See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The Self-Refuting Philosophy Of Postmodernism

I continue on here at Apprising Ministries tracking this The New Downgrade And Its Apostles Of Unbelief and the spread of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult in the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church still on their foolish Wild Goose Chase. As I do,  you’ll come to see that its postmodern version of Progressive Christian theology, under their spiritual circus “big tent” Emergence Christianity, depends upon philosophy and not Biblical theology.

For example, in order to advance his ear-tickling Love Wins mythology passé EC icon Rob Bell had to begin years ago with deconstructing questions about Holy Scripture designed to tear down your belief system a la his friend universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt, one third of the unholy Emergent trinity along with Dr. Tony Jones, progressive/liberal “theologian in residence” at his Solomon’s Porch, and Living Spiritual Teacher and apostate EC guru Brian McLaren,

As you can see in Heretical Shane Hipps To Speak At Willow Creek this EC virus is no longer contained and is now breaking out within larger contemporary evangelicalism as well. Dr. Gene Veith, Culture Editor of World Magazine and former Associate Professor of English at Concordia University-Wisconsin, now tells us why the faulty philosophy postmodernism is a major cause of this syncretism and a perfect fit for our fickle times.

Veith points out that “postmodernism assumed [i.e. it's philosophy] that there is no objective truth, that moral values are relative, and that reality is socially constructed” by various “communities.” He then explains:

Whereas modernism sought to rid the world of religion, postmodernism spawns new ones. Unconstrained by objectivity, tradition, reason, or morality, these new faiths differ radically from Christianity. They draw on strains of the most ancient and primitive paganism. Even the deconstructionists speak in mystical terms…

The deconstructionists dissolve every positive statement, every rational argument, every truth claim—destroying form, they say, so as to open up what lies beyond the possibilities of representation… The inadequacies of language will be left behind,…

Postmodernism, in its rejection of objective truth, have clear affinities with Hinduism and Buddhism, which teach that the external world is only an illusion spun by the human mind.[1]

Because of this, in his excellent sermon A Beginner’s Guide to Postmodernism Phil Johnson—executive director of John MacArthur’s fine Grace to You ministry and who blogs at the popular Pyromaniacs site—would say:

I am convinced that postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity; and in fact, the most essential elements of postmodernism are hostile to the fundamental truth claims of Scripture. And for that reason, I would argue that a postmodern mindset involves some positively sinful ways of thinking.[2]

However, there is that nagging feeling that I just can’t seem to shake; possibly the Creator of the universe, Who was walking upon the planet He had made, might have had an inkling that the Hebrew Scriptures have a few quite unsettling things to say about trusting in ourselves and following our own hearts. For you see, that kind of spiritual suicide is absolutely inherent in the false philosophy of postmodernism.

O yes, I know that it’s not fashionable today to use “proof texts” in our postmodern culture, which sees itself as so advanced in our thinking. Indeed just *ahem* think, now many right now will readily agree that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. The reason, EC philoso-theologians like John Franke tell us, is because no one can ever really know anything for sure because supposedly truth is an “irreducible plurality.”[3]

Well, unfortunately even the sophisticated postmoderns will eventually have to admit that maybe this really isn’t thinking very clearly at all. You see, the statement—truth is not absolute—is actually a self-refuting statement. The reason being, for you to even know that no one could ever really know anything for sure, you would already have to know everything that was true in order to evaluate the truth of this particular statement.

But then again, since you could never know anything for sure, no one could even believe what has just been said; because if no one could ever know anything for sure, then we couldn’t really know if that statement itself was true. Does your brain hurt; in a way that’s good. It means that you’re still using it and not shutting it off as these unknowing know-it-alls do as they go mentally off-loading through their postmodern Wonderland of Humpty Dumpty language.

You know, I realize that I’m hopelessly old-fashioned; but I think it would just be a whole lot easier for people to read the text of the Bible and then let it speak for itself. Work with me here, let us just suppose for a minute that those of us who are orthodox Christians are a little brighter than a growing number of leaders within the emerging/evangelical movement apparently think we are; in love as they appear with wisdom of men.

What if we’ve read something in the Bible that they cannot refute no matter how many hours they sit over a mug of microbrew discussing ridiculous non-reasoning propositions such as I’ve just outlined above. What if Jesus knew just a little bit more about human nature than we do; what if He knows today in this ecumenical-seeker driven-emerging-word faith-postevangelical church that we have completely turned His mission and message backward?

Absolute Truth And The Mind Of Christ

Look it up for yourself and you will find that no where did our Lord ever preach, “God loves you just as you are.” It’s also true that Jesus taught God’s love was conditional—as in “repent, and surrender yourself to Me, because I Am your Creator and it was you who rebelled against Me.” You see, the whole illogical structure of those people-pleasing postmodern “Christ-followers” collapses when we look at the Bible like this: God is supernatural and by definition we just cannot assume that we will always have natural explanations for Who He is, etc.

It’s only by what the one true and living God has said in His revelation concerning Himself—given to mankind through the Holy Scripture in the Bible—that we may know what He wishes us to know about His nature and what He does. Now, once we understand that God is just a wee bit more powerful than we are we begin to see a little light, and then we can steer ourselves clear of philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

You need to know that what’s being missed amidst all of the navel-contemplating and “deep” maze-like philoso-theological musings, which so many caught in corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism seem to get prefer to get involved in—is this: 

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16)

Unfortunately, one who refuses to listen to sound Biblical reason will still prefer to do their little spiritual “soft-shoe” while they chase their spiritual tails in front of huge mirrors heavily obscured by satanic smoke. However, the words that we just read give us the refutation of the enemy’s pet line of illogic. The likes of which has been espoused by almost every Emergent Church person I have been involved with regarding absolute truth and whether or not we can know what Christ actually taught about how He wants us to approach the Christian faith.

The argument is summed up as this: “Yes, perhaps there is such a thing as absolute truth, but as humans the problem is that we are not able to fully perceive this truth as it is continually unfolding.” The first couple of times you are hit with this it really can stop you in your tracks. That’s how Satan works. He takes a little bit if truth and then forcefully twists it until its mangled beyond recognition; but this unregenrate line of reasoning actually fails to take into account the supernatural aspect of the Christian faith.

For Christ is God Himself in human flesh, and He taught us that we must be born again; and that once this happens, then God the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of Truth—comes to live within the Christian. And now consider that, uh-oh, God has revealed—to us this absolute Truth—to us through the Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Truth. So what we are seeing here is, despite how “nice” someone may be, in spite of how moral their religion might be, or even how serene, silent, and sincere their quest for communing with God might be — no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Looks like we’re getting into a realm here that is supernatural, and exclusive, because God also tells us that those who are not born again, who are not indwelt by God the Holy Spirit do — not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. However conversely, those of us who are in Christ can understand the things of God that are spiritually discerned because we have the mind of Christ.

Once we come to realize this, we can now understand that Christian faith is the only way to know God, which is what Jesus told us — “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). And emerging false teachers e.g. like Samir Selmanovic[4] and Shane Hipps[5] speculatulating unbelievers can know God apart from Christ and are already indwell by God are mistaken; unless…of course, the Bible is wrong. Ah, but now we’re right back again to Genesis 3:1, are we not: Yea, hath God said?

Do you recognize the work of Satan when it’s presented to you? Good. So, why don’t more evangelical leaders?

_________________________________________________________________________
End Notes:

[1] Gene Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture [Wheaton: Crossway, 1994] , 193, 198, 199.

[2] http://tinyurl.com/36o6ky8, accessed 5/1/12.

[3] John Franke, Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009], 3.

[4] Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness – Finding Our God in the Other,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 196.

[5] See Shane Hipps Exposed.

See also:

THE EMERGING CHURCH SOWING ITS NEO-ORTHODOX CONFUSION ON SCRIPTURE

INDEED, DID GOD REALLY SAY?

DON’T BE FOOLED BY THOSE WHO ONLY SAY THEY LOVE SCRIPTURE

These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted.
(Jude 4, 8, 12)

The Evangelical Community Should Have Purged This Emerging Leaven Before It Spread

The Lord be praised that He has seen fit to open the door for Apprising Ministries to have become one of the leading voices against the sinfully ecumenical Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church, a neo-liberal cult now operating within mainstream evangelicalism.

Its primary legacy is that through its core doctrine of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), masquerading as spurious Spiritual Formation ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard, the Emergent Church leaders have been quite successful in taking the focus off proper Christian spirituality; and instead putting it upon mere subjective feelings.

While all of this was going on, circa the late 90′s, foolish evangelical leaders would make the tragic decision to begin using these warped and toxic teachings within their own Young Adult and Youth ministries. By doing so, it served to open them to a veritable who’s who of heresy, including the unholy EC trinity of apostates.

In this way this unpropitious trio, Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren, universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt, and his friend Dr. Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at Solomon’s Porch—along with a whole host of Emergent apostates—were given virtually free reign over what are now a new generation of teachers.

You should know that they have joined forces in an upgraded Emerging Church 2.0 that now has in place its new postmodern form of circus “big tent” Progressive Christianity—a Liberalism 2.0—sometimes referred to as Emergence Christianity. Unfortunately, as a prime example of how blind mainstream evangelicalism is becoming I pointed you to Fantasyland: Farewell Emerging Church, 1989-2010.

Oblivious to the visible church being raped by people who are not even in the faith, many have simply written the EC off as dead. Not so; instead, what it’s done—as if as some kind of a huge mutant mushroom—is to produce poisonous spores spreading now throughout the professing Christian community having been carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes (Ephesians 4:14).

Many have even landed in the mainstream of the evangelical community; actually returning home because the Emerging Church was initially launched by Leadership Network from inside its own walls in the first place. With all of this in mind, Apprising Ministries again brings you the following words of warning circa 1985 by Dr. Walter Martin (1928-1989).

Regardless of whatever differences we have with some of his teachings, incontrovertibly Martin was a renowned defender of what he so often referred to as “the historic orthodox Christian faith.” He was also a former adherent to liberal theology and laid out the evil methodology of liberalism aka modern theology, which such as these used to take over the dead and dying mainline denominations:

There is a progression that takes place in liberal theology: It begins with a corrupt bibliology, a corrupt view of the nature and the inspiration of Scripture. They have a corrupt theology because once you are picking and choosing from the Bible what you want, your theology has to suffer from it, because your human reason is corrupt… every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of Biblical doctrine. There wasn’t a single exception.

This corrupt Bibliology then lead them to the next step. Their theology began to be touched by it, their view of the Cross, the Virgin Birth were both immediately questioned; then came the miracles of Christ… And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content; they were simply using the outward shell so that they go on collecting money from the people and the churches; because they knew that if the people in the pew knew that they were apostate, they’d throw them out. So the strategy was hang on to the trust funds; hang on to the money we’ve got; hang on the properties we control, and we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology.

And then finally we will take control of everything. The gradual process of feeding you theological poison until you become immunized enough so that you don’t know what’s happening to you. And when you wake up to what’s happening to you, it’s too late they’ve got everything. That is not a baseless charge, I stand prepared to prove that the Cult of Liberal Theology in the United States has deliberately and consistently followed this methodology to entrap, control and dominate the denominations and the churches of the United States and our educational institutions. (The Cult of Liberalism, available from Walter Martin Religious InfoNet)

Well, you’ll need to understand that this EC cult of the new liberalism learned well from their evil forebears and have followed the exact same track to infiltrate the largely spiritually obtuse evangelical camp. For years now they’ve been indoctrinating spiritually dense evangelical churches desperate to fill church buildings through their own publishing houses, church-related schools, seminaries, denominations, etc.

Now you have the necessary backdrop to see what’s going on—and what’s at stake—with this piece from American Baptist Press Conference seeks to nurture children, youth in ‘new kind of Christianity’. Bob Allen begins by revealing to us that the EC 2.0 is indeed using the same methodology described above:

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is among sponsors of a four-day meeting next May to discuss ways to train up children and youth in a “new kind of Christianity.”

Scheduled May 7-10, 2012, at Calvary Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., the Children, Youth and a New Kind of Christianity conference will bring leaders, ministers, volunteers, parents and students together for dialogue about the spiritual formation of children and youth in the “emergent” or “missional” church. (Online source)

As far as that goal they need only continue what they’ve been doing for years in evangelical Youth Groups and Young Adult ministries to train the current crop of worship leaders and young pastors further infecting the mainstream of the church with the EC postmodern form of pseudo-Christianity. Allen tells us a familiar trio is behind this:

Nationally known presenters include progressive evangelical social activists like Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis alongside children’s and youth ministry experts such as Ivy Beckwith, Joyce Bellous, Amy Dolan and Michael Novelli. (Online source)

Notice that it’s so-called Red Letter Christians and good friends, McLaren, Tony Campolo, and Jim Wallis. Allen also points out:

McLaren, author of books including A New Kind of Christianity, said in a promotional video that in his travels he has heard a recurring theme that new forms of ministry, worship and community taking root and growing around the world are not being transmitted effectively to children and youth. (Online source)

In Brian McLaren Admits Ken Silva Was Right you’ll see that leading EC guru Brian McLaren has finally come out of the closet as an adherent of Progressive Christian theology, which is what he began laying out in his book A New Kind of Christianity. It’s certainly not the historic Christian faith; and no one—let alone impressionable children—should be following it, period.

You need to know that the term big tent itself, which I mentioned above,  really concerns the universalism forming the rotten core of this pseudo-Christian neo-liberalism not so slowly spreading throughout the very heart of apostitizing evangelicalism. At this point it’s important to remind you again that we are talking here about a form of Christian Universalism (CU).

Despite minor variations in various views, this CU is based upon a universal atonement of Christ on the Cross—an at-one-ment—similar to that of New Age Spirituality and the Metaphysical Mind Science cults. Notice how all of this sounds strikely like the Love Wins mythology of Rob Bell, the former Elvis-like rock star pastor of the Emerging Church rebellion against the authority of the Bible.

The fact remains, the evangelical community should have thrown Brian McLaren out of its fellowship years ago…

See also:

SETTING BRIAN MCLAREN STRAIGHT

BRIAN MCLAREN AND HIS NEW EMERGING PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON OTHER RELIGIONS

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?

See also:

TONY JONES ARGUES FOR OPEN MARRIAGE AND POLYAMORY

RICHARD FOSTER’S RENOVARE PROMOTING EMERGING HERETIC TONY JONES

TONY JONES WORSHIPS A DEMON

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Timothy 1:3-7)

[An elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:5-11)

The Truth Is, Doctrine Is Either Of Christ Or It Is Of Antichrist

As we turn to the Bible we see that the Lord has given very specific commands to his true pastors and teachers, and even a cursory look at the historical record will show—we do thank God—there were no pragmatic ecumenicists like Rick Warren, nor was there any emerging universalism as Love Wins mythology ala Rob Bell.

One need only look at Acts 4 where the Jewish religious leaders of that day were:

greatly annoyed because [Peter and John] were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they arrested them and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. (Acts 4:2-3)

That really doesn’t much sound like the reaction e.g. to Word Faith prosperity preacher T.D. Jakes or his disciple prophet-pastor Steven Furtick, now does it. The absolute truth is that no matter what a given society’s views regarding God may be—though they are free to have them—as you see from our opening text, it’s Christ’s command that His pastor-teachers:

must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9).

Unfortunately, today too much of the church visible is not willing to refute those who oppose sound doctrine and instead has become more like Peter was before back in Mark 8:33. This would lead to a most startling rebuke from our Lord; Who clearly told His disciple that he actually held a view that originates from Satan — “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” 

Though I’ve certainly become disappointed by his more recent direction, even so, this comment from evangelical scholar Dr. D.A. Carson will prove enlightening to those who have ears to hear:

Jesus’ words to Peter were not only very severe, they were deliberately spoken in the presence of the other disciples (“Jesus turned and looked at his disciples”). They probably shared Peter’s views and needed the rebuke, too. The severity of the rebuke arises from Jesus’ recognition in Peter’s attempt to dissuade him from going to the Cross the same temptation he had experienced from Satan at the outset of his ministry.

Satan offered him the option of using the world’s means of accomplishing his mission (cf. Matt 4:8-10). On that occasion Jesus rebuked him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only’” (Matt 4:10). Here, too, Jesus recognized the satanic opposition in Peter.

“‘Get behind me, Satan!’ he said. `You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.’” Peter was opposing the divine will. He had in mind a popular messiahship. That was the way the world thought; it was not how God had planned Jesus’ ministry and mission.[1]

So you see, it’s not as if we haven’t had the chance to listen to the Spirit’s subtle warnings not to think like men and then try to preach the Gospel the way men think it should be preached in this Biblically foreign mission field of pouty postmodernism. For those who have eyes to see, it’s really right there in the text of Scripture; and even our own Biblical scholars have said it—though apparently haven’t realized this kind of teaching is from God the Holy Spirit.

If they did, then they’d have much stronger reaction against things like the compromised Elephant Room. I wonder, is it only through bored indifference and a false humility as we pray: “Lord use me as Your vessel.” And I do wish the reader to know I fully understand there are many who ignore my warnings; who think I’m some harsh, angry man, and/or consider me some kind of radical kook. However, I offer it might not be very wise to so easily dismiss what I’m saying.

O without a doubt the accepted way of writing today is to do a kind of “plus-minus” assessment of a given subject; but have we really considered this from the Lord’s perspective, or is this rather the things of man in secular academia? Suppose I were to write an article about cancer; would I really need to elaborate on some of the more “positive” aspects of this terminal disease, like say, how quickly and suddenly it can metastasize and just how completely it kills a body?

And Now A Critique Of Gnosticism Offered By An Evangelical Scholar?

But is this type of plus-minus writing regarding false doctrine, what we find in the Bible? Not the one I read from. Let’s take the example of Gnosticism; although its purveyors in the first century claimed to be Christian teachers, where in Holy Scripture would we possibly find a true Apostle of Christ saying something along the lines of:

Oh yes Cerinthus; what a charming and erudite fellow, and a very articulate spokesman for Christian Gnosticism. I preached on the same platform with him at the last Compromisers For Christ Conference in Caesarea. And I really got to know him quite well; and I do have to say I thoroughly enjoyed his new book The Real Christ: Rethinking Jesus Through The Eyes Of A Gnostic. I thought it was actually very skillful how he was able to marry the central Gnostic teachings to those of our Lord Jesus.

It’s truly a very scholarly work; after reading this book from our brother Cerinthus—after all he loves Jesus the Christ as well—perhaps we do need to reexamine our approach to the Incarnation itself and some kind of substitutionary atonement. On page xlii Cerinthus explains how the all-containing unknowable god, the ultimate good of Pleroma—the spirit world—runs into a problem when one of his lowest aeons, Sophia attempts to be like god and produces an aeon of her own—the evil Demiurge.

Cerinthus then masterfully weaves a very compelling argument from his repainting of history. First of all, he insightfully explains to us that one of these aeons was actually ‘the Christ.’ This aeon, he presses forth—nearly convincingly, or not—then decends on the man Jesus of Nazareth at his baptism. Cerinthus then tells us what a miracle this was because we all know the material world is actually illusionary evil.

Now this aeon, he enlightens us from his obviously thorough research, did not come from the evil Demiurge, who is in stark opposition to the good force; that utterly unknowable/god consciousness within us all. As any fine scholar, Cerinthus—who is a Christ-follower in his own way—then documents through his detailed scholastic analysis from numerous Gnostic teachers (complete with copious footnotes), that it is this Demiurge which actually created this evil material world in the first place.

And then, in what just might be considered a quite novel—dare I say refreshing—approach to the emerging Gnostic-Christian faith, Cerinthus elucidates for us a rather tricky question that had previously not been covered conclusively by any of our dear brother Christ-followers in the Docetic Movement concerning whether Jesus was actually a man, or whether He just seemed like one. What a fascinating concept to explore, and we thank Cerinthus for his willing to think outside the box. After-all, he reasons, doctrine doesn’t save anybody; Christ does.

Simon Peter presented a fascinating discussion of this topic in his best seller Jesus Was Here–Or Maybe He Really Wasn’t, though I would quibble a bit with his rather didactic approach in actually reaching a conclusion. Well, that is, if I might be allowed to even call it that. Cerinthus on the other hand understands that ours is clearly a culture of oral storytelling. As such,he is better able to draw from numerous religious sources, and then amazingly tie them all together. In a stunning effort in finding the common ground,  he explains that this aeon/Christ itself never had to suffer because it left this man Jesus before He was actually crucified.

Truly a brilliant stroke of scholarship which I would recommend we examine further before we so quickly write off Cerinthianism in favor of Docetism—though I don’t completely opt for either form of Christian Gnosticism—having been almost persuaded that a somewhat higher Christology could possibly be in order from what I have read in that rascal Paul’s writings. Now I also must say—though I’m still not quite sure—but of course, as these Scriptures are hard to understand. Perhaps we should reserve our judgment until someone can come along with another view on this important subject of Gnostic Christianity. We must never forget that despite our differences, and I freely admit some of them still remain significant, we are to love one another.

In closing, I remind you gently—as I don’t wish to upset you—we certainly do not want to do anything to bring division into the Christ community, whatever they are and whomever He/it may actually prove to be. Now this is not withstanding that we ever do discover such a thing, which I tentatively refer to in my book What I Might Believe As A Christ-follower (Maybe), as “a knowable truth.” As another learned brother has said, truth is an irreducible plurality so, I might suggest, we never arrive at truth because it continues spinning back around in new forms.

That aside for now, certainly Cerinthus’ fine critique of Docetism and Apostolic Christianity presents a formidable argument which is now emerging in favor of us all living together as friends of each other’s religion; seeking God/Pleroma in these other sails as it were. For as I have said before, if we will only learn from the sameness of our differences, all the while leaving the differences in our differences behind, then we will be able to just let God/Ultimate Reality sort it all out in the end.

For as we grow in our new understanding of the truth as it is now, as indeed no one can truly claim to understand, then it really could be—probably anyway—as I think that our brother Cerinthus may have observed in ‘The Brotherhood of Gnosis.” Yes, remember in that charming final chapter of his book where he writes: ‘The brotherhood of man must melt together into the unknowable Pleroma that is godself/spirit consciousness to then be born through the goodness of the Divine with its message that we must be caring for our fellow travelers along the road back into that ‘blessed nothingness.’”

Sure, and maybe we all remember that great second century apologist Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, and his classic Learning From Brothers With Whom I Have Significant Differences. No; actually Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp—himself a disciple of the Apostle John—wrote a voluminous and often scathing five volume refutation of Gnosticism called On The Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, better known as Against Heresies. And along this line, I’m also aware that there’ve been those who have expressed it’s not my place to criticize those whom I often write about.

First, let me assure you that as one trained in Comparative Religion I know very well how to study and evaluate the doctrinal beliefs of a given religious system or professing Christian. Then, as a pastor-teacher, our opening text tells me there are times where I have to — charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine. And say what you will, but I’m also not afraid to speak the truth from God’s perspective — “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30).

As such, we really are witnessing the conveniently comfortable way in which the pragmatic business methods of the world continue to be assimilated into the increasing postmodern evangelical community. When we are shown from the Bible that these practices are not in line with what God Himself would have us do, and since the only other source left is that of Satan himself, I am actually quite justified in exposing this sorry syncretism. You should now be able to see that—despite its many variant levels of compromised, aberrant, and/or heretical doctrines—ultimately this all originates from the rancid root of antichrist mythology.

For it all comes from the same serpentine source as such as these slither together, all the while emerging out onto the way that is broad; and further, they and all who follow them—if they do not repent—will eventually arrive at eternal destination of destruction together (cf. Matthew 7:13-14). Yes, many do laugh at me for teaching such things today. However, no matter how much we’d like to try and convince ourselves that God “understands” our compromises; that He’ll just sort it all out in the end, etc., the absolute fact remains that Jesus has left us here as His ambassadors (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20).

As I close this out, for now, in John 20:21 our Lord clearly says — “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” Logically then, just as it was also once a part of His job, the Master has now entrusted us to tell those who are in sin—and particularly those in the visible church of Christ—to leave that practice immediately. It’s time to say it plainly: All this compromises in order to please people within evangelicalism is sin. Sin still means “to miss the mark” of Christ; and when we do miss this mark it is God’s Name, which is then sullied, and it is His church being mocked.

If you really are His, then you will grieve about the current sad state of the Christian witness…just as Jesus does…

__________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] 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., Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), CD-ROM, emphasis added.

See also:

RICK WARREN SAYS NO KING’S WAY DOCUMENT AND NO SADDLEBACK “STAFF” INVOLVED

EMERGING ECUMENICAL EVANGELEPHANTS AND THE WORD FAITH MOVEMENT

STEVEN FURTICK, JAMES MACDONALD, AND JOEL OSTEEN

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits1 of the world, and not according to Christ.

Evangelical Rebirth Of The Tradition Of Men

As we look at our opening text once again from the King James Version we get a hint as to what all false religious teachers have in common, even though their doctrine often differs — Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 

Now let’s look at what Jesus Himself had to say to the religious leaders of His own day:

And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. ’You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (Mark 7:6-9)

You should be able to see that these are almost identical words to those we read in Colossians 2:8. But let’s stop and think here for a minute. Isaiah originally spoke those words quoted by Jesus above in Mark 7 to the people of his own time, did he not? Then it becomes obvious that this kind of centered on the self “worship” was going on in Isaiah’s time as well. Let me share something that you may wish to take to the Lord in prayer. I find it interesting to look at how Scripture shows us Adam and Eve are in the Garden with God in the beginning.

For instance, they would have initially known exactly what God’s triune nature is like; as they were able to be in His presence prior to the fall. However, by only the sixth chapter of Genesis we read — So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land” (v.7). This means a Being of pure Love is so grieved with mankind that He is going to destroy them. How does this Truth fit with the wishful musings of how God is so truly, madly, deeply in love with all of mankind?

Obviously, it doesn’t; because it’s a myth. It’s part of the rotten fruit of years of seeker sensitive man-centered evangelical preaching; and sadly, this lame love of self (cf. 2 Timothy 3:2) is spreading even further as Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism metastasizes throughout the church visible. And it may also be the beginning of the final fulfillment of the absolute truth of this prophesy:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

As one given such a forum as this, the Lord be praised, I am constrained by Christ to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) as I point these things out to you. You see, I must speak in the love I have been given for my God Who saved me—as does every true doulos (means slave) of Christ—regardless of how human beings perceive it. That we must leave to the LORD God Almighty Himself; because the pastor-teacher’s job is spelled out very clearly in Holy Scripture. For example, a main focus is to — Preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2).

The word preach in the original Greek is keryxon from kerusso and literally means — “to proclaim as a herald.” So we have the image here of the old “Town Criers” going through the city proclaiming their messages. And Dr. Ralph Earle is absolutely correct when he says — “The preacher is not to air his own opinions but to proclaim God’s eternal, authoritative Word of truth.”[1] Since that comment comes from a classic commentary set, it’s not as if evangelical preachers have lacked this information.

James 3:1 shows they will be held accountable for it. I’ve shared before that John MacArthur gave a great answer when he was asked why it was he only quoted Scripture and didn’t give more of his own opinions when he preached. The respected Biblical expositor replied: “God’s opinion is my opinion.” I will close out this particular teaching in a rare case where I will share my opinion on this matter of a sad circular pattern I see in mankind’s flawed reasoning that I do believe is based on solid Biblical study.

A Sad Case Of Seeking The Approval Of Man Rather Than Of God

I mentioned Adam and Eve in their initial perfected state knew exactly Who God is prior to their fall into sin. We then moved ahead to the devastating effect of sin upon the condition of mankind until the LORD God Almighty finally destroys all but eight people in the Great Flood. So we go along from that time until the Creator Himself comes into His Own creation as a Man and stands right in front of the leaders of the chosen people of God. Think with me now, here is the very LORD God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, which they had been entrusted with, now literally standing there in front of them and they haven’t even a clue as to Who He is.

They had misunderstood the Scripture about Who God is and what He wants from mankind; and so the Master finally has to say to them — “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires” (John 8:44). And now I offer this to you; do you think that is just possible that in this seeker sensitive movement within contemporary evangelicalism we are seeing this same type of misunderstanding about Who Jesus is and what He has sent us to do in His world? Let us also keep in mind here that Jesus of Nazareth is truly the LORD God Almighty of the Old Testament in human form.

We need to come to grips with the fact that this type of sentimental “brotherly love” taught by men e.g. like Rick Warren and James MacDonald with his Elephant Room and Joel Osteen is actually a false human concept of love? The motivation as to why these men preach this is irrelevant, the question before us is simply: Is this possibly the seed for the ultimate deception of the devil; his ruse to convince mankind that what God wants is for everyone to live in peace and harmony and to be a “universal brotherhood” leading all the world to work together to usher in their own flawed view of “the kingdom of Heaven?”

Did you ever think that this is really the root of the coming deception that the Bible speaks of as a type of Global Family for the Antichrist, and which is already growing through this apostasy? I offer that the answer to these question has to be stated in the affirmative. What if such as these are so smug and self-satisfied in their inclusive form of “Christianity” that they truly are being deceived into thinking they have it all figured out. Deluded fools with their mythology of some mush god of “love” who just dances in delight with mankind.

So, he/she/it smiles as spiritually bankrupt Love Wins mythology  causes millions of professing Christians to ignore the countless people who remain trapped behind the Gates of Hades that wouldn’t to be able to withstand the forceful onslaught of Christ’s Church militant (cf. Matthew 11:12; 16:18). Such as these listening to the mystic mush god’s false teachers like Rob Bell need the Gospel, not fickle fables. For another example, consider  the mythology of a DVD set called Exploring the Future of Christianity:

In the Exploring the Future of Christianity series, best-selling author Ken Wilber, Christian contemplatives Father Thomas Keating, Brother David Steindl-Rast, Cynthia Bourgeault, and many other progressive Christian thinkers offer their visions of hope for the future of the world’s largest religion, helping it to fulfill its potential as one of the world’s most powerful “conveyor belts” of human development at a time when it is so badly needed. These luminaries envision the Christian journey in a new way, with radical implications for our spiritual lives and for the world as a whole.

This series is your invitation to participate in the timely conversation that Integral Life is hosting concerning the Future of Christianity. Join us in looking at this ancient tradition with new eyes, drawing from the riches of its contemplative practice and the latest understanding of how human beings develop. And connect with others on the same journey, those looking for renewed depth along the Christian path, informed by some of the world’s most innovative and influential spiritual visionaries. (Online source)

As you can see, the goal is an inclusive “Christianity,” one which all in the Global Family can find a place within. Space doesn’t allow explaining who each of these false teachers are; suffice to say quasi-Buddhist Ken Wilbur’s work is recommended by the aforementioned Bell and the others by Living Spiritual Teacher and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren, In my opinion, in lust for the acceptance of the world and the approval of man, such as these have attempted to avoid at all costs the persecution that has been promised by Christ to all of His true followers (cf. John 15:20; 2 Timothy 3:12). This is also what Jesus is referring to when He warns about the Global Family — “And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another” (Matthew 24:10).

Remember now, our Lord is not just talking about the end times; have you not read — the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12)? Now let’s take into account that the sad cyclical pattern of mankind’s sin nature causes him to continue to lose track of Who God really is after each time the Lord may bring about times of refreshing. As we do, it will help us better understand these Words of Christ — “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16), and “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me (v.20).

We need to remember that in proper context Jesus is actually speaking to the historic church at Laodicea, and as we then take into account this continual forgetting about how God really is, and what He really wants us to do, it now leads us to a fuller understanding of these verses as we consider the other side of God’s double-edged Sword here. Even professing Christians can end up misrepresenting the nature of God. As this apostasy grows it seems to me that we had best give ourselves to some serious prayerful study of God’s Word lest we be taken in by the increasing lies and accelerating deceptions.

You know the single most ridiculous assertion I have heard against the work I do here through Apprising Ministries is that I am doing this to create a following, and then to make money from it. But it looks to me like there is a whole other ecumenical and inclusive movement afoot within contemporary evangelicalism who’re overemphasizing God’s love in order to just that. So let me just leave you with something found in Isaiah chapter 6 in order to encourage you as people turn away from you, even when you share the truth as gently and lovingly as you can. This double-edged sword also speaks to our time as well.

We also need to keep in mind here that what we will read is also speaking the Truth in love; because these Words are actually spoken by the LORD God Almighty Himself:

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:8-10)

If the Lord were to tell you up front that this would be your ministry, would you still be willing to go…

__________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] 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., 2 Timothy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), CD-ROM.

See also:

RICK WARREN AND TEACHINGS OF DEMONS

STEVEN FURTICK, JAMES MACDONALD, AND JOEL OSTEEN

MEGACHURCH PASTORS JOEL OSTEEN AND T.D. JAKES UNITE AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:21-23)

The Fact Is, The Truth Will Often Hurt

The above is not a pretty picture of the true nature of mankind. It isn’t Seeker Driven/attractional, and won’t please the postmodern followers of the Emerging Church. So unfortunately, those of us who teach this truth today aren’t likely to come away with much of a following. However, this is what the Lord Himself has told us.

This is the proper backdrop against which we must begin our look at the marred image of God in so much of the visible church. A gross misunderstanding of the true nature of man is the root problem of this whole seeker sensitive Church Growth movement, which has spawned both the Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven camp and the Emerging Church. You will be coming to see that the leaders within both of these groups are closer than most people think, and most all of them share the same serious spiritual flaw concerning the true nature of man.

You must understand that we’ve now witnessed many years of too much of the professing Christian Church worldwide dwelling on the love of God toward man until it has been magnified out of its proper Biblical context. Sadly, the message preached today is a quite distorted view of what Christ actually taught, as evidenced above. The truth is, far from teaching that mankind merely has a little “sin problem,” Jesus of Nazareth—the Creator Himself in human flesh—even told His own disciples they were evil by nature.

This will come as a shock to the attractional megachurch crowd and the Emergent Church, but this is also clear from Matthew’s eyewitness testimony. Look below as he reports that Jesus taught:

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:7-11)

Did you catch that in verse 11? Christ says — “If you then, who are evil.” And here is where the ancient Church would easily connect this back to the fall of Adam and Eve. But the Emergent cry today is: “But mankind is created in the image of God!” Even Rick Warren tells us in The Purpose Driven Life, “Adam and Eve enjoyed an intimate friendship with God” (85).

Yes, and yes again; it is true that mankind is created in the image of God, and Adam and Eve had a most intimate relationship with God. However, what is missing in these teachings is the very reason for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Adam and Eve sinned and caused that image to become marred through the irreversible nature of sin to be perpetuated in their progeny.

Irreversible, that is, until Christ Jesus took our sin upon Himself so that God could offer repentance and forgive us all our trespasses by nailing the record of [our] debt of sin to the Cross (cf. Colossians 2:13-14).But today more and more of contemporary evangelicalism has even begun openly denying this vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of our Lord.

The Marred Image Of God

One of the things we need to keep in mind here is from the creation of mankind in the first chapter of Genesis, sin becomes so accelerated and so terrible, that it is only takes until chapter six before the LORD God Almighty—a Being of pure love—becomes so grieved with mankind He decides to destroy them all in a global flood, save eight people. I wonder how often people think about this.

And as I’ve mentioned before, as love of self (cf. 2 Timothy 3:2) spreads via Contemplative Spirituality Mysticism, what is not being taken into account in large segments of the church visible is that the earth then becomes repopulated from these same eight. However many leaders within evangelicalism point people back to Genesis one and tell us that mankind was created in the image of God.

But now you can see the twist of the Truth by Satan here; although we are created in the moral character of God, those of us on the earth right now are also descendants of people who already had a fallen nature. Now that you have all of this in proper prospective you are in better position to understand why our Creator Christ Jesus has called us evil above. He wasn’t being mean, He was being honest.

You should also now be able to see that the oft-quoted Jeremiah 17:9 — the heart [of man] is deceitful, is far from just an isolated principle latched onto by rabid fundamentalists. It is a sad fact concerning the horrific corruption to the image of God in mankind that happened because of the Fall. And our Lord’s comment about the true nature of man is right in accord with what He had said back in Genesis 8:21.

There the LORD God plainly tells us about mankind’s true nature apart from Christ — the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Perfectly in line with Matthew’s account of Jesus. And then this is further confirmed by God the Holy Spirit through His Apostle Paul when he informs us — For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12).

What Paul is telling us here expands on what he said in verse 9 — For we know in part and we prophesy in part. Then in verse 10 the Apostle explains — but when the perfect comes — and we are glorified with Christ, then we will have the image of God completely restored, and no longer will it be a mirror dimly or as the KJV says we’ll not look — through a glass, darkly.

The Apostle John is also talking about this same event when he says:

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

As we look at the Bible from God’s perspective these things become clear as crystal, and even especially so as we look at Romans 5:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (vv.6-10)

And this marred image of God is what is missing from the message of the “gospel” proclaimed by those infected by the man-centered Church Growth Movement, which Galatians 1:7 tells us is really no gospel at all. The key flaw behind this mythical evangelical wishful gospel is that if we don’t tell people how much God loves them, and if we don’t “ease” them into our churches then they won’t come.

But what these blind leaders who are leading their blind followers don’t understand is this: If we don’t preach the Gospel that God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, gave us to preach on behalf of God the Father then God the Holy Spirit doesn’t come in power. Thus we are in a most sorry state where we might well have pleased man, but we have most assuredly grieved God, and left people in their sin.

Until the Seeker Driven and Emerging churches get back to telling people the Truth then they will only continue to see growing churches that slam the door to the Kingdom of Heaven in the faces of those to whom they are lying. And let us not forget that Christ Jesus takes a very dim view of the type of religion espoused by the man-pleasers of apostatizing evangelicalism:

“woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Woe to you, blind guides.” (Matthew 23:13-16)

After years of bankrupt Church Growth teaching we now have people in the pulpit who’ve never been regenerated.

See also:

RICK WARREN AND TEACHINGS OF DEMONS

STEVEN FURTICK, JAMES MACDONALD, AND JOEL OSTEEN

CONFERENCE TO INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN INTO BRIAN MCLAREN MYTHOLOGY

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18-20)

A Denial Of Original Sin Ends Up With A Negation Of The Critical Need For The Virgin Birth

If you’re a regular reader of Apprising Ministries then you’ll know that the heretical Dr. Tony Jones is one third of an unholy apostate trinity in the Emergent Church, aka the Emerging Church, along with his equally heretical “pastor” Doug Pagitt and Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren. You may also know that Jones is a professor at ostensibly evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary teaching a doctorate level cohort on spiritually corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM). What you need to stop and realize is, Jones’ commitment to the practice of this Counter Reformation CSM is what helped produce his apostasy in the first place—as well as that of his fellow FTS CSM instructor Brian McLaren.

Tony Jones is now Ss far gone that he’s just released A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin. The booklet ends up as a neo-liberal attack upon the cardinal Christian doctrine of the vicarious penal subtitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, the heresy of Jones begins with his rejection of the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura, which he refers to as merely a “Lutheran” position:

Does this mean that I reject the Lutheran formula of sola scriptura? Well, insofar as sola scriptura is naïve to everyone’s interpretive biases, yes. I don’t think I can actually rely on scripture alone. I am always also reliant upon my own reason to interpret and apply scriptural truth.[1]

Any of us familiar with postmodern neo-liberalism, and advocates of spurious CSM, knows that such as these actually appeal to their corrupt human reason first and then read Scripture through that warped lense. It always leads to a warped love of mankind ala 2 Timothy 3:2, which we see is true in the case of  Tony Jones, who tells us:

Although I was surely aware of my own sin, I didn’t really get the impression that I or anyone else was inherently evil. In fact, my experience was the contrary: I generally felt that people are good, kind, and generous. Since then, I’ve become more uncomfortable with the notion that people are inherently bad, prideful, etc.[2]

Then Jones must be way less than comfortable with God’s view of mankind because the Lord Himself informs us:

as it is written:  “None is righteous, no, not one;  no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-12)

So to no surprise FTS professor Dr. Tony Jones ends up in a complete denial the cardinal Christian doctrine of original sin, thereby negating the critical necessity of the Virgin Birth of the second Adam, Christ Jesus:

I’ll conclude this: The account of the original sin in Genesis 3 teaches us a lot about the state of human nature, our freedom to know right from wrong, and our proclivity to not necessarily trust God. But it does not teach that the sin of Adam and Eve is responsible for the sins of subsequent generations.[3]

The Virgin Birth Is A Non-Negotiable Doctrine Of The Faith Once For All Delivered

Once we have a denial of original sin, let me briefly show you what is at stake as it concerns the vital issue of the Virgin Birth of Christ. First, in spite of our blatant sin and rebellion against Him, still our Creator God decided to come into this cursed creation to provide the way of salvation for His Own. Now, we’re accustomed to liberals denying this cardinal doctrine of the historic orthodox faith. In his classic work Christianity & Liberalism J. Gresham Machen explains that “the deity of our Lord, in any real sense of the word ‘deity,’ is of course denied by modern liberalism. According to the modern liberal Church, Jesus differs from the rest of men only in degree and not in kind; He can be divine only if all men are divine.”[4]

You’ve likely heard this expressed today by CSM proponents as “the divine spark” supposedly within all men. A classic recent example of a neo-liberal attack on the Virgin Birth was former EC rock star pastor Rob Bell in his book Velvet Elvis (VE). Bell is the once über -popular communicator and inventor of the Love Wins mythology, where he ended up arguing for Christian Universalism. Bell recommends, via footnote[5], the book The Heart of Christianity:Rediscovering A Life Of Faith (HC) by Progessive Christian scholar Marcus Borg. A more correct title would be The Corrupt Heart Of Pseudo-Christianity: Reinterpreting A Life Of Another Faith Entirely. Borg begins by taking us into postmodern Humpty Dumpty language while telling us that the “emerging paradigm” uses an “historical, metaphorical, and sacramental approach.”

In other words, Borg is here referring to their use of contemplative mysticism in order to turn Bible passages into allegory. Translation: When we see things in history with which we don’t agree, then we just make up other ways to interpret them. In fact, this is encompassed in HC when Borg muses that “the Bible,” and “all of the enduring religions” supposedly “affirm” that there is a “More.” Further, Borg tells us there “is a ‘More’ to the language”[6] he uses, i.e. meanings beyond the plain sense of the words used. Bell himself tells us in VE that Borg is indeed talking about “the more-than-literal truth of the Bible.”[7] Interestingly enough, Borg’s concept of this “More” is precisely what Bell—at that time a very influential evangelical—strongly recommended. The reason being, whenever the text gets in the way of their mystic quest to harmonize Christian truths with other religions, who reject them, these neo-Gnostics simply go into this supposed More.

Since it’s not the subject of this article, suffice to say, this is why Bell et al in the EC push, and practice, CSM. In HC Borg encourages us to use “metaphorical language” in order to bend and shape the meanings of words like child does with Play-Doh. In reality, thye’re just making stuff up concerning e.g. the non-negotiable doctrine of the Virgin Birth. As such, Borg dreams:

The stories of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke provide a second illustration of the truth of metaphor. Like the Genesis stories of creation, they have been a source of conflict among Christians. Some Christians insist that they are and must be seen as factual narratives:…[but] emphasizing the historical factuality of the stories distract from their meaning… When this happens, the rich, more-than-literal meanings are most often lost.[8]

The above now sheds much light upon the Virgin Birth denial-lite suggested by Rob Bell in his VE. Back in 2005, you may recall Bell offered:

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?[9]

Leaving aside that the above would mean Holy Scripture wasn’t completely inspired by God, Bell et al’s neo-liberalism has a few seriously deadly flaws; and it had no business ever being used in the Young Adult and Youth ministries of mainstream evangelical churches. Far from being cutting edge, these were just rehashed liberal arguments that I would see as I began ministry in the late 80′s; mythology long ago debunked by Christian apologists. For example, while discussing the Mormon doctrine espoused by Brigham Young that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Christ Jesus of Nazareth, in his classic textbook The Kingdom of the Cults Dr. Walter Martin (1928-1989) brings out:

According to the revelation of the Virgin Birth as recorded within the Scripture, our Lord was conceived by a direct act of God the Holy Spirit, wholly apart human agency.[10]

I have news for Messrs Bell and Borg, there is no more-than-literal meaning when the Bible clearly says that Jesus was conceived by a direct act of God the Holy Spirit, wholly apart human agency; and Borg and Bell, the true Christian will exhibit righteous indignation at you even suggesting that the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus of Nazareth isn’t of prime importance. Bell also erred when he suggested there’s any way around this by resorting to playing word games with the word virgin. In fact, Bell actually blew up his own argument when he admited “the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah. He was right, it does — Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which Matthew explained means — God with us (cf. Matthew 1:23).

Noted theologian Dr. Robert Reymond now explains that “the original LXX translator,” LXX stands for the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, was just “doing his work one to two centuries before the birth of Christ.” Reymond also points out that “knowing nothing” of any supposed “pre-Christian Jewish interpretation” of this verse, then translated the Hebrew word alma specifically using the Greek word parthenos:

because he was attempting to deliver a competent translation. Cyrus H. Gordon, one of the most knowledgeable Jewish scholars in Mediterranean studies in his generation, acknowleged as much: The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean “virgin” here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows the Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14…[11]

Finally, Dr Martin again:

One of the great doctrines of the Bible, which is uniquely related to the supreme earthly manifestation of the Eternal God, is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. In one very real sense, this doctrine is indissolably linked with that of the Incarnation, being, so to speak, the agency or instrument whereby God chose to manifest himself.[12]

All of this is just more rancid fruit produced by evangelicalism’s spiritually adulterous embrace of the Emerging Church, which had CSM as a core doctrine aimed at kicking out the proper Christian spirituality of sola Scriptura. Now you should be able to see how foolish it has been to allow the warped and toxic teachings of then leading EC voices like Rob Bell to pollute its own young for at least this past decade. EC leaders all the while recommending the work of unbelievers like Marcus Borg and encouraging the questioning of things which need not be questioned by Bible-believing Christians. How tragic that formally conservative evangelicals, apparently desperate for bodies in a building, would set aside proper doctrine and have alternative services that were actually helping to develop this postmodern neo-liberbalism.

Why expose your young to deceptive statements like “in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things”; we’ve just seen the proper translation actually is virgin. In addition, the inspired text of Matthew is in the Greek language. You see, contra Dr. Tony Jones with his philosophical denial of original sin, the absolute truth is that the text of the Bible is fully inspired in all of its parts e.g. right down to the very tenses of the Greek verbs, which God the Holy Spirit would move upon His chosen vessels to use. In addition, the New Testament wasn’t written in Hebrew; and yes, in his day Rob Bell used to wow those who really didn’t know any better. However, the fact is that the Greek does clearly reveal the crucial Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, the second Adam. And the Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of original sin by the literal people Adam and Eve, the father and mother from whom would spring the rest of the human race.

In closing this, for now, we also consider that the Apostle John tells us in John 1:14 that Jesus is — the only Son from the Father (monogenes para Patros) and in John 1:18 — God; the only God (Theon monogenes theos). And if Jesus of Nazareth is not fully God and fully Man by means of Mary being found to be with child from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, Greek) then we only have a human man.  As we consider original sin, this would leave Jesus with a sinful human nature just the same as everyone else. Not only that, but Jesus wouldn’t have been able to die for the sins of anyone else because another Jesus (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4) would only have been a human sinner himself. In addition to this, a human man could not possibly die for the sins for another because by definition sin is committed against God; so only God Himself could die for the forgiveness of tresspasses having been committed against Him.

So, remove the doctrine of original sin, and ake away the Virgin Birth, so that we no longer have Jesus as the monogenes para Patros being Theon monogenes theos and we end up with simply a mere mortal man. That Jesus would never have offered the sinless sacrifice of himself, so he couldn’t save anybody. Ok, you tell me, how could a real Christian seminary professor or pastor-teacher actually sent by our Lord ever even think of demeaning Christ Jesus in such a way? Answer: He couldn’t. And how can someone who knowingly denies the Virgin Birth of Jesus be a Christian; he can’t, which is why Dr. Al Mohler sums this all up very well when he says:

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ. Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.

Several years ago, Cecil Sherman–then a Southern Baptist, but later the first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship–stated: “A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired.” Consider the logic of that statement. A Christian can be led by the Bible to deny what the Bible teaches? This kind of logic is what has allowed those who deny the virgin birth to sit comfortably in liberal theological seminaries and to preach their reductionistic Christ from major pulpits.

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls. (Online source)

I say this is real spiritual food well worthy of our meditations… soli Deo gloria!

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] Jones, Tony (2012-03-18). A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin (Kindle Locations 81-84). The JoPa Group. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid., (Kindle Locations 54-57).

[3] Ibid., (Kindle Locations 107-109), italics his.

[4] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002], 108.

[5] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], endnotes: 1; 57.

[6] Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity [New York: Harper Collins, 2003] , 81.

[7] Ibid., 37; Bell, op. cit., 61.

[8] Borg, op. cit., 52, 53, 54.

[9] Bell, op. cit., 26.

[10] Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Ravi Zacharias, Gen. Ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2005), 246.

[11] Robert L. Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness [Geanies House: Mentor, 2003], 93, 94.

[12] Martin op. cit., 244.

See also:

TONY JONES WORSHIPS A DEMON

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

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

For many, it seems, this falling away from Biblical authority has suddenly exploded onto the scene as if by a spiritual match tossed onto the gasoline of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), with its paralyzing of critical thinking skills through its deeply existential vehicle of Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP).

But Apprising Ministries wants you to know that for years now Satan and his deceiving spirits have been busy saturating their doctrines of demons throughout the very dry forest of dead intellectual evangelical churchianity so easily passing for Christianity today in our postmodern [read: relativistic] America.

Therefore, I will offer that this falling away from Biblical Christianity has already been very slowly burning within mainstream evangelicalism, which as the new traditions of men, has actually been nullifying the Word of God. In my opinion, Jesus would say:

to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:6-8)

This is why I believe that, finally growing weary of this rising rebellion, God the Holy Spirit is simply blowing it throughout the whole of Christendom now. And so apostasy is now spreading within the Christian Church world-wide as quickly an Oklahoma wildfire in order to burn out the deleterious driftwood currently using up so much of our Father’s precious resources.

If you’re listening to the Voice of the Spirit then will know that very rough spiritual waters lie dead ahead because we are only just beginning to witness 1 Peter 4:17 judgments as Christ starts shaking His church visible. I say the time has come in the Christian arena for division, and not unity.

We need a reformation every bit the same as when Luther stood hammer in hand. I’ll simply offer that someone must arise and declare that there is just no way to harmonize geniune Bible-believing and Spirit-led Christianity e.g. with the egregiously ecumenical postliberal cult of the Emerging Church.

People will have to come to realize that it has virtually completely swallowed up the younger sectors of the centered on the self, and semi-pelagian (at best), mainstream contemporary evangelical community. 1) the EC hasn’t died off, it’s regrouping; and 2) it’s effects are even manifesting in the attractional camp, particularly concerning Scripture.

It shouldn’t really surprise anyone who knows what’s going on because the Seeker Driven aka attractional movement and the Emerging Church are two sides of the same corrupt coin of the Church Growth Movement. And the CGM is at the root of things like Wycliffe-Gate Continued: Words MEAN Things.

The truth is, there can be no compromise with men preaching a pseudo-Christian non-gospel of social reform such as EC leader, quasi-universalist Doug Pagitt, and his “theologian in residence” Dr. Tony Jones. If you haven’t, I encourage you to read the AM piece The New Christians With Christianity Worth Believing—No Sola Scriptura: Yes, Women Pastors And Queer Christians.

If people will only actually make the time to follow the links therein, then prayerfully just maybe, they’ll finally be able to see what’s about to ignite within your own mainstream evangelical church Young Adult and Youth groups. Tragically, using them as guinea pigs for CSM, many now hold to nebula Scriptura.

Mainstream Evangelicalism Is Now Going To Have Decide About LGBT “Christ-Followers”

As you saw in earlier pieces like Christianity 21: Emerging Voices Of A Pseudo-Christian Faith Jones and Pagitt were the ones behind that original EC apostasia-palooza c21. Sadly, J&P actually were proved right when they told us that these c21 “voices” would be revealing “the way the Christianity will be changing in coming days.”

For example, one of these most important voices for the future of Christianity was the then relatively unknown ELCA pastrix Nadia Bolz-Weber. Bolz-Weber is quite open about her local church being “queer inclusive,” meaning that they don’t believe that the unrepentant practice of sexual immorality with a member of the same sex—which is precisely what homosexuality is—should be considered sin.

Now that sola Scriptura has been shown out the door of the church visible, let me give you a quick picture of what already is coming out of the closet and in through that open door. We are now left with simply subjective arguments concerning doctrine e.g. homosexuality—a spiritual version of Oprah—based upon what we feel God says to us individually after our transcendental-lite meditation aka the Contemplative/Centering Prayer (CCP) I referred to at the outset.

In closing this out, for now, I politely ask that you think with me here a moment. As I mentioned earlier, since at least the year 2000, many mainstream evangelical churches began so-called alternative service using the aforementioned Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), which was a core doctrine of the sinfully ecumenical Emerging/ent Church from its evil inception. At the same time, they also started using their Young Adult and Youth groups as ground zero for experiments with the effects of CSM.

As a sad result, now evangelicalism is only beginning to pay the price for passing it’s younger sectors through the fires of Molech. Many of your young mainstream evangelicals have long ago been conditioned to reject any kind of argument based solely upon what Scripture says. So, what exactly are you going to say to them when queer inclusive “pastors” like Nadia Bolz-Weber start to introduce such as these to them as their fellow “Christ-followers?”

Know this in the Lord, ER2 gives a peek at the weak…the wise recognize the time in which we now live…

See also:

MARK DRISCOLL, ACTS 29 NETWORK, AND RICK WARREN

BETH MOORE AND HER VISION OF A ROMAN CATHOLIC DENOMINATION

T.D. JAKES PROSPERITY GOSPEL; SOW A SEED, GOD WILL BLESS YOU