As I promised, I have studied and prepared a response to both
of your last emails. I have also reviewed any statements in my
correspondence to you as to what I did or did not say. My responses
are in blue below your statements (except for the links which
are already in blue). I will also send this as a file attachment
in the event that there are formatting problems.
In some cases I formatted your statements in bold to better
help identify what statement upon which I am focusing. I will
respond separately to your email of September 23rd in
a day or two. Since your emails contain all of my emails
to you, I can search and verify if I have stated what you say
I state.
The thing I found most notable in your
September 15 email was not so much what you said or responded
to, but what you did not respond to. I devoted a great
deal of the initial part of my letter attempting to determine
whether or not you are a Christian, according to the Scriptures
which I supplied to you. I already know that Richard Foster calls
himself a brother in Christ.
You did make some references to Christ's
teachings. But in your September 15 letter, I did not get the
impression that you are claiming to be a born again Christian,
again according to the Scriptures I submitted. Now you very well
could be. Would you kindly respond: Are you a Christian....redeemed
by the Blood of the Lamb?
The answer is important, because there
are a number of Scriptures that deal with how we are to respond
to people who call themselves a brother or sister in Christ vs.
how we are to deal with a person who is an unbeliever. Just because
you have an association with Richard Foster, who claims to be
a Christian, does not necessarily mean that you are one....though
you could be. But because by your own declaration you are identified
with him, I would be properly grounded to exercise the appropriate
Scriptures in responding to you.
Sincerely,
- James Sundquist
- President
- Rock Salt Publishing
*********************************************
15 September 2003
Dear James,
Thank you for answering my question
about your motivation for making the comments and asking
the questions that you do about Richard Foster. Taking your statement that
"Only a fool makes up his mind without hearing both sides
of a story" (Letter from James Sundquist to Mary Fairchild
posted at http://www.cephas-library.com/discernment/discernment_2_false_accusations_fairchild.html)
at face value, here are my answers, first to the factual
errors that you repeat, errors in logic that
you and web sites like Lighthouse Trails make, a theological
issue, and exegetical issues.
RESPONSE:
I am not
sure why you are quoting me here. So I would like to clarify
that I had already heard Richard Foster's side of the story by
virtue of all of his published materials and website and his
own quotes. Now it is possible that someone could simply make
up a quote and say he said it. But this is a question of fact,
and can easily be verified by going right to the source, such
as his book Celebration of Discipline. You even
quote from this book, so it is not as though Richard Foster's
story is not known. So I never made up my mind before hearing
(reading) his side of the story.
FACTUAL ERRORS
- Your statement: Vaswig is co-founder
of RENOVARE. The facts: Richard Foster founded RENOVARE in 1988,
and the incorporation papers are signed by himself and his
wife with myself and a friend as witnesses. Vaswig was not
involved in founding RENOVARE and has been involved
in RENOVARE only because he has been on our Board of
Trustees since 1989.
RESPONSE:
If Lighthouse
or other links I supplied made this statement and it is not correct,
I am glad to know this. So, who originally did make it? You should
confront this person. However, the fact remains that William
L. Vaswig is still very much identified with Richard Foster,
given that he has been on the Board of Trustees since 1989? If
William L. Vaswig's teachings do not line up with the Scriptures
wouldn't you disavow him and remove him from your Board of Trustees?
Your letter to me conveys the idea you are trying to distance
yourself from William L. Vaswig. If that is so, why do you offer
and recommend his books on your Renovare website? You may be
"technically" correct about Vaswig's title, but it
still creates the appearance of evil to the multitudes of outsiders
who are attempting to discern Renovare's position(s), before
they import its teachings or one of its teachers.
Later in
your September 15, 2003 letter to me you state that simply quoting
a person does not mean you agree with everything else they say
or publish. That is true enough, and it would certainly be even
rare where one agreed 100% with another authors' quoted sources,
unless they quote accurately and directly from the Bible. But
if you are going to claim this priviledge regarding Richard Foster
quoting Merton or Jung, then you must accord to me the same priviledge
when I quote someone who has either misquoted or incorrectly
quoted another author or link. If we were accountable for every
single quote or misquote, there would be no end in sight because...one
way or the other....virtually every book ever written that quotes
another author eventually ends up having quoted a large percentage
of every book ever written. Same applies to links. If you kept
clinking links on someone's site, eventually you would land on
every website there is....that is if you have a million years.
2. Your statement:
Foster and Vaswig have "held many conferences".
The facts: The only RENOVARE conferences that Vaswig has
spoken at were held in Wichita, Kansas, in 1989; in
Pasadena, California, in 1991; and in Houston, Texas, in
1999. In my opinion, three does not constitute "many".
You probably learned about the "National Conference on
Spiritual Renewal" held in Pasadena from other web sites
who have picked up their information from MEDIA SPOTLIGHT written
by Al Dager, a distorted and skewed account of what
happened.
-
- RESPONSE:
If
as you claim and can prove that Al Dagers statements are incorrect,
distorted, or skewed, have you confronted him directly? If
you have the concern you have expressed in your September 15
letter, wouldn't you need to exercise Matthew 18 that you told
me I should do? If you are so concerned that I talked to Lighthouse
Trails about your statements, then why are you talking about
Al Dager to me? And after all, you had
no problem discussing the people at Lighthouse Trails Publishing
with me. So turnaround is not fair play? You have accused them
of bearing false witness, yet you indicated that you don't think
I should tell them.
- Your statement: Karen Mains
. . . who sits on your RENOVARE Board. The facts:
Karen Mains is not nor ever has been a member of our governing
body, the Board of Trustees. She was on a Board of Reference
along with many other Christian leaders who agreed to say a good
word for RENOVARE if asked. At no time did the Board of Reference
have any governance duties or responsibilities. This is another
factual error promulgated by Al Dager in MEDIA SPOTLIGHT.
RESPONSE:
I never
stated that Karen Mains sat on your Board of Trustees. I simply
said "Board." But, as in the case of my response above
about William L. Vaswig, regardless of which type of Board Karen
Mains sits on at Renovare, this nevertheless gives a clear unimpeachable
impression that she is identified with Renovare; likewise
Renovare with Karen Mains. In both cases (Karen Mains and William
L. Vaswig) you are now giving the distinct impression of trying
to distance yourselves from each of them. Why would you do
that? But it did not surprise me at all to see Karen Mains
name on your board, as her own teaching is replete with ideas
drawn in parallel to Richard Foster's teachings.
Once again
you are using ad hominem adjectives to describe Al Dager while
you simultaneously proclaim Matthew 18 and it is OK for you to
talk about Lighthouse Trails. There is a word for this in Scripture.
I will let you say it.
Other factual errors that have
proliferated on numerous web sites:
RESPONSE:
If as you
state to me, there are particularly substantial errors.... versus
splitting hairs...wherein the claimed teachings of Richard Foster,
are, not in fact, I am very glad to know this!
- Richard Foster is a psychologist.
The fact: He holds a doctorate of pastoral theology.
RESPONSE:
If a person
with a Doctorate in Pastoral Theology invokes unbiblical psychology
to counsel a Christian, this is a worse indictment. Richard Foster
praises psychology. Are you trying to distance yourself from
psychology? If so, then why do you promote Dr. Siang-Yang
Tan, Professor of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary as
a speaker for Renovare, as well as his books on your website?
If you are not praising psychology then why does the Renovare
website promote the occultic pagan rooted Enneagram Personality
Profile* on Renovare website? One can get a degree in
Science to learn what the Theory of Evolution teaches, but it
is quite another thing to go out and then recruit adherants to
Evolution. True believers should be using the knowledge they've
acquired to expose Darwin and Jung, not promote them.
"It
would be better that a millstone were tied around his neck and
he be tossed into the deepest ocean" than to stumble the
least one of these my children..." e.g., with occultic and
antichrist teachers such as Carl Jung. The guilt remains whether
or not Richard Foster is technically a licensed psychologist**,
or merely uses psychology while pastoring or counseling people
with psychology, as these counselees have put their trust in
a man (Richard Foster) whom they think to be a pastor. A pastor
quoting Carl Jung in his counseling? That is even more frightening,
to say nothing of being an abomination to the Lord Himself!!
For truly, what fellowship does light have
with darkness, or the cup of the Lord with Belial? And if there
was every a person who walked in darkness and was demon-possessed,
it was Carl Jung!
*ENNEAGRAM
PERSONALITY PROFILE:
SOURCE:
Robert Innes, Personality Indicators and The Spiritual
Life, Grove Books Ltd., Cambridge, 1996, p.3; The Ennegram
is significantly occultic in nature and origin, coming from Sufi,
numerology, and Africa New-Age sources. George Gurideff, Oscar
Ichazo of Esalen Institute, and Claudio Naranjo are the prominent
New Agers who have popularized it, and then introduced it, through
Fr. Bob Oschs SJ, into the Christian Church. For more information,
I recommend Robert Innes' booklet and Mitchell Pacwa SJ article's
"Tell Me Who I Am, O Ennegram" Christian Research Journal,
Fall 1991, pp. 14ff.
If there
is any doubt that Enneagram Personality Profile, or Meyers-Briggs
Temperament Sorter (Carl Jung) is unbiblical and pagan-based,
I invite you to read the following documents:
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/st_simons/arm03.htm
&
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/temper.htm
**PSYCHOLOGY
VS. THE BIBLE:
Psychology
counsels no fear of the Lord at anytime in any of its
therapies, let alone at the beginning. So there is no wisdom
in it. The Bible teaches that there is body, soul, and spirit;
psychology says there is only the body and the soul. The Bible
teaches us that it is Holy Spirit that will lead us in all truth
and that it is sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing even
the soul from spirit. Psychology doesn't even believe in the
Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches us about our eternal destiny.
Psychology offers no hope for eternity. The Bible teaches us
to lay up for our selves treasures in heaven. Psychology offers
no concept of heaven to lay up your treasures for. The Bible
says seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things (our
needs) will be added unto us. Psychology doesn't seek first
the Kingdom of God, in fact it never seeks the Kingdom
of God. The Bible teaches that our help comes from the Lord.
Psychology tells us our help comes from one or more of unproven
theories and tens of thousands of psychotherapists whose ideas
were drawn from paganism, divination, astrology, humanism, and
evolution. The Bible teaches that being lovers of selves is mankind's
problem. Psychology teaches that being lovers of selves is the
solution. Bible teaches that we can come freely to drink the
waters of life. Psychology charges for it. The Bible offers the
opportunity of becoming a new man in Christ. Psychology offers
an improved or even damaged version of the old man. The Bible
teaches that our strength is perfected in weakness and that in
suffering, sin loses its power. Psychology teaches us how to
balance our strengths and weaknesses with personality profiles
derived from paganism and divination. The Bible esteems the contrite
and broken spirit. Psychology esteems self-esteem. The Bible
teaches us to rejoice in the suffering or being persecuted with
Christ to produce character and overcome the world. Psychology
has no interest in Christ's suffering, our suffering with Christ,
or sees any redemptive value in his shed blood. The Bible teaches
that Jesus Christ believed in demon possession and delivered
those possessed. Psychology teaches that there is no such thing
as demon possession...so there is nothing to be delivered from.
Psychology does not believe we are in a spiritual war, because
it does not believe there is any such thing as Satan or his demons.
The Bible tells us that we war against principalities in heavenly
places. The Bible tells us how to be blessed in the Beatitudes.
Psychology doesn't even comprehend blessing, so it can not offer
anyone a blessing because it omits the person required to administer
these blessings, that is Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us we
can't produce the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control
without abiding in the vine which is Jesus Christ himself. Psychology
attempts to bear this fruit by abiding in the teaching of such
founders as Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud who opposed Christianity!
- He is a disciple of Thomas Merton
(Lighthouse Trails). First, to be a disciple of a person,
one has to be with that person while they are alive and
learn from them. Historically, numerous people have had
disciples--Socrates, Jesus, Calvin, Freud--but always during
their lifetime while they were able to teach their disciples
face-to-face. Merton died when Foster was a teenager.
This is the first time I have ever heard of one person
being described as a disciple of another when all they do
is quote from a book.
RESPONSE:
First of
all you don't have the definition of "disciple" right
in English. Check Webster's Dictionary. But equally important
is what the word disciple is in Greek (that is the context of
disciples of Jesus), from which the word was translated.
The teacher
does NOT have to be alive and the student does not need to have
known the teacher in person. In fact, Jesus had died already
(though he rose again in a glorified body) when he gave the Great
Commission of Matthew 28:19:
"Go therefore and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation |
The Greek
word for "disciple" used is:
matheteuo
{math-ayt-yoo'-o} The KJV uses
the word teach, but that is an understated word in English, though
one certainly does teach one's disciples. And note further
the Disciples are not making the whole world disciples of themselves
(the Disciples), but rather they are making the world disciples
of Jesus Christ, a third party.
If Lynda
Graybeal's definition is correct, and a true disciple must have
have met Jesus in person and known him while he was still alive,
then no one in most of Israel and everywhere outside of Judea,
Galilee or Samaria could truly be called a disciple of Jesus
Christ even during the Apostolic Age, let alone everyone who
calls themselves a Christian today or the last 2,000 years. I
am most curious where you found your definition.
Whether or
not Richard Foster fashions himself as a disciple of Thomas Merton,
it is not a matter of a single quote but many. Also, Richard
Foster recommends several of Thomas Merton's books in his Celebration
of Discipline book. Wouldn't this demonstrate that a
fair interpretation by any reader would be that Richard Foster
is a follower of Thomas Merton? Even if there was only one quote
such as, "Well, Thomas Merton tried to awaken God's people,"
that single quote should be sufficient for us to take warning.
Here is another quote in which Richard Foster embraces Thomas
Merton's teaching:
On Thomas
Merton's writings: "This brief book (What is Contemplation?)
is an excellent introduction to contemplative prayer for everyone."
(Source: Richard Foster, Spiritual Classics, p. 21)
Why would
you be so sensitive about calling Richard Foster a disciple of
Thomas Merton? Since Richard Foster raves about Merton with thirteen
quotes in his book, why would he not be proud to be identified
with Merton? But it is not just Thomas Merton, but all of the
people Foster quotes or mimics, including Thomas Keating and
Carl Jung, who share the same or similar false teachings, that
magnifies Richard Foster's culpability and reasonable perception
by the reader or hearer that he is a disciple of Thomas Merton.
In and of itself it is not even wrong to quote a false teacher
and properly cite them. It is not the use of quotations
that is the problem, whether by Richard Foster or others. Rather,
the problem lies in the inherent promotion...by using these quotations...of
false teaching, ideas and techniques.
In fact, one
could even quote Hitler or document some good things he
did, such as petting his dog, or requesting that a "people's
car" be invented! But such quotes would be extremely dangerous
and misleading without simultaneously identifying him as the
monster he was.
Quote from
Susan Anderson regarding Richard Foster quoting Carl Jung:
"Well,
hey, Richard Foster quoted Jung, so there must be something to
Jung's writings, teachings, etc., that are of value to me, to
the church." Off they go, marching straight ahead
to their nearest bookstore or library, to read Jung's writings,
as their sinful human natures have now had their appetites whetted
for Satan's lies. And, of course, he is most obliging and
will help them open those doors wide.
THAT'S the
danger. Among so many other dangers. I know more
Christians (so-called, anyway) who don't know which way is up,
than I do Christians who can readily discern truth from error.
And I firmly believe that NO person, calling themselves by our
Lord's Name, has any right...whatsoever...to use quotes from
any unrighteous, ungodly source, in order to bolster God's
Word, Christ's teachings, or any part of Scripture.
GOD'S WORD
DOESN'T NEED TO BE BOLSTERED BY ANYTHING JUNG HAD TO SAY."
SOURCE: Susan Anderson September
25, 2003 Email to James Sundquist
I don't know who the Morrison you
quote (op. cit., p 432) is but can guarantee
you he has never contacted Richard Foster to see if what he says
and/or writes about Richard is accurate.
RESPONSE:
I am happy
to supply you with the source:
Alan Morrison is a foremost Biblical Scholar in the United
Kingdom. Here is his website and one of his many articles exposing
Richard Foster and teachers like him: The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Website:
http://www.diakrisis.org
Your
statement about Alan Morrison not contacting Richard Foster to
determine whether what he wrote (published) or said is accurate
is nothing short of astonishing to me! Short of plaigerizing,
imagine having millions of readers of various books having to
contact the writer to see if he wrote what he wrote. This is
absurd. You are not supposed to have to contact the author, that
is why they published it. How are we to ever know what he really
meant? Does Richard Foster know the contents of the emails you
are sending to me and other people?
ERRORS IN LOGIC (commonly
know as fallacies in logic or logical fallacies).
RESPONSE:
I am not
sure how far along I can go with you on this. Aristotle is considered
the Father of Logic, and he had a worldview completely antithetical
to Biblical Christianity, as did the rest of the Greek philosophers.
Scriptures tell us these are those whom the Apostle Paul opposed
and tore his clothes over people following after these philosophers/
1. Guilt by association.
To say that a person ascribes to everything that the person being
quoted believes is guilt by association. A particular quote is
used because the writer believes that the point that
the person makes is valid in the context of a proposition. And a
quote always has to be read in the context of the proposition
or argument.
RESPONSE:
You appear
to be appealing to a hermeneutic principle rather than a logic
principle "a text out of context is a pretext." Of
course I agree with this hermeneutic principle.
For example, the entire paragraph
that contains one of the Jung quotes you cite reads: "In
contemporary society our Adversary majors in three things: noise,
hurry, and crowds. If he can keep us engaged in 'muchness' and
'manyness,' he will rest satisfied. Psychiatrist C. G. Jung once
remarked, 'Hurry is not of the Devil; it is
the Devil'" (CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE, 1st
edition, p. 13). To say that Richard ascribes to everything
that Carl Jung believed or taught just because Foster quotes
him is ridiculous.
RESPONSE:
Where
did I ever state or imply that Richard Foster ascribes to everything
Carl Jung believed or taught? Where did anyone say this? Please
cite this for me. One does not need to ascribe to everything
a false teacher teaches, only one thing...a little leaven leaveneth
the ENTIRE lump, not part of it! Secondly, the quote you supply
(where Foster quotes Jung) is in itself Biblically (Doctrinally)
unsound. In short, even this quote is a false teaching. Hurry
is not the Devil. The Devil is the fallen Archangel Lucifer,
who tempted Jesus Christ. Once again, it is astonishing to me
once again that you or Richard Foster, who claims to be a Christian
would believe this! And because Richard Foster believes this
and teaches it by quoting Jung, many more continue to be led
astray into unblical teachings.
Consequently,
there is a point where you and Richard Foster do become guilty
by association.
"Bad
company corrupts good morals" I Corinthians 15:33
Was Paul
addressing only the Corinthians? Was the intended audience only
the First Century, or does this apply to us today too? The Biblical
term "morals" refers to both physical and spiritual
practices, as the Book of Proverbs and the Whore of Babylon confirms
in both the Old and New Testaments.
Quoting
from numerous sources to support a position has a long academic
history. In The City of God Augustine quotes Cicero,
Plato, Marcus Varro Apuleius, and others. John Calvin
quotes a wide range of people including Cicero, Homer, Herodotus,
Ovid, Plutarch, Pliny, and Seneca in his Institutes of the
Christian Religion. Even the Apostle Paul quotes a
pagan Greek poet to make a point (Acts 17:28)!
RESPONSE:
And what
exactly was the Apostle Paul's point in quoting a pagan Greek
poet? Was it to applaud them and affirm them to continue in idolotry?
Was it to tell them they could integrate their wonderful philosophy
with Christ? Or, was it not in order to evangelize his audience
and convert them from their pagan Greek philosophies to
Christ alone? Obviously, that was Paul's reason.
And even a casual reading of the Book of Acts would reveal this
to you! None of the men you name above could even contribute
one thing to the sanctification of a Christian for the perfecting
of the saints. The Word of God is clear when it says only
the Word of God can do that!
I understand that you also have
been the victim of guilt by association when your music CDs were
distributed and sold in New Age bookstores. I quote from one
of your letters to Mary Fairchild, "You would not accuse
Ken Ham of being in an unholy alliance with the New Age because
New Age outlets sell Ken Ham books. I know I certainly would
not! So why do you accuse me of being a New Ager for doing
precisely the same thing?"
RESPONSE:
None of my
lyrics are New Age, but either direct Scripture and/or poems
which reflect straight Biblical teachings...not New Age Ideas...
and they certainly were not conceived by Eastern Meditation.
Richard Foster's are! Paul was not "associating" with
the Greeks when preaching in the Forum, HE WAS OPPOSING THEM!
(See above my commentary on William L. Vaswig and Karen Mains.)
And Richard
Foster's teachings are not merely placed on the shelves next
to New Age books, but rather they are contained and promoted
within his books.
2. Argument from silence. Your statement
that Jesus didn't teach us to appeal to the imagination and senses
is a classic example of an argument from silence and is very
weak. Let me ask you a few questions about the way Jesus taught.
What do you think Jesus is appealing to when he draws
word pictures in parables? Our senses? No, Jesus
uses the age-old rhetorical device of parables over
and over and over in which word pictures dominate. Parables
force the hearers to use their imaginations to make
sense of the story. For example, who can understand the parable
of the sower and the seed if they can't see it in their imaginations?
Or the parable of the woman searching for the lost coin? I could
cite as many examples of Jesus' appeal to the imagination as
there are parables in the New Testament.
RESPONSE:
Your contention
that my arguing from Scripture regarding what it says about imagination
is very dangerous waters for you to be treading. What Scripture
says about imagination is what Scripture says about imagination!
This is not an argument from silence if the Scripture is not
silent on the matter, because the Scriptures are not silent on
the matter. Besides this, if you concede Scripture is silent
on the matter of imagination, then why do you give all of the
Scriptural examples of the absence of silence regarding imagination?
I hope you did not get the impression that I think that ALL imagination
is evil....though at the time of Noah's Flood, EVERY imagination
of their heart was only evil continually.
If you re-read
all of the Scriptures that I sent to you, you will see that I
am speaking about vain imaginations or dreams or visions that
promote or teach ideas strictly forbidden in the Bible. Example
of such are: divination, astrology, sorcery, necromancy, pagan
ideas, conjuring up another Jesus, magic arts, imagining evolution.
ALL of which Carl Jung promoted, and he himself was demon-possessed!
And yet, this is the very man whose ideas, practices and teachings
Richard Foster promotes IN OUR CHURCHES. Additionally, Richard
Foster promotes Eastern Mysticism Meditation which a host of
people Richard Foster quotes, practice, and which Richard Foster
practices and promotes. Even if he were not a direct disciple
of any one of the men he quotes, he is a desciple of their very
same practices!
So, my answer
to you is really quite simple. As true believers...as Christian...
we are forbidden from even touching these teachings, let alone
practicing or promoting them in any form of imagination that
invokes any of the practices or techniques that the Bible condemns,
whether they be Ouija Boards, crystal balls, palm reading, astrological
chart reading, pagan based personality profiling, or Eastern
Meditation, etc..
With regard
to Parables to mention, are you aware that one of the central
themes in Christ's parables is God's Judgment? Does Comtemplative
Prayer, as offered in your Spiritual Formation Classes or Tilden
Edward's Shalem Institute where William Vaswig that you tout
on your website was trained, warn about the Judgment of God coming
upon the earth?
About Jesus' appealing to the senses,
why do you think Jesus used unleavened bread and wine at
The Last Supper? To appeal to our imaginations? No,
it was an act rooted in the body's senses--hearing, smell, touch,
taste, and sight--as were the many times he laid hands on
people to heal them, put mud on the blind man's eyes,
etc.. There are many other examples: "salt of the earth"
appeals to taste, "light of the world" appeals to sight,
"unleavened bread" appeals to taste, Thomas touching
Jesus' wounds appeals to touch, and so on. If you deny
that Jesus taught by appealing to the imagination and senses,
then you discard most of the four Gospels, keeping
only his replies to the questions of the Pharisees and the historical
narratives. As a musician, how do you teach a person to play
the guitar? By describing in words how to strum the
guitar and wrap his fingers around the neck and move his
fingers up and down the fret while pressing on the strings? Or
by having the student feel, see, and hear the instrument
as he is learning to play it? Jesus taught, and continues to
teach through the biblical accounts and his Spirit, the
same way.
RESPONSE:
For you to
suggest or imply that Christ's mission or teaching was to appeal
to all of the human senses and imagination, so as to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain, meet all of the felt needs of the
people, is to deny not just the Four Gospels but the entire New
Testament, as well the Book of Job, and further denies the Apostle
Paul's own words (if you are right) to eat drink and be merry,
for tomorrow we die (assuming you are right that Christ was appealing
to and satisfying our senses). God forbid! Jesus Christ's own
words regarding seeing does not sound anything like what you
have in mind for the senses:
"For
all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh,
and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life, is not of the Father,
but is of the world." I John 2:16
Regarding
your reference to the Lord healing the man's blindness, would
you like to talk about "context" one more time? The
main thrust of that passage was to reveal that it was those who
think they can see that are the ones who are really blind. But
seeing the truth is the opposite of what Eastern mediation will
bring you, which is spiritual blindness!
Your version
of the Gospel (which is really "another gospel" and
"another Jesus") does violence to the Book of James,
Hebrews 11:36-38, by insulting every present and past persecuted
and martyred saint, of whom this world was not worthy. Your touchy
feely gospel is exactly what doubting Thomas required vs. Christ
blessing those who had faith who NEVER saw, felt, tasted, smelled,
or had their senses appealed to. Yes they did hear, but that
is what the Scripture teaches is necessary for conversion (faith
cometh by hearing). But your gospel is the tickling of the ears
kind of hearing by those with itchy ears, and this all promotes
mysticism, gnosticism, and the occult ideas of Carl Jung that
Second Timothy warns against.
And by the
way, unleavened bread was not used to enhance taste. (If anything
it did not taste as good.) The use of unleavened bread
was to remind them of the slavery they came out of in Egypt.
Even the Manna in the Wilderness did not have the taste the Israelites
were accustomed to in Egypt. As you may recall, this was one
of the reasons they murmured in the Wilderness, and God judged
them for murmuring and complaining.
No, the gospel
you are promoting just another spin on the appeal of the Church
Growth Movement, which also promotes Richard Foster, as does
Rick Warren via his toolbox to pastors.
- Appeal to Emotion. This
logical fallacy masks many spurious arguments. We appeal
to a person's emotions and then statements that do not stand
tests of logic, accuracy, and truthfulness slip by unnoticed. This
is frequently done when the question being debated is
very emotional or elicits strong emotions, such as the debate
over abortion or "keeping the faith pure".
RESPONSE:
Where did
I appeal to emotion to you? Where did you get that idea? My appeals
are all based on reasoning from Scripture. You are not suggesting
that abortion is an option for a Christian are you? We test everything
with Scripture...not emotion...including spirits such as "Philemon"
of which Carl Jung was possessed!
- False Disjunction, e.g.
the only kind of "centering down" is New Age
"centering down". This ignores the rich history of
centering down in the Church, and the fact that practices from
many religions including centering down have been co-opted
by the New Age movement. In conjunction with this, one huge mistake
many people make is to take our present knowledge of the New
Age movement and read it into books and teachings prior to its
inception. In doing this, they can declare that people who lived
decades, and sometimes centuries ago, taught New Age beliefs.
RESPONSE:
Once again
I do not recall ever saying that all centering down is "New
Age" centering down. I can center down to do my homework,
center down to practice my guitar. I can say that Christ is the
center of my life, so thinking about him and praying to him could
be argued to mean that I am centering down. Additionally,
what other religions do with regard to centering down (as you
stated above), is totally irrelevant to Christianity, regardless
of whether or not the New Age Movement has co-opted this practice.
As true believers we are do obey the Word of God only and not
incorporate the beliefs and practices of all other religions,
because they are not of God! Why
Richard Foster's version is New Age is not a false disjunction
is that he employs and prescribes identical techniques to what
the New Age employs such as vain repetitions, Ashtanga Yoga,
Kundalini, and Buddhist prayers at Quaker gatherings that I can
document. In quote after quote, Richard Foster gives accolades
to promoters and practioners of Eastern Mysticism and Meditation
which mirror his own views. There is not even anything to mask
what he is doing. Secondly, you are not even historically accurate.
Though the New Age term itself might be recent, the beliefs and
practices the term refers to, go back to the Garden of Eden.
All New Age beliefs, each and every religion,
have at their very foundations the lies of Satan, which are always,
always, always to take away from the Deity of Christ and the
Word of God. Their beliefs stem from the Fall of Adam, and later
from the Tower of Babel, and Babylon. Even
at the time of Christ, Jesus himself commanded us NOT to pray
as the heathens do with vain repetitions (such as breath mantras).
Here is the direct commandment of our Lord himself:
"But
when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
[do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much
speaking." Matthew 6:7 KJV
So if the
Lord does not hear these kind of prayers, who are we really praying
to? What possibly God ordained purpose could they have?
And yet what
do we find Richard Foster recommending in his book Spiritual
Classics? Richard Foster states:
"Practice
lectio devina by taking a Bible text that you love, reading it
over attentively, then entering into prayer through a single
word or phrase." p.35 "Why does this little prayer
of one syllable pierce the heavens?" p. 45 (Source: Richard
Foster, Spiritual Classics, p. 35, p.45)
Jesus Christ
said that if you want to be his disciple, you must obey him.
So how is praying with vain repetitions and repeating a single
word or phrase over and over obeying Christ, when he gave specific
instructions which forbade it?
Your version
of centering down and imagination does not even fit the Biblical
meaning of meditation, but is, in fact, the opposite. Richard
Foster's idea of meditation is to imagine the loins of your mind
to be let down and relaxed that anything might enter. Here is
the proof:
Richard
Foster in his book, Prayer: Finding the Heart's
True Home, speaks of the practice of "breath
prayer," in which a Christian-sounding word or phrase is
repeated over and over again like a mantra. Foster wrote that
"Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the
mind in order to fill it" (Ray Yungen, Time
of Departing, Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 2002,
pg. 72). But fill it with what? This "breath prayer"
idea has gained popularity in charismatic circles that frequently
sing of "breathing in Jesus" or variations thereof.
(SOURCE: Jacki Alnor, Christian Sentinel,
April 2003. Richard Foster quote taken from Richard
Foster, Celebration of Discipline,
Harper & Row Pub., San Francisco, CA 1978, p. 15.)
This is precisely
the technique that lets demons enter a person. But we are to
be circumspect which is what a night watchman is, as this literally
means having eyes all around our head to guard against imaginations
and seducing spirits that would love to enter us.
The Apostle
Paul commands us to "gird up the loins of our minds,"
not let them down, not empty our minds.
We are to
put on the helmet of salvation to protect our minds, as well
as the shield of faith that we might ward off the fiery darts
of the enemy from penetrating that part of our armor. One girds
up the loins of their mind for war, as that is precisely what
we are in...a spiritual war. Any good soldier girds up his or
her mind when he or she stands guard on a night watch. I know
this first hand because I used to stand guard in four-hour shifts
at night over missile batteries in the U.S. Army in West Germany.
Emptying your mind and/or falling a sleep on guard duty would
get you court-marshalled. You had to be vigilant and constantly
alert, i.e., we are to have the loins of your mind girded up...not
let down! Succinctly, we are to have the mind of Christ....not
mindlessness!
This is perfectly
consistent with what the Apostle Paul further tells us:
"Be
sober and be vigilant; because
your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour" I Peter 5:8
How can a
Christian be ever vigilant and sober within his mind, if he is
spending a lot of time emptying his mind by practicing any
type of meditation which is the direct opposite of Biblical meditation?
For one of
the very best Scripture passages on the context and real meaning
of what the Bible teaches about "meditation," read
the entirety of Psalm 119, where you will find the word "meditate"
time and time again.
You want
context? The entire passage uses the word "meditate"
to describe the author's intent to meditate on the statutes,
laws, and decrees of the Lord, that the author might not sin
against God. Now traditionally, the "centering down"
form of meditation promoted by Richard Foster involves CLOSING
the eyes. Well let's see what the writer in Psalm 119 thinks
about that. In Psalm 119:148 we read:
"My
eyes stay open through the watches of the night, that
I may meditate on your promises." Psalm 119:148 NIV
When Jesus
was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he rebuked his Disciples
for NOT keeping their eyes open, for he wanted them to WATCH
and PRAY (Mark 14:38) WITH HIM. Let's take an even closer look
at what Jesus had in mind in terms of how he prayed (the highest
form of meditation which is to "watch" and "pray")
in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus Christ's idea of how to pray
was to resist temptation to the sweating of drops of blood. No
human besides Christ has ever accomplished this feat. Nevertheless,
Christ our Lord does set an example of what should be taking
place during our praying. This kind of praying has nothing in
common with techniques or purpose of praying for Eastern Meditation
or any other religion. Christ's method of praying has nothing
in common with Richard Foster's revised definition of meditation
or "centering down." Jesus Christ gave even more instructions
when his disciples asked him how to pray. The Lord gives them
(and us) instructions on how to pray when he gives us the Lords'
Prayer. Once again, he gives us no instructions which resemble
"centering down" meditation. This prayer is a petition
and requires the mind to be fully engaged, not unplugged. Finally,
it tells us to appeal to the Lord to protect us from the
Evil One (i.e., Satan). Eastern Meditation REMOVES the protection
to let the Evil One IN to our minds.
Just prior
to this, Jesus had lifted up his OPEN eyes to the Heavens to
pray...not close them when he raised Lazarus.
"Then
they took away the stone [from the place] where the dead was
laid. And Jesus lifted up [his] eyes, and said, Father,
I thank thee that thou hast heard me." John 11:41 KJV
So we don't
even see Jesus praying or instructing us how to pray or meditate
like anything even resembling Eastern Meditation or Richard Foster's
version of meditation.
Again the
Apostle Paul says:
"Finally,
brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are]
honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are]
pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever
things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue,
and if [there be] any praise, think on these things." Philippians
4:8 KVJ
With the mind of Christ, this
is the kind of thinking or meditation we should be practicing. What is pure or commendable about Carl Jung's
practice of divination or the complete balance of his theory
of the subconscious, which he believed came from what we possessed
in our subconscious as animals before we became human (thus totally
denying the creation of man directly from the dust by a Sovereign
Creator) ?
Continued:
Part 2 
