Spiritual Formation, Richard Foster, and Renovare
Renovare Analyzed for Biblical Soundness and Found Wanting
by James Sundquist
Part VII
Dear Friends and Fellow Contenders for the Faith, I invite
you to consider the following documentary on Richard Foster's
teachings, comparing them to Scripture. See below! Lynda Graybeal
is Richard Foster's colleague and spokesperson for him at Renovare.
Kindest regards in Christ, James Sundquist President President
Rock Salt Publishing
**************************
October 4, 2003
Dear Lynda,
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) ?
What is of good report of Carl Jung?
What is noble about his personality theory, which he also
drew from paganism and a spirit-guide that possessed him? Are
not these things clearly abhorred by both Jesus Christ and the
Apostle Paul? We are to flee these things, not embrace, promote
them and feed them to God's children.
You want to call your kind of meditation Biblical. But I challenge
you to go through the entire Old and New Testaments and do a
word search for the word "meditate" or "meditation",
and look it up in the Hebrew and the Greek (as you did with the
word "you" in the New Testament). You will not find
one instance or precedent for the word meaning anything close
to your revisionist definition. You will not find a precedent
for it. You will not find an example of Jesus Christ or any of
the Apostles practicing it or recommending it. But you will find
it practiced and promoted in Eastern Meditation and the New Age
Movement.
Finally, the New Age Movement did not borrow or hijack centering
down from Christianity. Though not under the same name, the practice
is as ancient as Babylon and the Tower of Babel. And the Tower
of Babel was constructed because of the same lie Satan used in
the Garden of Eden, "You shall be as God."
When you say "church" you mean Roman Catholicism
and the Carmelite Order traditions. But Roman Catholicism is
both pagan and apostate. Indeed, your version of centering down
indeed matastesized into the Church and spread spiritual death
into the Church, just as various forms of cancer metastasize
in the organs of the human body, eventually causing physical
death. Your form of "centering down" is also rooted
in the Church's first and tragically on-going heresy, Gnosticism.
Despite what you believe and stated above, centering down
has no rich history or even existence in the TRUE CHURCH. For
you to claim that New Age beliefs are only recent, reveals a
tragic lack of knowledge of both history and Scripture. As the
prophet Hosea declares:
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou
shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law
of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6
KJV
General Assumption. To say that Richard Foster admires Thomas
Merton because he quotes him is an assumption you have drawn,
not a verifiable fact.
RESPONSE:
It is absolutely astounding to me that you would make this
statement with all of the Merton quotes Richard Foster has in
his book. One does not have to assume what a person clearly states
and publishes. Here is a quote from Richard Foster, quoting Thomas
Merton:
"...offers you an understanding and light which are like
nothing ever found in books or heard in sermons"
Richard Foster further says of Thomas Merton:
"Thomas Merton has perhaps done more than any other twentieth-century
figure to make the life of prayer widely known and understood."
Foster considers Merton's book, Contemplative Prayer, "a
must book". He also states, "Merton continues to inspired
countless men and women," and credits his books as being
filled with priceless wisdom for all Christian who long to go
deeper in the spiritual life." SOURCE: A TIME OF DEPARTING,
Ray Yungen, Trailhouse Trails Publishing Company, 2002. These
quotes were drawn from Richard Foster's books: Devotional Classics
and Meditative Prayer.
And this is not admiring Thomas Merton? If note, I would surely
be curious to know what a good example would be, by your own
definition! If this is not enough, Richard Foster lavishes praise
on a host of other authors and teachers who share very similar
views to Thomas Merton. Even if Richard Foster does not technically
use the word "admire" then proceeds to lace his commentary
with one complement after another, what reader could come away
with any other conclusion? What your comment clearly shows me
is that you are doing nothing more than parsing at words and
straining at gnats, while you swallow the camel of ideas that
clearly oppose Biblical Christianity. Richard Foster clearly
shows support for Thomas Merton, William L. Vaswig and Karen
Mains, in spite of your trying to distance yourself from them.
