguistic sign is itself  the reality, that it represents not an absent but a present reality, was  Luther’s great hermeneutical discovery, his ‘Reformation Discovery’ in the  strict sense” (Bayer).  Luther had  discovered that the word “does what it says” and “says what it does” (Bayer).

It is clear that Luther’s fully developed understanding of  the word would have conflicted with the basic premise of Lectio Divina. Kleinig proposes that Luther’s Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio was his corrective toLectio Divina.

In contrast to this rather manipulative method, Luther  proposed an evangelical pattern of spirituality as reception rather than  self-promotion.  This involved three  things: prayer (oratio), meditation (meditation),  and temptation (tentatio). All three revolved around ongoing, faithful attention to God’s word” (Kleinig,  258).

It has already been demonstrated that the ultimate goal ofLectio Divina is contemplation  whereby one comes into an experiential encounter God. In this encounter one is enabled to transcend the text of scripture and  achieve direct communion with the divine. The fundamental presupposition behind this is the idea that the word is  merely a sign.  The word is a  mediator between God and man which, while certainly important and useful, is not  the thing in itself.  True, actual,  communication with God cannot take place until one, by prayer and meditation, is  finally by God’s grace, enabled to go beyond the text to establish mystical  communion with God.  It is for this  reason that, in Lectio Divina the  word can only be the point of the departure or necessary beginning which leads  ultimately to the true goal of true communion with God on a purely spiritual  level.

In Luther’s Oratio,  Meditatio, Tentatio there is no room forContemplatio. The direct encounter with God happens in the word itself. The word does not merely signify God’s speaking to us. The word is, in fact, God speaking to us. There is no reality to be sought beyond the word of God.

Therefore if you want to be certain what God in heaven  thinks of you, and whether He is gracious to you, you must not seclude yourself,  retire into some nook, and brood about it or seek the answer in your works or in  your contemplation—all this you must banish from your heart, and you must give  ear solely to the words of this Christ; for everything is revealed in Him  (Luther, AE 24:257).One thing, and only one thing, is necessary for Christian  life, righteousness, and freedom. That one thing is the most holy Word of God,  the gospel of Christ, as Christ says, John 11[:25], “I am the resurrection and  the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live”; and John  8[:36] (Luther, AE 31:345).

The order in oratio,  meditatio, tentatio is important. In contrast to Lectio Divina  which sees the word as a means to an end, Luther’s list continually leads one  back to the word.  Oratio, meditatio, tentatio “describe  the life of faith as a cycle that begins with prayer for the gift of the Holy  Spirit, concentrates on the reception of the Holy Spirit through meditation on  God’s word, and results in spiritual attack. This in turn leads a person back to further prayer and intensified  meditation” (Kleinig, 258).

For Luther everything is focused on the word. Prayer does not stand above the text as a more spiritual exercise  divorced from the word.  Luther does  not see the believer seeking for something beyond and above the text in prayer. Rather, true prayer (oratio)  directs believers toward the Scriptures. In prayer the believer asks for understanding and steadfastness as he  approaches God’s word.  Furthermore,  the very words of scripture form the language of prayer itself.

Luther also completely redefinesmeditatio. Whereas in Lectio Divina  meditation is focused on the human memory and its ability to make the text  personal through the recollection of past events, Luther’s understanding of  meditation focuses on God’s word.  For Luther, meditation is simply the continual study of scripture. God’s word is not a mere sign that needs to be internalized in order to  be heard properly, it is the very voice of God that comes with power both to  kill and make alive.

Finally, Luther replacesLectio Divina’scontemplatio withtentatio. The goal is no longer subjective, experiential contemplation with God. Rather, in his addition of tentatio he refocuses our attention on the word as the goal. Tentatio (sufferings and  temptation) is a form of spiritual attack which drives the believer away from  the internalized self to the external word. Tentatio is not a goal. It is not the highest rung on a spiritual ladder to heaven. It is God’s way of turning self-seeking men back to the word and  therefore back to himself.

Conclusion

We must applaud Lectio Divina for its high respect for the word of God and for it’s many  helpful suggestions on how to approach it’s study. However, we have seen that, in the final analysis,Lectio Divina merely pays lip service  to the word in favor of its much loftier goal, namely, contemplation. It was finally unable to stand up to Luther’s full blown theology of the  word and was therefore rejected by him in favor of a new approach that kept the  word as the focal point and goal.  Lectio Divina’s growth in popularity  seems to be in line with certain trends within pop-Christianity that focus on  subjectivism and experientialism.  Luther’s oratio, meditatio, tentatio  is deserving of a much greater hearing in our Lutheran churches as a truly  faithful substitution and corrective for the kind of spirituality being promoted  in the church today.

Bibliography

Bayer, Oswald, “Luther as Interpreter of Holy Scripture,”TheCambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Edited  by Donald K. McKim,CambridgeUniversity Press, 2003.

Casey, Michael, Sacred Reading: The Ancient Art of Lectio Divina,Liguori,MO, Ligouri/Triumph Publications,  1996.

Dysinger, Luke Fr., “Accepting The Embrace of God: The  Ancient Art of Lectio Divina,” St.  Andrew’s Abbey [website]; http://www.valyermo.com/Id-art.html; Internet;  accessed 22 December 2006.

Guigo II, “The Ladder of Four Rungs,”U.M.I.L.T.A [website];  http://www.umilta.net/ladder; Internet; accessed 22 December 2006.

Hein, Steven A., “Tentatio,”Logia (Eastertide, 2001), 33-41

Kleinig, John, “Meditation”Logia (Eastertide, 2001), 45-50.

Kleinig, John, “Oratio,  Meditatio, Tentatio: What Makes a Theologian?”Concordia Theological Quarterly; Vol.  66:3 (July, 2002), 255-267.

Luther, M. (1999, c1961). Vol. 24: Luther’s  works, vol. 24 : Sermons on the  Gospel of St. John: Chapters 14-16 (J. J. Pelikan,  H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works.Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther, M. (1999, c1957). Vol. 31: Luther’s  works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H.  T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works.Philadelphia: Fortress  Press.

Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 34: Luther’s  works, vol. 34 : Career of the Reformer IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H.  T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works.Philadelphia: Fortress  Press.

O’Hagan, John, “Lectio Divina,”Monastery of the Ascension [website];  http://www.idahomonks.org/sect810.htm; Internet; accessed 22 December 2006.

Olivera, Bernardo, “Bernardo Olivera on Lectio Divina,”The Order of St. Benedict [website];  http://www.osb.org/lectio/olivera.html; Internet; accessed 22 December 2006.

Wikipedia, “Lectio Divina,”Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  [website]; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina; Internet; accesses 22  December 2006

Republished with permission. The original appears at Sound Witness.org right here.

See also:

MARTIN LUTHER ON CONTEMPLATIVE PRACTICES LIKE LECTIO DIVINA

BETH MOORE AND JOHN PIPER LEAD LECTIO DIVINA-LITE AT PASSION 2012

DANGERS OF CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM: LECTIO DIVINA

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.  Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah  

Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth. He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”  The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah (Psalm 46:1-11)

Be Still, Use Your Mind, And You’ll Know You’re Being Mislead By Contemplative Gurus

The heart of this article here at Apprising Ministries is to bring to your attention that it’s quite common for those Protholics and Narcigetes who are teachers of the corrupt Contemplative/Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) of so-called Spiritual Formation (SF) to appeal to verse 10 of the above Psalm 46 in an attempt to justify their unbiblical practice of Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP), which is a type of meditation in an altered state of consciousness—i.e. transcendental meditation for the “Christian.”

For example you’ll definitely see this in this teaching of Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic “Roshi” Richard Foster as well as that of his spiritual twin ordained Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard. Perhaps the best recent example would be the DVD Be Still And Know, an actual ode to CCP in which that dubious duo also appear. The “Bible Study Guide” that comes with it informs us:

Be Still is an interactive film that provides a contemplative look at the history, importance and power of prayer from a cross-denominational point of view… demonstrat[ing] contemplative reflection as a vital part of our everyday lives… featur[ing] some of today’s most highly respected Christian authors, educators, speakers and ministers including Dr. Henry Cloud, Richard Foster, Max Lucado, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shriver and Dallas Willard.[1]

Sure enough on page 9 under the subheading “Contemplative Prayer” we’re told that, “The Bible speaks specifically about being quiet and still before the Lord.” And the first verse used to support their contention that Scripture is speaking about being “quiet and still” in preparation for CCP meditation is Psalm 46:10. In Prayer: Finding The Heart’s True Home the aforementioned Richard Foster writes:

So many passages of Scripture provide a touchstone for Meditative Prayer: “Be still and know that I am God”; “Abid in my love”; “I am the Good Shepherd”; “Rejoice in the Lord always.”[2]

Then we have Ruth Haley Barton, a spiritual director, teacher ,and retreat leader trained through The Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation. Co-Founder & President of The Transforming Center Barton has also been a featured speaker and teacher at Zondervan’s National Pastors Conference for the past couple of years heading up their Pastor’s Retreats. Her book Invitation to Solitude and Silence: Experiencing God’s Transforming Presence, and by the way you can purchase her books right from Lifeway Christian Stores of the “Protestant” Southern Baptist Convention,[3] has a foreword from Dallas Willard and an endorsement from Tilden Edwards who heads the interspiritual Shalem Institute.

In her chapter ”Beyond Words” where she describes her “journey” (I’m coming to hate that word) into the “silence and solitude” of CCP Barton opens with a quote from apostate Roman Catholic monk and mystic Richard Rohr and explains that “help came from a spiritual director” whom Barton met when she “sought her out for therapy.” Barton then tells us that:

this wise woman said to me, “Ruth, you are like a jar of river water all shaken up. What you need is to sit still long enough that the sentiment can settle and the water can become clear”… well, that image called to me with the hope of peace, clarity and a deeper level of certainty in God than I had ever known. In the desire [which] this image stirred up, I recognized an invitation to be still and know beyond my addiction  to noise, words, people and performance-oriented activity.[4]

What Is The Lord Telling Us When He Tells Us To Be Still And Know He’s God?

All of this sure sounds pleasing and it most certainly is the prevailing postevangelical view of Psalm 46:10 — “Be still, and know that I am God.” The huge problem for the growing band of evangelical CSM supporters in the Emerging rebellion against sola Scriptura is that this verse has nothing at all to do with the subject of prayer as the context should make clear. Taken in the context of this Psalm, an exclaimation of praise for the glorious absolute sovereignty of the LORD God Almighty, we have a reminder that those who belong to Him should “cease striving”; stop worrying, “be still,” rest quietly, in any kind of situation because the LORD is your God.

Yet how odd that evangelical and Emergent Church contemplatives content to embrace mystery ala Rob Bell will tell me that I can’t know for sure verse 10 really means what I just told you it does. However, in a perfect demonstration of double-mindedness these same wannabe Christian mystics are then certain that they know this verse is, in fact, teaching their spurious spirituality. Even so, the fact remains it’s these neo-Gnostics—with their supposedly superior understanding of the “real” meaning of Scripture—who’ve wrested this verse out of its context. Um, the Scriptures where out of the other side of their mouths they still tell us can’t be clearly understood.

As to a proper view of Psalm 46:10 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary series Dr. Willem A. VanGemeren is right when he points out that:

the psalmist encourages the godly to “know” that the Lord is God. Though it was tempting to ally themselves with foreign powers, to rely on military strength, or to give themselves over to idolatry and pagan ways, the godly must learn to persevere to the end. The exhortation “be still” calls on them to stop doing one thing in favor of something else. What their temptation was may be implied from v.2: “Therefore we will not fear.”

Throughout the history of Israel and Judah, severe national distress brought the temptation to abandon true religion for the ephemeral security of political alliances, military strength, and worldly paganism (Realpolitik). Instead of choosing a negative option, the people of God distinguish themselves by the pursuit of godliness: “Know that I am God.” The “knowledge” of God includes a factual knowledge about him, his past acts, and his promises. But in this context the psalmist calls on them to commit themselves to the Lord and to seek his “refuge,” “strength,” and “fortress” (vv.1, 7, 11).[5]

Then in his own classic The Treasury of David Charles Spurgeon quotes Jonathan Edwards as teaching the following concerning Psalm 46:10:

Verse 10. Be still, and know that I am God. The great works of God, wherein his sovereignty appeared, had been described in the foregoing verses. In the awful desolations that he made, and by delivering his people by terrible things, he showed his greatness and dominion. Herein he manifested his power and sovereignty, and so commands all to be still, and know that he is God. For says he, I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. In the words may be observed,

A duty described, to be still before God, and under the dispensations of his providence; which implies that we must be still as to words; not speaking against the sovereign dispensations of Providence, or complaining of them; not darkening counsel by words without knowledge, or justifying ourselves and speaking great swelling words of vanity. We must be still as to actions and outward behaviour, so as not to oppose God in his dispensations; and as to the inward frame of our hearts, cultivating a calm and quiet submission of soul to the sovereign pleasure of God, whatever it may be. (Online source)

Next pastor Larry DeBruyn will now give us a good working knowledge of the Hebrew which underlies the English ”Cease striving”, “Be still”:

the verb “Be still” (Hebrew, rapah) is used 46 times in the Old Testament with meanings everywhere from describing laziness to ordering relaxation. Though the majority of versions translate the injunction “Be still”, other meanings are “Cease striving ” (NASB), “Be quiet” (NCV), “Desist” (Young’s), or “Calm down” (CEV). In no biblical usage or context does the Hebrew verb enjoin God’s people to meditate or contemplate. Rather, believers are to rest and trust in God. (Online source, emphasis his)

And in closing, if you are someone who has found themselves attracted to these seducing spirits and their doctrines of demons in CSM and CCP I will now leave you to contemplate the following sound advice and stern warning from Christian apologist Bob DeWaay in his article Contemporary Christian Divination: The False Claims and Practices of Christian Mystics:

I have debated people about these techniques many times. They often say, “God can do anything and use anything, you are tying to put God in a box.” You probably have heard that argument. When I was doing my research on divination for the previous issue of CIC, I thought about the “putting God in a box” accusation. The Biblical record shows that it is God who purposely limits the ways we can come to Him. If there is a “box” God made it. I think a better analogy than a box, is a sheepfold. It is a Biblical analogy.

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber” (John 10:1). The true sheep enter the sheepfold through the door, Jesus Christ (John 10:7). He as the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). He protects His sheep from the wolves, gives them pasture, and abundant life (John 10:10-15). Being in the sheepfold may seem restrictive compared to the adventures of exploring the bigger world out there unencumbered by the guidance of the Shepherd. However the restrictions are there to save our spiritual lives.

The restrictions God places on how and by what means we may legitimately come to Him and receive spiritual truth are for our own good. The spirit world that Christian mystics like Morton Kelsey want to explore is far more complex than even Jung and Kelsey give it credit for being. The dangers of deception are far more real. In fact, if we journey into the world of the spirits by means other that what God has ordained, we will be deceived, not may be deceived. The spirits who inhabit that world have been there for many thousands of years practicing the art of deception. They willingly give people whatever experience they would tend to think is from God. Jose Silva, who is Catholic, when he went into his alpha level to gain guides received Jesus and Mary. The spirits will give you what you would expect is from God in your own context. They will provide any experience that serves their deceptive purposes, including sending a spiritual “Jesus” (see 2Corinthians 11:4). The prohibitions on divination are there to protect us from these malicious entities.

So we are not putting God in a box, God is putting us in a sheepfold if we are willing to be there. The practices of “thinking outside the box” that are so popular today are fatal when it comes to spirituality. God has not left access to spiritual truth in the hands of innovative thinkers who like pioneers blaze new trails. God has given access to Himself, once for all, through Jesus Christ who is our heavenly High Priest. The truth is revealed once for all in the Scriptures. (Online source, emphasis his)

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Be Still (DVD © 2006 Twentieth Fox Home Entertainment LLC).

[2] Richard Foster, Prayer: Finding The Heart’s True Home [New York: Harper Collins, 1997], 149.

[3] http://www.lifeway.com/Keyword/barton+ruth+haley?Ntk=Author, accessed 1/16/12.

[4] Ruth Haley Barton, Invitation to Solitude and Silence: Experiencing God’s Transforming Presence [Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2005], 29, 30.

[5] Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version of the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976-92), in Zondervan NIV Study Bible Library, limited ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), CD-ROM, Psalm 46.

See also:

PRISCILLA SHIRER AND CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR

SPIRITUAL FORMATION IS PIETISM REIMAGINED

By Apprising Ministries special correspondent Daniel Neades of Better Than Sacrifice

We all want to hear from God.

Now you can share the secret closely guarded by our forebears in the faith.

This simple yet ancient formula will enable you to experience the voice of God speaking directly into your life:

1. Get hold of a reliable translation of the Bible, such as the NKJV or the ESV. (Sorry, no, The Messagedoesn’t work for this spiritual discipline.)

2. Open it.

3. Read.

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to weigh in on the discussion right here.

See also:

BETH MOORE THE MYSTIC

BETH MOORE SEEKING DIRECT REVELATION FROM GOD AT PASSION 2012

SBC’S BETH MOORE MERELY PRETENDING TO BE PROTESTANT

PLURA SCRIPTURA  ([ploo r-uh ] [skrɪpt ər’ uh])

[(1350–1400; Middle English  < Latin plūrālis,  equivalent to plūr-,  stem of plūs plus  + -alis -al); (1250–1300; Middle English  < Latin scrīptūra  writing. See script, -ure) ((Latin ablative, “by Scripture plus more”)*

1. Consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; the Scriptures plus something else.
2. The doctrine that the Bible contains knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and that superior spiritual insight may be found through the supplementation of revelations, dreams, impressions, experience, contact with the afterlife, voices, signs and wonders, psycho-social constructs, new theory, new thought, etc.
3. The idea that the doctrines to be admitted or confessed in the Christian faith are found directly within Scripture, as well as in other authorities considered co-equal, co-relevant, and or sublimely inspired, thus creating new revelation.
4. The doctrine of the authority of the personal witness of the Holy Spirit or spirit to the heart of each man as a necessary embellishment to the Biblical text.
5. The teaching that all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; and that only the learned, the elect, or the leadership elite, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
6. The evolutionary philosophy that the positive future of man, including world peace, is predicated upon the unity of world religious beliefs; syncretism.

*Adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura and www.dictionary.com

See also:

PROTHOLIC

REFORMERGENT

DOMYSTIC

We are grateful for these fellow soldiers willing to sacrifice along with us so that AM can stand as a lighthouse of information to help guide the many who are without good local churches or who have to stand for truth within fading fellowships now being covered with this growing spiritual darkness.

Another way AM stays on the cutting edge of these troubling spiritual seas is with the assist from readers sending in tips concerning issues that are popping up to the surface now like spiritual icebergs. For example, the following from the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board (MBCB), which is the arm of the Southern Baptist Convention for affiliated local churches in Mississippi.

I’ve been monitoring Intel along the Internet Front for years now so I can tell you that a major factor contributing to the rapidly growing apostasy within spiritually spineless evanjellyfish is the spread of Counter Reformation spirituality through Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) ala gurus Dallas Willard and his spiritual twin Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster.

You need to realize that it’s even slithered deeply into the weakened heart of the evangelical community as you can see e.g. in Moody Publishers Publishes Book On Contemplative/Centering Prayer. Because it’s my job, here I’ll tell you again that CSM is not a neutral practice; and know this, my research shows that once someone begins dabbling in this they almost immediately begin to drift away from proper Biblical doctrine.

It is possible to dance in a minefield, but it doesn’t make it a good idea. Sure, to paraphrase Phil Johnson, you can rummage through the garbage and find enough edible scraps to make up a meal; but I’d rather eat one made with fresh food. The church visible is now suffering much from the libertine legacy of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult operating within the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church with its postmodern obfuscation.

What seems to have been forgotten, because of the relentless bombardment of EC Humpty Dumpty language, is Jesus tells us to be on our guard against the leaven of false teachers:

Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?”

“Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:6-12)

Don’t kid yourself; the current sorry state of the witness of the Christian faith demonstrates with crystalline clarity that we’re just as dense as those disciples. That aside, note again that Jesus said we are to beware of the leaven of false teaching; He didn’t say be the ones who actually add it in to our doctrine. Yet here’s another example of such in the Slowly Becoming Catholic as we turn to the SBC website for the MBCB and the below:

(Online source)

As we click in there under Resources – Personal & Corporate Prayer we find the following concerning a Romish and Emerging Church practice of “prayer stations” in Virtual PrayerWalking:

(Online source)

MBCB has redefined the term but for those involved with CSM the term “prayer walk” is often referring to the mild maze of the labyrinth, which has no place in the historic orthodox Christian faith. In What is labyrinth prayer walking? the research team at Herescope tells us:

occultic roots and definitions of new-fangled words…have risen to popularity in evangelicaldom. . . . Labyrinths as a form of prayer walking are rapidly increasing in popularity as a personal way to gain more spirituality. Several examples can be found at:

http://www.whfirstchurch.org/labwalks.htm
http://www.lessons4living.com
http://www.oursaviourslc.org/messenger.htm

According to Webster’s Dictionary, a labyrinth is “a structure containing an intricate network of winding passages hard to follow without losing one’s way; maze.” In Greek mythology “such a structure built by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete, to house the Minotaur,” a half-bull, half-man creature which was annually fed “seven youths and seven maidens from Athens.” A labyrinth is synonymous with something complicated, perplexing in arrangement, puzzling, intricate, and difficult to follow.

According to the occult reference The Seeker’s Handbook, the etymology of the word “labyrinth” has to do with “labor, birth, or rebirth. At sacred sites, such as Chartres, Glastonbury, and Knossos on Crete, a maze constructed of earthwalls, ruts, tiles, or underground windings, believed to have been used in initiations . . . .” (Online source)

Actually I first heard of this kind of thing when I was attending a hyper-Pentecostal Word Faith church early in my walk with Jesus. In fact, it has to do with a whacked view of spiritual warfare and supposedly claiming territory back from demons. My last time there the entire congregation was stomping around the church grounds claiming the church building for Jesus and decreeing new carpet for it.

Well, the only claiming and decreeing I did as I left that fellowship was to tell the Lord I was sorry that apparently I just don’t get it. You may find it interesting that later when I planted a mission church in that town, unbeknownst to me, the mother church overseeing the plant actually decided to put it in that very building. Apparently this was another example of the Lord’s sense of humor.

Be that as it may, notice that point number 5 above is very Henry Blackerby-esque in that one is expected to believe they’ll receive highly subjective direct revelation from the Lord during their time in the prayer walking prayer stations: Report back what God has said. Again, the SBC is reputed to discourage this kind of quasi-charismania; but based upon this we have more reason to say it’s actually the opposite.

Now we turn to something even more troubling for an outlet of the SBC, which is supposed to be the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. This would be the MBCB Annotated Bibliography on prayer. In closing this, for now, I’m only going to draw your attention to the largest leaven in this particular SBC lump. First there’s the late Roman Catholic monk and mystic Henri Nouwen:

The Only Necessary Thing: Living a Prayerful Life, Nouwen, Henri (2008)A collection of writings and short essays on prayer and public life. Themes include desire, solitude, listening, community, forgiveness, death, and eternal life. (Online source)

Really? Southern Baptists need to turn to a man who died a slave to the false gospel of the long apostate Roman Catholic Church and was a leading teacher of spurious CSM to learn about eternal life? For the benefit of whomever wrote this, solitude, listening, and even prayer also refers to the crown jewel of CSM; a form of meditation in an altered state of consciousness commonly known as Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP).

MBCB is not alone as the only Southern Baptists pointing us to Henri Nouwen as you can see in Setting Kay Warren Straight About Roman Catholic Mystic Henri Nouwen. But why would MBCB recommend that we learn the spirituality of Henri Nouwen; whose own devotion to CSM led him to deny the doctrine of original sin and convinced him that God already dwells within all of mankind:

Still, when we remain faithful to our discipline [of Contemplative/Centering Prayer], even if it is only ten minutes a day, we gradually come to see — by the candlelight of our prayers — that there is a space within us where God dwells and where we are invited to dwell with God…

One of the discoveries we make in [meditative] prayer is that the closer we come to God, the closer we come to all our brothers and sisters in the human family. God is not a private God. The God who dwells in our inner sanctuary is also the God who dwells in the inner sanctuary of each human being.[1]

Because Nouwen fully believed this mythology of classic mysticism, we’re not surprised he’d follow it to its logical conclusion; the delusion of universalism:

Today I personally believe that Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her way to God.[2]

Its asinine for Southern Baptists to encourage people to add this leaven of Henri Nouwen into their doctrine. Then there’s the very next entry in the MBCB Annotated Bibliography on prayer:

Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home, Foster, Richard (2002) A comprehensive introduction to, and survey of, the practice and experience of prayer for Christian life. Foster’s writing draws from many different traditions and experiences. Topics include: covenant prayer, meditative prayer, contemplative prayer, healing prayer, intercessory prayer, and radical prayer. Also includes scripture and subject index. (Online source)

Again, MBCB is not alone as Southern Baptists recommending the deceptive teachings of Quaker mystic Richard Foster as you can see in John Piper, Rick Warren & Foster-Willardism. From my years of studying Foster’s CSM mythology I can tell you that his musings absolutely do draw “from many different traditions and experiences.” Indeed it does; and you need to know that this even includes apostates and pagan religions.

However, the truth is, Contemplative/Centering Prayer—incontrovertibly mediation in an altered form of consciousness—has never been a part of the Biblical Christianity recovered during the Lord’s Protestant Reformation; because it is antithetical to the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura. Consider the below from Foster’s latest book:

As we experience the unifying grace of recollection and the liberating grace of beholding the Lord, we are ushered into a third step in meditative prayer, the prayer of listening… When we come to the prayer of listening, we put away all obstacles of the heart, all scheming of the mind, all vacillations of the will.

There is a hushing of all “outward and earthy affection,” as Fenelon reminds us. A graphic phrase from St. John of the Cross, “My house being now all stilled,” instructs us in the quieting of all physical and emotional senses. The experiences of recollection and beholding the Lord have done their work.[3]

Notice that Richard Foster, as a mystic Quaker, refers to two other apostate (at best) mystics concerning meditation. Just last year in Kay Warren, Henri Nouwen, And Contemplative Spirituality I explained to you that François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon (1651-1715) aka Fenelon was a mystic and a very devout Roman Catholic bishop from France. He was especially known for his catechizing people into Roman Catholicism.

As far as John of the Cross (1542-1591), the fact is he was a major player in the Counter Reformation of the Church of Rome and, along with messed up mystic nun Teresa of Avila, founded “the Discalced Carmelites, [and was] doctor of mystic theology”[4] of the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus has already said of false teachers — “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16) and He then told us:

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24)

In the case of CSM and its CCP, which is the spurious spirituality of Rome’s corrupt Counter Reformation, stop judging it by its apparent piety and judge it by the right judgement of Holy Scripture as did God’s Reformers when they rejected it (cf. Acts 17:11). It’s well past time to recognize the rancid fruit and sinful ecumenicism of this CSM; e.g. consider CSM guru Richard Foster, a key mentor of the Emerging Church with Dallas Willard.

This warped and toxic neo-Gnostic serpentine spirituality, which slithered out from Rome, was core doctrine of the EC from its hatching in hell circa 1997. Its practice has produced the fruit of a more clearly delineated postmodern Progressive Christian theology—a Liberalism 2.0—that the EC often refers to as “big tent” Emergence Christianity; in other words, the Love Wins mythology of former EC rock star pastor Rob Bell.

This all is also a huge part of what Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren, one of the unholy EC trinity of apostates along with universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt, and his friend Dr. Tony Jones—the progressive “theologian in residence” at Pagitt’s Emergent Solomon’s Porch—began laying out systematically in his book A New Kind of Christianity. All of these ravenous wolves are dedicated practitioners of this CSM.

Finally, stop and think about this: Richard Foster’s Christian doctrine is so compromised that he’s listed as one of the great teachers of spirituality as part of the interspiritual Living Spiritual Teachers Project right alongside false religious teachers like Deepak Chopra, the Dalai Lama, Brian McLaren, Thich Nhat Hanh, Eckhart Tolle, and Marianne Williamson. I wonder, how long before the SBC also recommends such as these?

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Henri Nouwen, Here And Now [New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1994], 24, 25, emphasis mine.

[2] Henri Nouwen, Sabbatical Journey [New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1998], 51, emphasis mine.

[3] Richard J. Foster. Sanctuary of the Soul: Journey into Meditative Prayer (Renovare Resources Renovare Resources) (Kindle Locations 532, 537-539). Kindle Edition.

[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08480a.htm, accessed 12/27/11.

See also:

ALABAMA BAPTIST CONVENTION (SBC) ENCOURAGES YOU TO LEARN LECTIO DIVINA FROM APOSTATE TONY JONES

BETH MOORE RECOMMENDS “JESUS CALLING” BOOK CLAIMING DIRECT DIVINE REVELATION

JAMES ROBISON AND RICK WARREN WORKING TO REVERSE THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

A major factor contributing to this is the spread of Counter Reformation spirituality and Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) ala gurus Dallas Willard and his spiritual twin Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster.

You need to realize that it’s even slithered deeply into the mainstream of evangelicalism as you can see e.g. in Gospel Coalition Contributor Mike Cosper Defends Retreat With Roman Catholics. CSM is not a neutral practice; know this, my research shows that once someone begins dabbling in this they almost immediately begin to drift away from proper Biblical doctrine.

I’ve recently been showing just how bad the fruit of this sad slide has become in pieces like Pathetic Protholics Like James Robison Are Reversing The Reformation and Rick Warren And Teachings Of Demons. If you make the time to actually examine the copious amount of documentation you will see men who have been a part of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is reputed to be the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, openly teaching the Roman Catholic Church is part of the Body of Christ.

I have told you before that the crown jewel of this spurious CSM is something called Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP), which is actually meditation in an altered state of consciousness, ie. transcendental meditation lightly sprayed in Christian terms. From studying this CSM and its CCP—perpetrated upon the Protestant community under the guise of so-called Spiritual Formation—I can tell you for a fact that all who dabble in it end up in sinful ecumenicism.

Another way of putting it is these practitioners end up Protholics; not really Protestant and not yet quite Roman Catholic. If you want a vivid illustration then consider Tim Keller Recommended Peter Scazzero Spreading Spurious Centering Prayer, where you see that Peter Scazzero—who’s taught CSM for Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren and still does for the Willow Creek Association—sounds less Protestant and more like Living Spiritual Teacher and Roman Catholic monk Thomas Keating.

Below Keating, whose devotion to CSM and CCP has led him to virtually become a pantheist, shares with you his warped spirituality that the inward journey of CCP helps anyone experience a “Higher Power” or God or “the Other” inside all of mankind, Christian or not:

Those under the delusion attained from the divination of CSM come to believe there’s “a spark of the divine” deep down within everyone, which thereby negates the need for regeneration of the sinner by God the Holy Spirit. Thomas Keating’s fellow Trappist monk, the late Thomas Merton—a leading authority on CSM/CCP—put it this way:

that expression, le point vierge, (I cannot translate it) comes in here. At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our mind or the brutalities of our own will.[1]

No way around it; what you’ve just read is an outright denial of the cardinal Christian doctrine of original sin. I also recently reminded you in Thomas Merton And The Gospel Coalition Blog that Merton’s life-long devotion to spurious CSM, and most particularly CCP, would make him far more like the Buddha than anything resembling the Christ. Read the disgusting idolatry of the apostate (at best) Thomas Merton for yourself from his own diary in Thomas Merton And The Buddhas.

All which brings us to the book Prayers for Today: A Yearlong Journey of Contemplative Prayer by Kurt Bjorklund, which you can see from the Moody website was published by them in September of this year:

(Online source)

Apparently Moody’s had a change of mind in recommending CCP as because back in 2007 they insisted:

(Online source)

Herein lies the problem caused by these syncretistic Protholics wishing to pretend to be Protestant in theology while practicing Counter Reformation spirituality originating within apostate Roman Catholicism: People e.g. like Moody and Donald Whitney use these Roman Catholic terms with meanings they attach to them. Therefore, they are the ones causing confusion not online apologetics and discernment ministries. The Reformers, many of whom were contemporaries of these whacked RC mystics, rejected these things.

I have this book by Dr. Kurt Bjorklund, pastor of Orchard Hill Church in Pittsburg, PA, and it’s essentially a book filled with rote prayers to be read and.or repeated. Though it’s chock full of prayers by mystics, the  book itself is not at all about contemplative prayer, aka centering prayer, e.g. as would be taught by those like Keating or Merton. So why bill it as such? It will disappoint those who practice CSM and (at best) sows confusion in evangelical circles; and (at worst) recommends Thomas Merton by using some of his work.

Under Day 88 PRAYERS FOR WISDOM/GUIDANCE we read:

Notice here that Merton is billing merely as a “priest,” which is misleading as one could assume he was an Episcopal priest when he died a slave to the false gospel of the Church of Rome. Next in that same section there’s:

Let me tell you a bit more about this “French theologian” François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon aka simply Fenelon. He was a mystic and New Avent, the online Roman Catholic encyclopedia, informs us he was a staunch Roman Catholic who was:

A celebrated French bishop… Fénelon was grounded not only in the practice of piety and priestly virtue, but above all in solid [Roman] Catholic doctrine,… In 1678 Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, entrusted Fénelon with the direction of the house of “Nouvelles-Catholiques”, a community founded in 1634 by Archbishop Jean-François de Gondi for Protestant young women about to enter the Church or converts who needed to be strengthened in the [Roman Catholic] Faith.

It was a new and delicate form of apostolate which thus offered itself to Fénelon’s zealand required all the resources of his theological knowledge, persuasive eloquence, and magnetic personality. Within late years his conduct has been severely criticized, and he has been even called intolerant but these charges are without serious foundation and have not been accepted even by the Protestant authors of the “Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses“; their verdict on Fénelon is that in justice to him it must be said that in making converts [to Roman Catholicism] he ever employed persuasion rather than severity”.

When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, by which Henry IV had granted freedom of public worship to the Protestants, missionaries were chosen from among the greatest orators of the day, e.g. Bourdaloue, Fléchier, and others, and were sent to those parts of France where heretics were most numerous, to labour for their conversion. At the suggestion of his friend Bossuet, Fénelon was sent with five companions to Santonge, where he manifested great zeal,… (Online source, emphasis mine)

As you can plainly see—from a Roman Catholic source—Fenelon obviously had much theological knowledge concerning apostate Roman Catholicism; and further, Fenelon was also greatly zealous in his labor for “the conversion” of those Protestant “heretics” back into the Roman Catholic Church.

Remind me again why, as a former Roman Catholic, I would want to follow the teaching—and practice the mysticism—whose fruit would cause Fenelon to die faithfully serving the Roman Catholic Church that has placed its—never changed—anathema upon the very Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. Consider Acts 15:1-2.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that the mystics who developed CSM and CCP were led away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These practices so infected the theology of the Church of Rome that it would eventually lead to the Lord raising up His Reformers to return us to His Word. So why would Moody now recommend we practice CSM/CCP?

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander [New York: Doubleday, 1966], 158, emphasis mine.

[2] Bjorklund, Kurt (2011-09-27). Prayers for Today (p. 106). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[3] Ibid.

See also:

“INWARD JOURNEY” TAUGHT BY MYSTICS LIKE RICHARD FOSTER IS DIVINATION

MARK DRISCOLL AND NEO-REFORMED NEW CALVINIST CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

JUST SAY NO TO CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER