I had a problem copying the image for the book cover here. If someone can find it, it will be appreciated- Gail

This is another book on the "Emerging Church" and its inroads into Protestantism today. This one is different in that it was written by an Adventist pastor who has a pre-conversion history of spiritualism. Also, it relates the modern movement to the "omega" of the "alpha" circumstances that the SDA church dealt with in the apostasy of John Harvey Kellogg. IOW, it deals with the prospect of mind control.

Prior to today I did not think the contemplative disciplines idea prevalent in our conference churches in my area. But last night as my husband gave me a gift that he received at work, I quickly reconsidered my thinking. It is a book published by Thomas Nelson (the people who give us the NKJV) called, Emotionally Healthy Spirituality by Peter Scazzero. It's rife with quotes to Catholic mystics and includes an adaptation of Ignatius Loyola's Prayer of Examen. Now, Loyola is the monk who started the Jesuit order, was a mystic and made the model of contemplative prayer that the Catholics (and, apparently, proponents of this Emergent Church movement) follow.

The Great Controversy talks about the Protestant church reaching her hands over the abyss to join with the Catholic church AND spiritualism in the last days. This certainly fits that criteria.

Back cover information:

Thanks for posting this book. Herbert Douglass really endorsed it at the meetings in Baltimore.


blessings,

g

Hi,
Thanks for the information on this book. For more details about how the Spiritual Formation practices are taking storm in our churches and institutions, please check out the following links:

http://www.slideshare.net/EmergingOmega/spiritually-experiencing-god

http://www.slideshare.net/EmergingOmega/spiritually-experiencing-god-part-2

We have formulated a petition to ban the course entitled, 'Discipleship and Spiritual Formation', from being taught at Andrews, commencing in February 2011. This is being presented to our President, Ted Wilson. Please read, sign and share this petition with as many SDAs as possible, so we can stay the tide of evil that is destined to wipe out many an innocent SDA. Most of all pray, pray, pray. Many thanks!

http://www.petitiononline.com/omegasda/petition.html

Your wish is my command.

Thanks!

We've had mixed feelings about the book at the office... My boss took it to a couple of men up in Administration and one got back to us saying that for his purposes it was too extreme.

I can see how he would say that, having read the book, but I don't fault the author. People who have "been there" usually know better and often speak with more authority than the rest of us "unknowings". I allow them maybe more liberty to say than people who have not had the experience.

Again, I find it interesting. Does anyone know for sure the content of the course? Is it promoting this type of spirituality or is it an informational curriculum which may be taking the same stance as the book?

Thanks for posting this. I remember your mentioning it to me earlier. I plan to buy it tomorrow and read it for myself.

Spiritualism course(s) at Andrews is quite an old story - perhaps two decades - First introduced through mandatory intro Psych courses if I recall. There was a textbook for this too - not warning against spiritualism, but introducing the concepts to freshmen as a base for their education.

Ellen White also cautioned that those with a background in spiritualism were not suited for the ministry.

You could ask Jovan Markovic, Gail. He has studied the emerging movement carefully and teaches at Andrews. I believe he would give you an objective answer.

Today I received some feedback about this book by an avid reader. He told me that he would NOT endorse this book for the following reasons:

Firstly, he found the book extreme in viewpoint.

Secondly he has read Rick Foster, who is referenced in the book, and said that Foster is being misrepresented. IOW, what the book says that Foster writes is taken out of context and misrepresented.

It seems that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue! But I am gathering that the spiritual need that people are seeking answers for perhaps today's churches have not been answering and that is why this is such a current topic.

What does a deep spiritual experience entail? In my personal experience I feel that I am being fed through the Bible and my devotions. I feel alive and am praising and joyous and making my way through every day as an adventure with both the bad and the good.

What is the vitality that others are missing?

Interesting...

olger I am trying to contact Jovan Markovic as you suggested. The Andrews site seems to be down at the moment.

Recently I received a very interesting, insightful Email from Herbert Douglass about the Emerging Church. I agree with his analysis.

Are you at liberty to share it? and have you got any other information that might prove useful?

I was thinking of posting it here, but I first want to get his permission because I think it's a work in progress. If he doesn't tell me to go ahead, I'll just summarize some of his most important points.

Okay. I've sent a request to Markovic at Andrews to see what info or resources he might have.

The fellow I was talking to this morning, I essentially told him, Look- I meditate and God talks to me and it's the same with you. But you have two ways of doing it. God talks to me through His word and impressions and conviction. I don't have to use a mantra (even a Scripture mantra), light candles, use an icon, take the eucharist or get my head space into an alternate consciousness to do it.

I still have a hard time believing that our pastors are promoting New Age or Catholic mystical disciplines. My gut wants to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they are adopting and teaching what tools we as an SDA body have always accepted but have maybe been lax in teaching the members Biblically how it works.

I know what I accept personally but am still gathering the news from out there in the field.

Herbert Douglass sent me a message today granting permission to use it on the Forum:

Dr. Douglass Part 1..... Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Integrating Contemplative/Emerging Spirituality Into Degree Program

Adventist Today Blog: Is Truth Found in Commitment or Conversation? March 3, 2010

In the last 15 years or so, New Spirituality (or “emerging church, “spiritual formation,” etc.) by whatever name its followers choose, has flooded Protestantism, especially Evangelical churches. In the last 5-7 years, the waves have been rolling over many in the Adventist Church.

It is more than curious that many Adventist pastors and administrators are usually five to ten years behind other waves in Protestant circles. We think of the James Kennedy Evangelism Explosion in the 1960s-1970s; “Filled with the Spirit” movement in the 70s and 80s; Neo-Linguistic Programming in the 80s; Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, for much too long, more about Fuller later), Willow Creek megachurch training, from 1980s to present; then Saddleback, Lake Forest, CA , megachurch pastoral training to present, and now the tug of the emerging church appeal, often called “spiritual formation.”.

We all know well how, for the last 25 years, ministerial excitement and tons of Adventist money has focused on Willow Creek in Barrington, IL, and Saddleback in Lake Forest, CA. Enormous numbers of Protestant pastors studied how to invigorate their churches with the seeker-friendly methods. “Adventists, both pastors and laypeople, consistently make up one of the largest groups at Willow Creek’s half-dozen annual seminars—including church leadership conferences in May and October and a leadership summit in August.”—Adventist Review, Dec. 18, 1997.

After all, their methods do work, attracting tens of thousands weekly to their Sunday services. In addition, a hundred thousand or more ministers wait patiently each week on the Internet for Hybel’s contributions or Warren’s “tool box==providing many Adventist preachers with their Sabbath sermons. Some of our Adventist preachers don’t even change the sermon titles, as they advertise Warren-created sermons on their outdoor, church message boards! And most of Warren’s generic sermons can be preached anywhere; logical, hearer-centered, and laced with illustrations, especially where Adventist congregations can’t remember what a classic Adventist sermon used to be.

But in 2007, the mesmerizing balloon busted, at least for Hybel. His pastoral staff quietly and deliberately finished a four-year, self-evaluation as to what their highly acclaimed program was really doing for thirty years. In their book, Reveal: Where Are You?, they were honest enough to broadcast what they learned and it was embarrassing. Hybel said that it “rocked my world” —that the findings were “earth-shaking,” “ground breaking,” and “mind blowing.” They now realized that their seeker-friendly programs were “a mistake.” The lesson Hybel and his staff learned is that “growing” a congregation goes beyond “attracting” people to church—they needed to restructure their church program to grow their members in their personal relationship with God. His new program is turning out to be another path into New Spirituality. What will the hundreds of Adventist copycats now say to their congregations?

Rick Warren’s Saddleback has been flirting with New Spirituality since 2004 as I outlined in Truth Matters in 2004. But much more than mere flirting has taken place in the last four years and if were updating that book, I would have to add at least four more chapters. Amazing what a few years of following a wrong presupposition will do, even to gifted men.


Prediction #1: Megachurches have crested; they are history, except for the charismatic megachurches and their TV audiences, such as Joel Osteen in Houston. But they too will quietly subside.


Prediction #2: Seeker-friendly churches, such as Willow Creek and Saddleback, will join the New Spirituality wave or fade.

Prediction #3: Adventist churches that have been copying the seeker-friendly model (we call some of them, “church plantings”) will either fade, as many have in this country and in Australia especially, or they will follow the crowd into New Spirituality.

If anyone in the past year has been following, Christianity Today, the flagship of Evangelicalism, he or she will have noted that it has become the standard-bearer for the Ancient-Future Movement, otherwise known as New Spirituality. It came out of the closet with the February, 2008 issue. Our friend, David Neff, is the magazine’s editor in chief and a leader in advancing churches everywhere into New Spirituality. I read every issue with great interest, with great appreciation for many of its emphases—but the drift is palpable. More later.

PART II: EMERGING/EMERGENT CHURCH AND SPIRITUAL FORMATION

March 22nd, 2010 by Herbert Douglass



In continuing our brief look at the Emerging/Emergent Church tsunami sweeping over many Protestant and Catholic churches, with its emphasis on its particular understanding of "spiritual formation, etc.," we should first separate Spiritualism from New Spirituality.

Spiritualism is the open appeal to find Reality, God, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever, through direct contact with the "other" world. It could be through channeling, ouija boards, séances, certain kinds of extra-sensory perception, etc.

New Spirituality, at this point in time, doesn't go in that direction although it has much in common with Spiritualism. Both concepts and movements believe in either the immortal soul or the subjective ability to find God or reality within themselves through any number of modalities. Neither believes in the final authority of Scripture or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

Why, of all people, would Adventists follow the piper as others who do not have the basic theological immunity system that should be protecting us? In this short blog, let's look first at the chief reasons for the leap into New Spirituality by non-Adventist churches:

1. Many churches, fearing the baggage of time-honored names, such as Baptist or Methodist, are changing their names to Crosswoods Fellowship, Crosswinds Community Church., Centerpoint Church, Granite Springs Church, Elevation Church, New Hope Church, Lincoln Christian Life, Sonrise Church, etc. Pastors thus have a fresh opportunity to lead their congregation into new ways "to do" church.

2. Because we live in a postmodern age, they believe churches must find new ways to express spiritual vision without appealing to absolute truths. They say that we must appeal to the wider circle of people everywhere who are "spiritually hungry." That is, discover how we can express Christian belief so that a Buddhist can understand and contribute to the "dialogue," the "conversation, etc."

3. Remarkable instances of "spiritual healing" (translate that, physical healing) is no longer the shrill blast from certain Pentecostals. In Trondheim, Norway, the 5th International Medical Conference organized by the World Christian Doctors Network, 200 doctors and medical practitioners from 38 nations, said that medicine alone cannot deal with some of today's worst illnesses and that "spiritual healing" through alternative medicine is the remedy needed in the 21st century. Many illustrations include men raised from the dead, the healing of a detached retina, etc.

4. The sense of "experiencing the holy" is understood by many who claim they are spiritual, but not religious. One leader said: "My God began to move outside the traditional box. I became much more interested in prayer. Where all the world religions really join hands is in prayer. Each religion really has a very deep sense of the inner life and God within the world."

5. Much like the Middle Ages before the Reformation, the Bible has become a neglected book. As the Bible becomes less and less important, mystical experiences escalate-note the rise of monasteries and mystical rituals during the centuries before Martin Luther. Thus, such leaders today teach that anyone can practice these same mystical rituals and "find God within" -notice the remarkable rise in Retreat Centers, Protestant and Catholics, with well-defined, ancient practices emphasized.

6. Many of today's leaders in New Spirituality are saying that traditional Christianity cannot be understood in our post-modern world; therefore, it needs to be altered to meet the intellects and needs of the present generation. These comments are not being made by nonChristians but by religious leaders who say, "Everything must change." That's what Willow Creek said thirty years ago, and now saying it again with a different set of sails.

7. The spirit of our age is using "tolerance" (like in "politically correct") in furthering the goal of peace as a means to synthesize all the different religious beliefs to unite as one: "Can't we all get along!" Well, don't we all want to "get along"?

PART 3: EMERGING / EMERGENT CHURCH

Posted April 11th, 2010 by Herbert Douglass

So, how come the "emerging church/emergents" is so attractive to many Adventist leaders, pastors, and members!

We seem to be usually 10-15 years behind the "big story" rolling through other churches. I remember well James Kennedy's "Evangelism Explosion" in the 60's with its remarkably helpful program of organizing laypeople for evangelism. Then the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), where conferences sent many pastors to "get it" and become efficient soul-winners, a not so remarkably helpful introduction to the art of getting people to make decisions without even knowing it--inside the world of advertising.

Riding in was the newest showcase, Willow Creek with Bill Hybels, featuring the "seeker-friendly" church (then came Saddleback and Rick Warren). Here again, our conferences devoted many tens of thousands of dollars sponsoring hundreds of pastors to sit at the feet of these two gifted men. In fact, our own church paper noted that Adventists were the largest percentage of "students" at one time at Willow Creek in the 1990s!

About the same time, the Celebration Church was the new model in Advent town. Their pastors were invited everywhere to show other pastors "how to do church." Certain kinds of "church plants" became the latest style of "evangelism--which usually meant hiving off of those who wanted gospel-lite and near-rock, music. Where are the Celebration pastors and their experiments today? Most church plants today are energized by ethnic groups that reach out for those in the neighborhood who have been neglected--now hearing the Adventist message in their own tongue and flavor.

Now, about fifteen years after the first waves of the emerging/emergents (both terms are used interchangeably), we saw the first waves hitting our church media. Nothing earth-shaking--just "overlapping" words at first. Using words and phrases that have enormous special meaning for the emergents but understood among us, in a way, as conservative Protestants/Adventists have always understood them--such as "meditation," "the silence," "conversation," "dialogue," relationship," "propositional truth vs. spirituality," "contemplative prayer," "spiritual formation," "missional," "ancient-future," "matrix," "vintage," "narrative," "story," etc.

Why this introduction? Because, the cry today, whether spoken or not, is for "spirituality." Why in our Bible-believing, End-time-oriented, Adventist Church, of all places! For a number of reasons.

For instance, some Adventists are shocked by what they read on the Internet. They cry out, "How come my pastor, my teachers, my parents, have not been telling me the truth about Ellen White?" Etc. And so they turn to whoever is promising a new way to find "real spirituality." Whoa! So much more interesting than boring sermons and stodgy Sabbath School lessons! New Spirituality/Emerging Church--just what confused minds are looking for!

But from the pastor's viewpoint--everybody wants "success." More baptisms, more filled-up churches, etc. In their Seminary classes and at their Workers' Meeting, they have heard for decades well-known "experts" on church growth. These are the "specialists," most of them from Fuller Theological Seminary-McGavran, Wagner, Schaller, Logan (Baptists), etc. Not much is heard about them these days. Couple that with the tons of money spent on Willow Creek and Saddleback in the attempts to find the secrets to a "real seeker-friendly" church--it is easy to feel sorry for the average, dedicated, hard-working pastor who usually has at least two churches to please. Maybe there is something "fresh" here for our members, is their hope.

On the other hand, many pastors can't figure out why their youth leaders are talking about labyrinths, mimes, clowns, pulpit bands (with their accents on the second beat), bar ministries, dramatic skits, etc. They see alternatives such as GYC where thousands of Adventist youth gather throughout the year, not sponsored by anybody but their own funds--to sit for hours and days listening to powerful talks/seminars--and not be entertained by the typical youth programs.

But you may ask a more fundamental question: don't we have a clear, winsome, relevant Adventist message? Should there not be some "spirituality" in that? And if we don't, then why not find some "spirituality" where it seems to be so evident!

The real reason behind this hunt for spirituality, even within many areas of the Adventist Church, lies not in dying churches but in the cause for the malaise that seems to lie behind what some call the "deadness" in many of our Adventist churches. George Knight nailed it when he called the publication of Questions on Doctrine in 1957--"the most divisive book ever published by Adventists." Today, we are reaping the whirlwind of fifty years of theological muddle wherein some leaders were enamored with recovering Reformation definitions of "righteousness by faith," etc.

Since the denominational drift in theological emphasis since the 60s, conference presidents have told me that it has been difficult for years to have seminary-trained graduates prepared to preach distinctive Adventist sermons, timed for last-day instruction, in the local church. It is no secret that, generally speaking, the reshaping of righteousness by faith and the focus on the Cross that, at the same time, diminished the emphasis on our Lord's equally important High Priestly role, became the doctrinal flavor of choice. Our eyes were taken off our Living Lord who wanted to be our Intercessor between us and the Evil One, helping His followers to also overcome his fiery darts as He did 2000 years ago. In short, our Lord wants us to enjoy, really enjoy, the full gospel--the peace of pardon and the power of a new life.

• Bull and Lockhart, two English historians, in their remarkable book, Seeking a Sanctuary (second edition, 2007) summed up the theological fork in the road that our seminary began to take as a consequence of the 1957 drift of Questions on Doctrine: "The focus on the crucifixion encouraged by Questions on Doctrine was taken further by the Adventist theologian Edward Heppenstall. . . . His solution to the difficulty of explaining how the sinner could reach perfection was to argue that perfection was neither necessary nor possible. . . . (that) sinlessness cannot be realized here and now." (86-87).

• Bull and Lockhart went on: "Prior to Heppenstall, no important Adventist writer denied the possibility of perfection. Ellen White had been unequivocal." (87). Bull and Lockhart saw immediately that what one believes regarding "sinlessness" directly involves "justification " and "sanctification": "She (EGW) made no absolute distinction between justification and sanctification and saw both as part of a single process that culminated in perfection prior to translation. Her understanding was eschatological rather than ontological."(91).

Thus they opined: "Edward Heppenstall's emphasis on justification in the 1960s should be understood. . . . It can be understood as a way of compensating for a decline in belief in an imminent Second Coming." (93) Thus, "Justification [as Heppenstall argued] enables believers to be made righteous immediately rather than at the end of the world. It bypasses the actual perfection previously deemed necessary for translation at the end of time because believers, without changing their sinful state, can be declared righteous at any time."

• Authors continued: "It is significant in this regard that Heppenstall rarely mentioned the prospect of translation and never discussed the character of the last generation. Heppenstall broke the connection between Adventist soteriology and Adventist eschatology, and Ford abandoned the theory of Christ's heavenly ministry because he perceived no need for the blotting out of sins in preparation for an imminent translation." (94)

Thus we have today the fallout of the shift in theology since 1957:

1. Charges of "legalism" became standard fare, scaring uncertain Adventists into fleeing from doctrine and obedience because they didn't want to be called "legalists!"

2. They now heard their favorite teachers and pastors say that it was "relationship with Jesus" that was important--doctrine is cold and, after all, the theologians can't agree. But not many were told that a "good" relationship depends on knowing a lot about the person we want to relate to.

3. Pastors were set up for their journeys to Saddleback and Willow Creek--after all, they were preaching the same thing and were getting better results.

4. And the present generation of young and old are now set up for finding something that is more personally satisfying than limited gospels proclaimed by Reformation theologians who have a hard time deciding which Reformer to follow.

Thus, the emerging church movement is the newest, freshest, most exciting kid on the block. For many, they have been set up for it!

WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE EMERGING CHURCH? (PART 4)

May 2nd, 2010 by Herbert Douglass

Let's make it clear: Anything I write here, or anywhere else, is not a personal attack on anyone, whether within or without the Adventist Church. Many of them are personal friends, or will be. I refuse to let differences of opinions make anyone be my enemy.

Emergent leaders are not "bad" guys. Most of them are winsome, pleasing, yes, believable speakers. Obviously, not everything they say is "over the top." Yet, although I believe them to be honest, I surely have serious concerns about what they are saying.

Frankly, I have sat where they sit and like Ezekiel (3:15) have been "astonished." For whatever reason, I, too, have been bored with Bible classes, sermons and Sabbath School classes. We have watched some parents, teachers and pastors wander past the "boundaries" that seemed to describe the Adventist lifestyle. The theological drift of the past 60 years has fogged over careful, long-standing distinctives. In other words, theological precision seems up for grabs for many. But still the gnawing urge to be "spiritual" remains.

Along come new faces, new songs, new ways of living the "spiritual" life without the do's and don'ts--and the appeal is refreshing. The question--"What's wrong with that?"--becomes the default instead of, "What's good about that?"

If anyone tries to define what Emergents or Emerging Church or New Spirituality believes, it is like trying to nail Jello against the wall. And that seems to be exactly what the various Emergents want. The lack of a common belief system is intentional; that is precisely why "conversation" is their chosen word for what they do/think. Their ideas are exploring, and experimenting, but not defining in any way. I find that refreshing in a way, but surely frustrating.

However, after saying all that, I must recognize that when zillions of books are being sold and most of the "leaders" make a habit of quoting each other, with prefaces and back covers loaded with endorsements of other "leaders," (such as Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Spencer Burke, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell, etc.), all that sure sounds like a "Movement."

Yet, the general flood of information now circulating keeps me from making a blanket rejection of what is meant by the Emerging movement. I too resist, even reject with them, a propositional Bible study that is hardly more than memorizing an encyclopedia. I too think Jesus is a great Example but I see Him as also mankind's Savior. I want the "words" of Jesus to be circulating through me as the nourishment of the vine feeds its branches, not only a flush of feeling about a great, inspiring man.

I too reject the awful damage that the eternal-hell notion has done to men, women, and children, the world over for hundreds of years since the early church fathers.

I too reject that awful damage that depicts God the Father "punishing" Jesus with the agony of a public crucifixion (the worst the Roman world would do "to get even" with their common criminals) as if God the Father had to be appeased in some way.

I too reject the marketing gimmicks of the so-called "seeker-friendly" churches with their mammoth screens, slappy-happy music, and super-organized, all-day services for all ages throughout the week.

I too reject the "short-cuts" used by the slick evangelist or pastor who, eager for "results," define, for all practical purposes, "coming to Jesus" in terms of a "Jesus prayer" or a card.

I too reject the almost prevailing notion that the Bible is an inerrant document--that is, each word is as God wants it, rather than recognizing that the Bible is God-breathed through the minds of men who then put their God-breathed thoughts into their own words that could be understood by their contemporaries, with all the limitations of being human penmen.

But I also reject the worrisome emphasis on "experience" as the test of "authenticity" (a word they like). Just think how foolish, as well as its terrible consequences, of testing the "rightness" or "truth" of anything by how one, or how many, "feel" about a smooth lecturer, or a politician's message, or a man's charm on the prowl for a wife. Or vice versa!

But I also reject their recovery of 20th Century liberal theology that focuses on this earth as the "kingdom of God" rather than on our Lord's emphasis that the real and lasting "clean-up" of this earth will happen when He returns--at the same time, not diminishing our responsibilities as good stewards.

I also reject the remaking of English vocabulary wherein "tolerance" now must be couched in terms of political correctness. Today, to respectfully "disagree" is an intolerant act; thus, Emergents refuse to say that anyone is wrong, one of their core values.

I also reject the notion that one must first "belong" before one can "believe." Emergents contend people get too concerned or confused with questions of truth. Fellowship and conversation is where the action is.

I also reject the strange notion that a "relationship with Jesus" is primary, even though very little if any attention is paid to what Jesus actually said--how can anyone have an enduring relationship with anyone, such as a wife or husband to be, without really getting to know all about him/her--as far as possible? Facts and research seem imperative.

I also reject the disdain for evidence as I listen to Emergents relying more on what others may think.

I also reject a non-doctrinal "Christianity" wherein everything goes, avoiding the biblical edges of God's holiness, divine judgment, uniqueness of Jesus, sin, etc.

I also reject their use of Paul's example when he met the Athenians on Mar's Hill and catered to their "unknown gods," etc. Yes, the major lesson Paul gave all who fulfill the gospel commission was to work from the known to the unknown; but he declared unto them what most of them rejected (but not all)--the resurrected Galilean who would have the last word regarding sin and the judgment to come. That surely was speaking to their real needs, not to their "felt" needs.

I also reject the primary emphasis on being "missional" when the focus is on social compassion rather than conversion. We must not make all this into an either/or game. Jesus did both but His primary missionary impulse was to lead others to repentance. Emergents have difficult using the holy "and" when they set forth their priorities.

WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU TRUST MOST? (EMERGING CHURCH, PART 5)

May 26th, 2010 by Herbert Douglass

The fundamental question, that one issue, that has separated philosophers and theologians since the beginning of recorded history is epistemology: how we know things, or, how we think we know things.

That is exactly what is at stake today when we discuss the "emerging church" or "emergents"--is truth to be found in the exciting conversation of listening to each other, trusting in our own feelings or is truth found in listening to the authority of the Bible?

The emergents flee from the authority of an inspired Book. They test authority by their feelings that make more sense for them than boring sermons and a list of proof texts. These personal feelings are echoed by others who "feel" that same way about churches--churches that seem so particular, so restrictive, so exclusive! They prefer a Jesus who is inclusive and not judgmental --nobody left out, ever!

With that rejection of boring churches, and those memorized texts by the dozens to get an A in Bible class, I can heartily agree. I too reject the use of the Bible to build walls around churches that have forgotten how to build appealing escalators that go both ways. I too wince when I hear parents, teachers, and preachers beat the commandments into the young and old with great earnestness but without showing in transformed living their own joy of avoiding the tears and heartbreak that always follow the breaking of those commandments--that is, if they have really found that joy of loyal obedience. Truth is not served by cold heads and hearts, no matter how correct the doctrine may be.

So, we today end up with the historical standoff and a devilish debater's trick--the familiar either/or question: Is authority found in what God has said or is it found in our spiritual impulses--doctrine or experience.

But anybody who thinks twice knows that the issue is better framed with the "holy and." We don't have to decide between either/or!

God is a very person-oriented Person--that is the open secret of the Trinity. Further, Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Truth is knowing a Person, not merely the words about that Person. In other words Truth equals doctrine plus a relationship with the Person behind the doctrine.

Most theological arguments could be solved in five minutes, if all concerned would use the "holy and" rather than the "either/or" question. For example, think of all the ink and shouting that could be avoided if we simply took the "holy and" when we want a definition of righteousness by faith: justification AND sanctification, both working together from the first commitment of faith in following Jesus to the day we go to sleep or when Jesus returns. Both those terms are very experiential. If we don't sense that, we can be sure that we don't understand what those two words mean--another example of doctrine AND experience.

Our emergent friends, however, reject the absoluteness of Bible truth, linear thinking (coherent, logical), certainty, and the cerebral as opposed to affective. They have seen the downside of all those characteristics: arrogance, inflexibility, desire to control, and always having to be "right."

Emergents turn to the changing culture for guide posts, without claims to be right or true, facing the culture in which we all live, but allowing this culture to control our emotions and aesthetics. They deny foundational thinking, enduring truths. They insist that we "know" things in many different ways, that there is no "best" way. Instead of focusing on "right" belief, they think in terms of love, relationships and tolerance wherein nobody is ever wrong.

All this can be summed up with two words: pluralism/diversity and relativism. For them, God has many ways to find Him--Christianity being one. Relativism has been rampant for more than a century in all areas of life--architecture, graphic arts, literature, and definitely within the Christian church. Thus, absolutism denies relativism--obviously. Why? Because relativism insists that morality and religion are relative to the people who embrace them.

None of the above, however, suggests that the emergents that I have read disregard the Bible! Hardly!

Brian McLaren, perhaps the most prolific of the emergents, wrote: "I believe it [the Bible] is a gift from God, inspired by God, to benefit us in the most important way possible: equipping us so that we can benefit others, so that we can play our part in the ongoing mission of God. My regard for the Bible is higher than ever."[1] Yet reading throughout his well-received book, A Generous Orthodoxy, one goes back and forth applauding but just when you think he has a point, he makes some outrageous exaggeration that is off the chart. McLaren simply and categorically is against authority, infallibility, objectivity, and literalness in his use of the Bible.

Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, Grandview, MI, said in a Christianity Today interview: "The Bible is still in the center for us but it is a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it." Rob's wife, Kristen, continuing the interview: "I grew up thinking we've figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what it means. And yet I feel like life is big again-like life used to be black and white, and now it's in color."[2]

Kristen credits Brian McLaren with directing their thinking on Spiritual authority: "Our lifeboat was A New Kind of Christian." Here McLaren speaks through Neo who helps the bewildered pastor, Dan Poole, discover a new kind of Christianity and a new kind of biblical authority: "When we let it go as a modern answer book, we get to rediscover it for what it really is: an ancient book of incredible spiritual value for us, a kind of universal and cosmic history, a book that tells us who we are and what story we find ourselves in so that we know what to do and how to live. That letting go is going to be hard on you evangelicals."[3]

Going back to our original question: What authority do you trust most?--everyone has his or her own private answer. It will be transparent in the choices made in life. Nicodemus learned something on that summer evening when Jesus lifted him above his devotion to the Scriptures (the Old Testament), commendable as that may have been. After that memorable discussion, Nicodemus was never the same. He was loyal to Jesus, His new Lord, ever after, even when our Lord's disciples had fled into the dark corners of Jerusalem on the bleak Friday afternoon. He and Joseph of Arimathaea got the unusual permission to bury our Lord's lifeless form in a new burial cave, never used. He had connected with Truth as his head filled with a new look at Scripture and his heart filled with a new relationship. This was really authentic living!
Relationship theology is great only to the extent it leads us to our Lord who came to earth to establish that relationship. Making relationships with friends who are also seeking relationships with others who seek the excitement of asking questions and questioning all the answers-always leads to dead ends. Just like picking out a lifemate: those who are wise learn as much as they can about that "knockout guy" or that "dazzling beaut" before they make very long-lasting decisions. Hooking up with a relationship that "wows" for a few months, without a careful examination of what the facts are, also leads to sad, dead ends. Likewise, saying that Jesus is one's Inspiration without knowing what He has said about who would be His loyal followers--is dreaming up a spiritual mirage and a sad, dead end.

Authentic authority always unites truth and experience. But truth brings the authenticity to our feelings/experience. Not the other way around.

PART 6: LEONARD SWEET AND THE NEW SPIRITUALITY/EMERGING CHURCH TSUNAMI

July 18th, 2010 by Herbert Douglass

Some have been asking for some living examples of New Spirituality principles that we have been discussing for several weeks. And so I turned to Leonard Sweet. Leonard Sweet is one of the predominant leaders in the New Spirituality/Emerging Church/Spiritual Formation thrust and one who has spoken at several Adventist institutions. He is a Methodist minister and the E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism and former Dean of the Theological School at Drew University.

Sweet is a prolific writer, author of more than forty books, hundreds of articles (many of a scholarly and technical nature), and over 50 prefaces/forewords to other New Spirituality books. He has over 1000 published sermons. In other words, he is an astonishing wordsmith!

What distinguishes him as a leader in the New Spirituality "movement?" Sweet is one of the most quoted, most visible promoters of the New Spirituality. As far as I have found, the first mention of New Spirituality was in a 1995 taped series, The Tides of Change, between Sweet and Rick Warren wherein they talked about the birthing of a "New Spirituality."[1] New Age leaders started using "New Spirituality" after 9/11 by simply dropping "Age" from "New Age Spirituality." It quickly caught on.

Even before all this is Sweet's tendentious volume, Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic[2] wherein he lays out his "quantum" principles:

"Quantum spirituality bonds us to all creation as well as to other members of the human family. . . . This entails a radical doctrine of embodiment of God to the very substance of creation. . . . But a spirituality that is not in some way entheistic (whether pan- or trans-), that does not extend to the spirit-matter of the cosmos, is not Christian."[3]

Nothing new here. Sweet simply is one of the leaders in the past ten years that has pulled together this amorphous movement with its bottom-line belief that God is "in" everything that has become the New Age forecast of the coming New World religion. Think-PEACE plans are being pushed by many, whether in the name of social justice or world brotherhood by heavy weights such as Rick Warren, Neale Donald Walsch, Bruce Wilkinson, Ken Blanchard, false Christ Maitreya, etc.

Sweet is everywhere. He endorses New Spiritual authors about every time I pick up a book by an emergent author. Among many other appointments, he was one of the featured speakers at a 2007 leadership conference at the Crystal Cathedral (Robert Schuller), co-led two small-group workshops with Warren in 2008, and a featured speaker at the 2008 Innovation Conference annually sponsored by the Ohio Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Another one of Sweet's masterpieces is his 1999, SoulTsunami--446 pages of sheer verbal energy. I found that I had to hasten to keep pace with his rapid, exciting, broad-sweeping embracing of about everything! Voluminous footnoting, he seems to be a vacuum cleaner for anything that is being said!

Fully in synch with Schuller's "God's Dream" and Warren's "Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan", Sweet wrote:

"SoulTsunami is designed and dedicated not only to helping you predict, but on helping you intervene spiritually and socially to invent and prevent the future. . . .

"Postmodern Christians are spiritual interventionists. The Post-modern Reformation Church will consciously intervene to help design this new world. There are many futures out there.

The future is not a ‘single state,' but a scenario of possibilities. There is a struggle between opposing visions of the future. It is not too late to choose which one we shall get. The future is a function of our choices and creations.[4]

"The future can no longer be an assumption. The future is now an achievement. There is a race to the future. Who will get there first? Will the Christian church? The time to save God's Dream is now. The people to save God's Dream are you. . . . God is birthing the greatest spiritual awakening in the history of the church. God is calling you to midwife that birth. Are you going to show up?"[5]

How will all this "global consciousness" materialize? Sweet states that the "new biology" and the "new physics" hold the answer to "global civilization':

"Physics is increasingly becoming the study of matter so small (is a wave? is it a particle?) as to become the study of consciousness. In other words, physics is becoming metaphysics."[6]

"The coming together of the new biology and the new physics is providing the basic metaphors for this new global civilization that esteems and encourages whole-brain experiences, full-life expectations, personalized expressions, and a globalized consciousness."[7]

Remember, Rick Warren's apologist wrote that "Doctrinally/theologically, Leonard Sweet is almost as Christian as anyone can get."[8]

I think D. A. Carson, research Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL, probably
Summed it up best "In his book Post-Modern Pilgrims, Leonard Sweet argues that ministry in the twenty-first century has more in common with the first century than with the modern world that is collapsing all around us. Although Sweet warns us not to embrace a postmodern worldview, his solution, argued in four chapters, is that twenty-first century ministry should be experiential, participatory, image-driven, and connected--generating the acrostic EPIC, which has become a bit of a mantra."[9]

In other words, Sweet is a master of reconstructing biblical history. In what possible way can anyone connect EPIC with the evangelism of the first-century Christians? Proclamation of a risen Lord and the impact of His Cross appealed to Jews, Greeks, and barbarians alike: Repent, Be Forgiven, Be Empowered to change a lifestyle of self-indulgence into one of self-denial and allegiance to their new Lord! This kind of language is foreign to Sweet and most other New Spirituality/Emergents today.

Leonard Sweet disdains biblical authority. Everything flows out of his remarkable attempt to transform the purpose and principles of New Testament Christianity. His basic flaws are, philosophically, epistemology, and, theologically, a rejection of biblical authority.

[1] The Tides of Change (1995 audio presentation with Warren and Sweet, part of a series called "Choice Voices for Church Leadership," distributed by Abington Press).

[2] Dayton, OH: Whaleprints for Spirit/Venture Ministries, Inc., 1991, 1994.

[3] Ibid. 125.

[4] SoulTsunami (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 55.

[5] Ibid., 34.

[6] Ibid,, 109.

[7] Ibid,, 121.

[8] Richard Abanes, "Leonard Sweet, Rick Warren, and the New Age," http://abanes.com/warren _sweet.html.

[9] D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Gr Rapids, IL: Zondervan, 2005), 40.



Daniel 11 (New King James Version) Satan uses Mind Control.....


Daniel 11
1 “Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.) 2 And now I will tell you the truth: Behold, three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than them all; by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece. 3 Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4 And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these.

Warring Kings of North and South

5 “Also the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion. 6 And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority,[a] and neither he nor his authority[b] shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in thosetimes. 7 But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail. 8 And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt, with their princes[c]and their precious articles of silver and gold; and he shall continue moreyears than the king of the North.
9 “Also the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land. 10 However his sons shall stir up strife, and assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through; then he shall return to his fortress and stir up strife.
11 “And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy. 12 When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up; and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail. 13 For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.
14 “Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South. Also, violent men[d] of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall. 15 So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city; and the forces[e] of the South shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist. 16 But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him. He shall stand in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.[f]
17 “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones[g] with him; thus shall he do. And he shall give him the daughter of women to destroy it; but she shall not stand with him, or be for him. 18 After this he shall turn his face to the coastlands, and shall take many. But a ruler shall bring the reproach against them to an end; and with the reproach removed, he shall turn back on him. 19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fortress of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
20 “There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle. 21 And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. 22 With the force[h] of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant. 23 And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people. 24 He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time.
25 “He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him. 26 Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. 27 Both these kings’ hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time. 28 While returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land.
The Northern King’s Blasphemies

29 “At the appointed time he shall return and go toward the south; but it shall not be like the former or the latter. 30 For ships from Cyprus[i] shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage.
“So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. 31 And forces[j] shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation. 32 Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits. 33 And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yetfor many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. 34 Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue. 35 And someof those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.
36 “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. 37 He shall regard neither the God[k] of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all. 38 But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.39 Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.
The Northern King’s Conquests

40 “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. 41 He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels. 44But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many. 45 And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.

Thank you, John317!

I haven't read Rick Howard's book yet but I imagine it covers many of the same things that Douglass talks about in those messages.

Might not have time to read it. Might meet the Omega crises head on and have to fly by the seat of our pants?

You must have sen this link by now, but in case anybody else missed it


http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/425907/Re_Egypt.html#Post425907

Have you read "Omega Now"?

Gail, your hesitancy about Rick Howard's book and the accusations against the seminary are well warranted. I am currently a student at the seminary. I have taken the class formerly called Spiritual Formation, now called Foundations of Biblical Spirituality. The accusations that the seminary is teaching unbiblical ideas of spirituality, such as Catholic mysticism, New Age spirituality, Eastern meditation, or anything else, are completely false. Let me say again: The accusations that the seminary is teaching unbiblical methods of spiritual formation are absolutely, positively false.

The class on biblical spirituality is one of the best classes I have ever taken in my university career. It focused on helping us to develop a deep, personal relationship with Jesus based on the daily study of God's Word and prayer. Everything that is taught in the class is completely in line with the Bible. I can attest that what I learned in that class changed my life forever; my devotional life has been greatly improved because of that class.

It breaks my heart to read the outrageous and baseless accusations being levied against the seminary and the professors who teach here. I don't know what is motivating these people; I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just confused about the definition of the term 'spiritual formation.' There are challenges facing the Christian church regarding spirituality and unbiblical ideas of it. But make no mistake: the seminary is not part of the problem. Rather, they are part of the solution.

Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." He also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Truth is not a selection of facts or special knowledge. Truth is a Person, namely, Jesus Christ. Rick Howard says that it is not enough to know the truth; we also have to know Satan's counterfeit in order to be prepared to escape deception. Sorry, but I beg to differ. What saves us from evil, whether it is our own sinfulness or the deceptions of Satan, is Jesus! We can't possibly prepare to avoid deception by studying Satan's counterfeits. He has millions of them. He has twisted the truth in so many ways it is impossible to know them all. We can avoid the counterfeits of Satan only by studying the genuine--God's Word. Jesus is the answer to our problems, not baseless accusations and conspiracy theories about the seminary.

Thank you, Matthew, for that first-hand report and testimonial on behalf of our Adventist Theological Seminary. You speak knowledgeably and what you say shows you obviously know what you're speaking about.

It makes me proud of our Andrews University and of the Seminary to learn this information.

I was told by a student at AU that there are different types of these type of classes being taught there, which means that one may have been one of the better ones.

Daryl, I have friends who have taken the Spiritual Formation class from the other professors who teach it. I've heard nothing about any heresy being taught. Besides, I've read some of the accusations being levied against the seminary, and the name of the professor from whom I took the class was specifically mentioned. He is not guilty of the things of which he is accused.

We students at the seminary are not mindless drones who believe anything our professors tell us. If there was a problem with what they were teaching, we'd know about it.

Appreciate the input, Matthew! Thanks so much for sharing.

Did you hear back from Dr. Markovic, Gail? I sat by him at a camp meeting this year. He told me that Rick Howard's conclusions paralleled his own research.

Rick Howard was deep into new age/occult and after becoming an Adventist pastor, he saw the same new age stuff coming into the church via the SF pipeline. That concerned him.


rejoice always,


g

I never did... :(

Hmmm. I have his personal email.

Amazing Discoveries TV is airing a series on this topic by Rick Howard. It is on at various times during the next week or so. I ordered the book tonight.

Have you heard the latest regarding Rick Howard's book?

no....what's the latest?

(btw, people can expect me to defend this book. I've read it, I agree with it, and Rick Howard is a friend of mine.)

The latest is that the R&H will not be printing the book again presumably on the basis that the BRI rejected it on the basis of some interpretation of something in the book of Daniel.

It is my understanding that Remnant Publication will now be asked to print it.

:/ I knew about that about a month ago...

Actually, I think R&H is bending to demands of people who disagree with the message of the book. Kinda like......................blackmail....threat of boycotting R&H publications if they kept publishing The Omega Rebellion..

As I recall, EGW wrote that those who had been immersed in the occult were not qualified to fill the role of pastor or minister - shepherd of the flock.

Thanks for your testimony Matthew.

Despite your sincerity, your view cannot be unbiased. True, not all students are 'mindless drones', but neither are many well-placed to identify problems.

Why?

1.Because students at Andrews both consent and invest heavily to receive spiritual direction from other men. Success (grades leading to future employment) depends upon conformity to the status quo. Minor differences are tolerated, but no deviation from party lines. Universities breed conformity. We have our Bibles, why go elsewhere?

2. Andrews is a theological stew. Dwight Nelson (Sr. pastor at the campus church) preaches that Allah is Yawheh and Denis Fortin (Andrews Dean of Theology) is in happy agreement.

Simply by enrolling and investing, a student is saying, my knowledge and awareness is inferior, I consent to be lead & indoctrinated, I kneel at your feet. This is ok for brain surgery or auto mechanics, but in Biblical matters, Christ is our head, not man.