Following the Lord’s command that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (see also—Matthew 18:16) in the first part of Something Not Right with Southern Baptist Convention Crossover ’08 I gave you a few solid examples as witnesses for my sincere concern that Gnostic neo-pagan Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) has slithered deep from its den in Hell on into the SBC. And if one makes the time to check my archive Southern Baptist Convention they will see this has been an issue Apprising Ministries has covered for some time now.

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. (1 Timothy 5:19-22)

Caution: Contemplative Mysticism May Be Closer Than It Appears

In Part One I also brought to your attention a Baptist Press piece where we read:

This year’s prayer emphasis at the [national] Southern Baptist Convention has been boosted by the efforts of Indianapolis-area pastors who have caught a vision of what can happen when people spend more time praying.

At last year’s meeting of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana, a first-of-its-kind prayer room featured videos, maps and other visual aids along with Bible verses, specific requests and journals to facilitate prayer. The room was filled throughout the annual meeting, and the results were overwhelming, Dale Eakes, this year’s SBC prayer team coordinator, told Baptist Press. (Online source)

I’ll get to Dale Eakes, who is Senior Pastor of Warren Baptist Church and Prayer Coordinator for the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana (SCBI) as well as serving as “SBC prayer team coordinator” for the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10 & 11, 2008, in a moment. But first, terms like “caught a vision” will immediately arrest my attention because they sound so much like the man-centered business terminology often used by the SBC’s Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren. And the other words highlighted above which speak on the subject of prayer are what initially caused me to ask the all important question right in the title itself of my first article about Crossover ‘08 Prayer Is News In The Southern Baptist Convention—But What Type Of Prayer?

For a couple of years now I have been trying to alert the slumbering Slowly Becoming Catholic to the growing hiss of CSM spreading as a spiritual cancer within it under the broad umbrella of “spiritual formation.” I have said before that I certainly don’t frown on using certain kinds of media and/or methods to encourage people in prayer. That said however, there is great concern when we hear Eakes go on to tell us in that BP article, “Churches are discovering more creative and innovative ways to incorporate prayer into their congregations,…”

Because of “Protestant” evangelicalism’s current love affair with corrupt CSM, a counterfeit Christian spirituality that actually flowered in the antibiblical monastic traditions of apostate Roman Catholicism, the question you need to be asking at this point is: Exactly what types of “creative and innovative ways” are we talking about here? And this is why in Contemplative Mysticism in the Southern Baptist Convention? (CMSBC) I felt led to go over to the Crossover ’08 SBC website and investigate further to see if there were any indications of CSM there.

As I also pointed out I happen to be one who has studied for years now the seriously spurious “spiritual disciplines” spewed out as so-called “spiritual formation” by Living Spiritual Teacher Richard Foster. The Lord be praised, this puts me in a good position to tell you there is solid evidence at Crossover ’08 of the influence of this neo-pagan CSM. And sure enough in going through just a couple of posts on the “Prayer” blog there, I was able to show you distinct evidence of a neo-orthodox approach to Scripture, as well as some other teachings using words completely consistent with seriously flawed CSM.

I’m not going to rehash all of that here so instead I will simply refer the interested reader to CMSBC for more detail. What I do wish to bring to your attention is that in my prior article I mentioned that I was unable to ascertain who wrote the posts at Crossover ’08 beyond the listing of a nebulous “admin.” So using their contact form I wrote and asked them if they would be willing to tell me who was the author of the articles. The inquiry would end up going from person 1 to person 2, who contacted me via email the next day, to then refer me to person 3. The name of person 3 is the aforementioned Dale Eakes.

Pastor Eakes, who had by then read my labor in the Lord and obviously took exception to my conclusions, told me that:

The Crossover site is maintained by Indiana Baptists and the prayer site specifically is maintained by my team. As I have viewed your website you seem to have already written your article rather than being in the process of doing so. You have made certain assumptions about who I am and very derogatory statements about what I believe without speaking with me at all. The posts you refer to were written by myself and approved by my team.

Pastor Dale Eakes Disagrees And Responds Via Ad Hominem

However, the fact is I was not making any assumptions at all about Eakes or his beliefs because I didn’t even know who wrote these posts. But at the same time the words and sources cited within them reveal what the author—in this case Dale Eakes—believes so no assumptions would need to be made. Anyone who reads my assessment of the posts which I previously discussed in CMSBC will see that I corroborated my thoughts with facts. Solid evidence which reveals the messed up mystical roots of the tainted fruit that Eakes himself chose to use in writing his articles.

As you’ll see in what follows he chose not to offer any clarification at all about these alleged “assumptions” and “very derogatory statements” which I allegedly made. Unfortunately, instead Eakes decides to continue his response with an ad hominem aimed at my integrity:

I found it interesting for a man who claims so vigorously to champion the Word that you made accusations without coming to me first. You published those articles yesterday according to your site which would have taken you less than 24 hours to contact me and find out if what you were writing was true.

Here Eakes mentions “those articles” which were supposedly published prior to my attempt to contact him, but the truth is, I had written only one that anything to do with the articles he says he wrote. Now as I have already stated I had no way of even knowing that this “admin” was pastor Eakes. But be that as it may, and since I did try and contact the author, the following questions now come emerging: 1) Why doesn’t Eakes simply explain to me where it is that I was wrong? And 2) Why does he feel that instead of explaining himself he should rather resort to questioning my motives?

After all, if I was wrong to make “accusations” then pastor Eakes should have shown me the better way. Yet first he resorts to the so very common misappropriation of Matthew 18:15-18 and opines his following judgment:

I believe what Jesus says when He teaches that if you have a problem with your fellow brother you go to that person first and resolve the issue. It would have been great for you to come to me and talk to me first about potential problems rather than assuming and writing without regard.

How can I have a problem with someone I didn’t even know? While it’s true that I do have a problem with what I see being taught on the International—therefore very public—website Crossover ’08, Matthew 18 has absolutely zero to do with this issue. While this passage is certainly to be followed in the case of personal wrong or sin, clearly it’s context is within the local church. Therefore it does not apply to false teaching or doctrine which has been published. Instead Galatians 2:11 and 1 Timothy 5:20 are guiding principles for opposing public wrongs.

Then in what appears to me to be the typical overly defensive response I see so often today from those whose belief systems are questioned Eakes continues with his ad hominem:

The Bible also warns against those among our brothers who would intentionally stir up division. If your heart had truly been to correct what you had perceived as a wrong, you would have waited for our response. In which I would have gladly spoken with you and given you any information you wanted and clarified several misconceptions that you made in your articles. You placed a great deal of liberties of what “I” believe in your writings. I am very far from the person you created in your writings.

O, indeed the Bible does brother Eakes; say, like the division caused by those who foolishly build their teachings around postliberal interspiritual apostates such as Roman Catholic quasi-Hindu Thomas Ryan. Vipers who then cause younger believers to stumble (or worse) when they ingest the ecumenical interfaith spiritual poison of their counterfeit version of Christianity. Or even like those who say things such as, “if your heart had truly been,” in order to insinuate that it was not. Then there are those who whine about “several misconceptions” and yet offer no further clarification as to what they might be.

And how about those who foment division with false accusations like:

I feel you have made your feelings known and you have very personally degraded our ministry efforts here in Indiana and I feel that there is nothing I can offer that I feel will not be twisted for your purposes. On another day I would have delighted to find a fellow brother seeking to reveal heresies and distractions but it saddens me to see what appears once again to be a very critical person who is ready to tear down anything they want to, without properly checking the background. Sounds kind of like CNN and the NYT.

Now I would have to say, “that there is nothing I can offer that I feel will not be twisted for your purposes,” would have to be just a bit of an irrational generalization. How does Eakes know I would twist an explanation he might offer? Answer: He doesn’t. But it would be a most convenient way to avoid having to give one, wouldn’t it. And in the end, I can just as easily turn around and say to Dale Eakes:

I would have been delighted to find a fellow brother seeking to motivate Christians to pray for God’s will to be done in the harvest of many souls for Christ. Someone who is willing to defend his beliefs and teachings even if it ultimately meant that we would even have to agree to disagree agreeably.

But instead it saddens me to see what appears once again to be just another undiscerning person caught up in the man-centered semi-pelagian non-gospel now crippling the American Christian Church. Someone who gives the appearance of one whose precious position within the “Holy Mafia” is more important to them than Biblical truth. An attitude I feel is so prevalent within the leadership of the numbers lusting Soiled By Compromise.

And further I am beginning to feel that I see someone who seems to be quite uncritical in their discernment. Someone who doesn’t appear to understand just how wrong it is—for whatever reason—to expose Christians to neo-orthodox and postliberal theology at the root of the Emergent Church, which is currently tearing down the historic orthodox Christian faith and causing the Body of Christ to turn their backs on the Reformation.