GYC Vs “The One Project” – A shocking fact about our shaking church

[mel20]

Liberals? Conservatives? Anti-category? Traditional? Separatists? Theistic-Evolutionists? Other groups?

You can make a never-ending-list to categorize each and everyone of Adventists people based on their most suitable characteristic. But according the Bible, there are finally only two groups of people, including in the Adventist world: Wheat vs Tares. No third party.

I believe this is happening within our Church now. Whenever you learn the history of GYC, hopefully you won't forget to learn the history of the other group called “The One Project”. Since the very first infrastructure was settled, GYC committed NOT to return to traditional nor conservative, but come back to the “Primitive Godliness”.

Keep in mind, please, that too much cynical & ridicule statements and make fun of this movement since their very first time back in 2002 by stating that GYC won't stay nor exist too long since they never have any show nor emotional in their gathering. Fortunately (unfortunately to them), the spirit of GYC keep moving, growing and expanding not only in N. America but also worldwide.

But their wrong diagnosed and analysis don't necessary means that they learn something, pray and join hand in hand with this GYC movement. It's hard to say but, well, the GYC movement apparently bothering some liberal groups and leaders in our Church. And this led them to make another movement called “The One Project” http://the1project.org/

Instead of proclaiming the Three Angels' Messages in our Advent Movement, yet in fact, The One Project promotes the spirit of ecumenism with their deceitful-overemphasizing main theme “Jesus. All”

They said that to become a good Christian and a better Adventist, you must deal more and more about Jesus, but less and less about doctrines. (Sounds good' eh?) So what kind of “jesus” they are dealing with, then? What the purpose of God raised up the SDA movement then? Just another denomination?

I say this with a sober, heavy heart, but also with a clean conscience, that The One Project is extremely a dangerous and rebellious. No offense here. But this is a counter-attack of the GYC movement made by the cartel of our liberal SDA pastors/leaders that really really hate GYC-or at least, annoyed.

Instead of back to the Primitive Godliness (Because Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever), The One Project otherwise emphasizes that Christianity needs to be reinvented in order to provide meanings and need for this generation. An experiental mystical form of Christianity need to be promoted as a method to reach the postmodern generation.

The Three Angels' Messages is being replaced by humanistic methods promoting church growth and a social gospel. This means that the Truth is neglected--departure from sound doctrine vs mystical, experience based (Absolute Truth vs. Experience Only). Little to no teaching on the second coming and his Judgment. Certainly this all is very silent, insidious but covert.

We don't say that the GYCers would never attend The Project One, or vica versa. But the shocking fact is that in the Christian history, there is no such kind a sharp-contrast division among God's people as it's happening in the SDA church now. See, thousands of GYCers are usually not interested in hundreds of “The One Projects” group. Vica versa.

This has nothing to do with “which groups are you belongs to” but it's all about shaking time, yes, the harvest time for real. NO THIRD PARTY.

Once again: According to “Thus said the Lord”, indeed... there are only TWO groups of people on earth. No third party! It doesn't matter how many thousands of religions, by-product religions, Christian Denominations, or many other beliefs and persuations that already exist now within billions of human beings.

What really matter is that finally there must be only two groups: WHEATS vs TARES. That's why you will always see polarization-polarization-polarization wherever you go within Adventist communities around the world. So, pick a side. No neutrality as a highway to heaven. You better cold or hot.

However, based on the Biblical guidelines (especially from the book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Chronicles, and Daniel & Revelation, of course) the final shaking must be first happening in

1. The House of God, then

2. Christianity in general, then

3. The whole world.

Then after the Angels of God finished the separation in that harvest time, Jesus shall come again.

Welcome to the GYC in Orlando, Florida. (January 1 to 5, 2014) Watch live on www.gycweb.org

[Gregory Matthews]

For those of you who want to see what the leaders of the One Project wish to accomplish, please go to:

http://the1project.org/assets/documents/the-one-project.pdf

Here is what others have said about it:

http://the1project.org/media.html

This will tell you a bit more about the One Project:

Quote:

We are committed to the idea that a Jesus-driven, Jesus-bathed, Jesus-backed, Jesus-led, Jesus-filled, Jesus-powered, all-about-Jesus Adventist Church is the uncompromising directive from our past, the joy of our present, and hope for our future. We claim the Primal Adventist Impulse: a longing to be with Jesus.

We believe pulpits, classrooms, worship halls, board rooms, living rooms - life! - should be drenched in the Spirit of Jesus.

We crave a "High Christology" - where Jesus is fully honored as Creator, Savior, and Lord. We believe Jesus is the hope of the First Testament and inspiration for the Second. Theology - the study of God - is at its best in dedicated exploration of Jesus, who is "the image of God." We are convicted that he alone is The Desire of the Ages. All of them: the prelapsarian age and life after the fall; the antediluvian age and life after the flood; prehistoric times, the stone age, the classical age, the age of antiquity, the middle ages, the age of reason, the modern age and in this, our 21st Century Age.

We love our church. And so we want the greatest gift for it... Jesus.

The One Project seeks - through gatherings, conversations, web-based content, and Christ-focused publications - to stimulate preaching, worship, and adoration of Jesus within and through the Adventist church.

mel20says:

Quote:

Instead of proclaiming the Three Angels' Messages in our Advent Movement, yet in fact, The One Project promotes the spirit of ecumenism with their deceitful-overemphasizing main theme “Jesus. All”

NOTE: He does not support the above in any way.

I find it interesting that mel20 doe not provide us with any information as to who his is. He has that right to post in CA without providing us with any information, not even his actual name. But, I wonder why he post such comments and does not want anyone to know who he actually is. I will suggest that he should have the courage of his convictions to let us know who he is. Check on his CA profile and it has nothing about him.

Quote:

But this is a counter-attack of the GYC movement made by the cartel of our liberal SDA pastors/leaders that really really hate GYC-or at least, annoyed.

Let me see: General Conference institutions and the North American Division are all listed as being supporters of the One Project.

Tell me why President Ted Wilson has not come out strongly against the One Project? After all, he has some kind of a relationship to all of the above that support it.

Oh, yes, I understand: President Ted Wilson has not come out against the One Project because he is part of the "cartel of our liberal SDA pastors/leaders that really really hate GYC-or at least annoyed."

Now since we know who President Wilson really is (a liberal hater of GYC) we will need to act. As head of the denomination, isn't he really the ultimate one responsible for this great error? And he has not even spoken out against it. Shame. Shame.

[olger]

Much like the recommendations in the iFollow materials, the One Project frequently

promotes ideas more radical than what they themselves explicitly say.

One of the simplest and potentially most influential things they do is generously give

away books at their gatherings. But even the most cursory of examinations shows that the

books given out nearly always go far beyond what is off officially endorsed or advocated at the

gatherings themselves.

The two most prominent of those books are "Simply Jesus" by N.T. Wright, and "I am a

Follower" by Leonard Sweet. According to one of the One Project leaders: By reading, people will learn and change and transform their lives.

Since this is obviously true in at least some percentage of cases, why would anyone want

to hand out, or even recommend, books tainted with error? A great deal of ridicule has been directed at

those who have encouraged cautious positions on this topic. But they are in good company—

the messenger of the Lord said:

"Suffer not yourselves to open the lids of a book that is questionable. There is a hellish fascination

in the literature of Satan. It is the powerful battery by which he tears down a simple religious

faith. Never feel that you are strong enough to read infidel books; for they contain a

poison like that of asps. They can do you no good, and will assuredly do you harm" (Fundamentals of Christian Education, 93).

But why stop with books? Leonard Sweet himself is listed among the speakers for the One

Project gathering in Seattle, in February 2014. Why would they grant him that platform?

Perhaps because he has spoken previously at quite a number of Adventist institutions and

special events. Few protested then. Will anyone stand up and be counted now? This guy is theological bad news,

and full of the gall of error.

G

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is the schedule for the 2014 Seattle Conference:

http://the1project.org/seattle-schedule2014.html

Please check it out to see what role Leonard Sweet is expected to play at that conference.

Olger has informed us that Leonard Sweet is a speaker at the Conference and then gone on to ask why we would give Sweet a platform.

Well, there is a partial truth in what Olger said. Sweet will be at that conference. My analysis of the schedule is that Sweet does not rise to the level of being called a speaker who is given a platform. I understand that some may differ with me.

In any case I will suggest that it would have been better for Olger to have been more careful in his statement of the role that Sweet would have at that Conference. As he stated it I believe that he exaggerated Sweet's role. But, that is just my opinion.

In truth, Sweet has a 30 minute "author's corner." To me that is a very minor role which does not reach the level of being a speaker who has a platform.

[Green Cochoa]

I find it interesting that mel20 doe not provide us with any information as to who his is. He has that right to post in CA without providing us with any information, not even his actual name. But, I wonder why he post such comments and does not want anyone to know who he actually is. I will suggest that he should have the courage of his convictions to let us know who he is. Check on his CA profile and it has nothing about him.

[Gregory Matthews]

I often see here critics posting partial truths and statements that they got from somewhere else without checking them out themselves.

To give an example:

It is often said that Leonard is a major figure and theologian in the Emerging Church movement. That is a true statement.

Then people come along and point out that "X" is a concept of the Emerging Church movement. They go on to say that Sweet in in error for holding this view.

However, it is not typically stated that LS has publicly disagreed with several of the concepts of the Emerging Church movement.

IOW Sweet does not hold that view, even though it is held by others in the EC movement.

[Green Cochoa]

Here is the schedule for the 2014 Seattle Conference:

http://the1project.org/seattle-schedule2014.html

Please check it out to see what role Leonard Sweet is expected to play at that conference.

Olger has informed us that Leonard Sweet is a speaker at the Conference and then gone on to ask why we would give Sweet a platform.

Well, there is a partial truth in what Olger said. Sweet will be at that conference. My analysis of the schedule is that Sweet does not rise to the level of being called a speaker who is given a platform. I understand that some may differ with me.

In any case I will suggest that it would have been better for Olger to have been more careful in his statement of the role that Sweet would have at that Conference. As he stated it I believe that he exaggerated Sweet's role. But, that is just my opinion.

In truth, Sweet has a 30 minute "author's corner." To me that is a very minor role which does not reach the level of being a speaker who has a platform.

A barrel full of sewage with one tablespoon of grape juice...is sewage.

A barrel full of grape juice with one tablespoon of sewage...is sewage!

Does it matter if Sweet talks in all of the meetings or only for 30 minutes? The fact that the project leaders promote such a man as Sweet tells us something about their scruples--or lack thereof. I have also, personally, seen firsthand evidence that the leaders are willing to lie to make their cause appear more acceptable. If they have lied once, how should I, or anyone else for that matter, trust them to speak the truth of God?

Olger spoke the truth. So did Mel. I stand with them on the side of truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

I will also suggest that, since he has the right to post just as he is doing, you do not have the right to criticize him for so doing.

Of course he has that right.

His right to post is exactly the same as my right to post a criticism of him.

My criticism is founded on the point that he does not have the moral courage openly acknowledge who is making the criticism. One who is making the statements that he makes should be willing to let people know who he is.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

The sarcasm in the latter part of your post is unbecoming of an Adventist pastor, and it is unseemly to speak so cynically of Elder Ted Wilson on the part of any member, much more a pastor and chaplain.

Green was correct. I was being sarcastic.

Green has failed to recognize the point of my sarcastic comment. It clearly was not President Wilson. I was clearly not speaking cynically about him.

[Green Cochoa]

There are some who indulge in levity, sarcasm, and even mockery toward those who differ with them. Others present an array of objections to any new view; and when these objections are plainly answered by the words of Scripture, they do not acknowledge the evidence presented, nor allow themselves to be convinced. Their questioning is not for the purpose of arriving at truth, but was intended merely to confuse the minds of others. {GW92 128.1}

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[debbym]

what i am picking up in this dialogue is that indeed there are different kinds of people, who are reached and nurtured in different ways...

everyone has a perfectly individual and personal relationship. Yes there is one God but many people. only through the Spirit can we lose our fear of each other, and lose our criticism, and just lift up the living word.

we are capable of simplifying this into the conservative emotional and the liberal intellectual group.

these groups are capable of holding up their perspective, their mind set, as the standard by which to measure the other.

this is small.

and finger pointing is not what Jesus is busy doing, lets get to what Jesus is doing.

His intercession if for all people everywhere, conservatives, and liberals, historical traditionalist adventist, those aflame with Waggoner and Jones messages, the tattooed, and the alcoholic, and the rigid fundamentalist, with cult like control in their lives and everyone in between.

he wants everyone to look at Him and live. repentance, love, and obedience.

i just see the futility of trying to have this conversation. i hear the ravening wolves ready to consume and devour each other. but here i try.

God has not finished His intercession for all. we cannot number the saved right now. we cannot see it. it will surprise everyone. even Manasseh found repentance...

[CoAspen]

I always appreciate those who present facts vs innuendo or partial facts. GM is doing an excellent job of that. Having been in this church as a member from grade school on and having been in many churches and listened to all the controversies over the years and being personally confronted by 'groups' claiming the correct truth or finding fault with the .org.....I find the comments of the original poster for this topic to have little effect on mylife or validity as to facts. An opinion, yes and entitled to it.

[Kevin H]

Too often what I've seen in history is that when there are two groups they too often take approximately half (give or take on specific points) the truth and use it against the rest of the truth.

But I question whether or not these two groups are in competition with each other.

I am concerned about how both groups tend to be focused on things like theology and church growth and listening to GYA on 3abn how they tend to be focused on ourselves and that it is the gospel of the spread of the Seventh-day Adventist church and salesmanship, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ and seeing Seventh-day Adventism as a vessel for sharing the gospel.

I'd like to see both groups giving more focus to the Bible. To advocate books like John Bright's "A History of Israel" to have Dr. Jim Fleming and Randall W. Younker. Our members are too focused on church growth. I'm not comfortable with spiritual formation, but not freaked out against it, if lucky they might have some focus on church history, but we tend to have turned from people of the book to people who study people who speculate on the book. We need to get back to the Bible but we are too focused on traditions.

[Tom Wetmore]

I am pretty much in the same boat as CoAspen with respect to this tempest in a teapot.

However there is one additional reaction I tend to have when I hear or read someone criticizing what someone else teaches or has written, like olger has just done. It make me curious to find out for myself what the fuss is all about. Books get regularly addd to my reading list by such lambasting of them. It is not simply a contrarian reaction to be different or to buck tradition. Most often these critiques are vague broad-side attacks. Or you get the one drop of poison pollutes the whole well sort of thought terminating cliches. (Not actually true because it would depend on the poison.). This all seems to be more in the nature of fear-mongering. I have to go take a look for myself.

But as one who has made it a life long objective to confront and face my own fears, this really ends up being more of a challenge to me to see for myself what all the trembling and shaking is all about. Here is what experience tells me about these kinds of attacks. Frequently, what is being raised as the supposed evil is simply conjecture and not really true. Most often, as has already been pointed out, the warnings and criticisms are second hand, filtered through several info-generations. The books being lambasted haven't even been read. When I read them for myself that becomes very obvious. Even some of the supposed and proclaimed experts referenced as authorities on the matter often do not have direct first-hand knowledge of what they speak and write about.

[olger]

Here is the schedule for the 2014 Seattle Conference:

http://the1project.org/seattle-schedule2014.html

Please check it out to see what role Leonard Sweet is expected to play at that conference.

Olger has informed us that Leonard Sweet is a speaker at the Conference and then gone on to ask why we would give Sweet a platform.

Well, there is a partial truth in what Olger said. Sweet will be at that conference. My analysis of the schedule is that Sweet does not rise to the level of being called a speaker who is given a platform. I understand that some may differ with me.

In any case I will suggest that it would have been better for Olger to have been more careful in his statement of the role that Sweet would have at that Conference. As he stated it I believe that he exaggerated Sweet's role. But, that is just my opinion.

In truth, Sweet has a 30 minute "author's corner." To me that is a very minor role which does not reach the level of being a speaker who has a platform.

Would you be ok with your grandchildren being taught by this man? How about the children of other Adventists?

I'm not.

G

[Gregory Matthews]

Olger said:

Quote:

Would you be ok with your grandchildren being taught by this man? How about the children of other Adventists?

I really do not know enough about him to give you a yes or no answer.

By the way, as I understand it (I could be wrong.) he teaches informed adults, not children.

In my understanding: No person, to include you and I, is perfect in our understanding. All of us contain error in our understanding of God and what God wants of us. Yet, as imperfect people God calls us into ministry for Him and God uses imperfect people.

Yes, I think that you and Green are imperfect, as am I, but I do not believe that either you or Green are outside of what God can use. Whether or not God will actually use you is between you and God. It is the same for me.

So, I am not going to judge you for what I may think is error in you. I am not going to say that such will keep God from using you. I may even send people to you whom I believe you can help.

But, I do have limits, beyond which I will not send people to another.

[Tom Wetmore]

Ger,

I likewise know very little about Leonard Sweet and what he teaches. I have not read any of his books, yet. So I am not really able to give you an answer.

You have described him as "theological bad news, and full of the gall of error." You described books such as the ones he has written as "tainted with error." That's not really informative or helpful. Save us some time here and be specific about what error he teaches and what aspects of his theology are "bad news" and why it is so bad as you characterize it. Don't just refer to others opinions or criticisms of him. Tell us in your own words, based on what he has said or written.

Maybe then we can have a useful dialog to avoid going down the wrong path.

[phkrause]

Excellent posts Gregory, and excellent points

[phkrause]

Ger,

I likewise know very little about Leonard Sweet and what he teaches. I have not read any of his books, yet. So I am not really able to give you an answer.

You have described him as "theological bad news, and full of the gall of error." You described books such as the ones he has written as "tainted with error." That's not really informative or helpful. Save us some time here and be specific about what error he teaches and what aspects of his theology are "bad news" and why it is so bad as you characterize it. Don't just refer to others opinions or criticisms of him. Tell us in your own words, based on what he has said or written.

Maybe then we can have a useful dialog to avoid going down the wrong path.

[olger]

Sure! Here's a couple quotes for your uhh...enlightenment.

"Wholeness unites, not eliminates, opposites, bringing them into dynamic balance—the coming together of earth and water, air and fire, through the merger of the Antaean sensibility (Antaeus the hugger of the ground, from which came his strength) with the Herculean sensibility (Hercules the master of air and fire, who defeated Antaeus by lifting him off the ground.) 70 3. The discovery of the euphoric state of wholeness will prove to be the highest form of ecstasis." (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 250)

"Uniting the opposites" is foundational to the new progressive spirituality (contemporary term for New-Age). What it really means is eliminating the distinctions between Male/female, God/man, Creator/creation. The theological term for that heresy is one-ism.

"Spirituality refers first of all to the universal gift of aliveness that exists within all religions and outside of religions. It breathes out the air that “inspires.” Those who have been in-spired with aliveness by the kiss of God will “con-spire” to kiss others into coming alive to the spiritual dimensions of existence. “In-spire” means to breathe in. “Con-spire” means to breathe together. “Conspiracy” enters by the same door as “spirituality.” A world gagging on smog and smut needs a breath of fresh air. The New Light movement begins as a fresh air conspiracy of “aliveness.” But it is more than that. Spiritual consciousness can be something greater than aesthetics or aliveness. The Bible tells us that the human species has been twice kissed by the divine." (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 253)

Complete nonsense. Nowhere does the Bible invest all religions with aliveness. We all become "alive" at our first birth, but only spiritually alive at our second birth (conversion). John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." Sweet's universalism presents the misconception that all religions lead to God. Listen carefully. They don't. "He that has THE SON has life. The rest have the second death to anticipate.

"Through the synergy of the divine-human exchange of energies, an unbelievable field of healing and transforming energy is rounded up and released in the universe. Humans are constructed out of mutually attracting energy particles with positive and negative charges. Negative or neutral charges too often dominate human contacts. Positive charges in the church are about as rare as “strange matter”--positively charged lumps of quarks know as “quarknuggets”--is in the quantum world. “Consciousness is catching,” psychologist/medical scholar/professor Frances E. Vaughan reminds us. Destructive, negative, constricting states of consciousness are caught as readily as creative, positive, expanding states of consciousness. All energy states are contagious." (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 62)

HUH.

"A surprisingly central feature of all the world’s religions is the language of light in communicating the divine and symbolizing the union of the human with the divine: Muhammed’s light-filled cave, Moses’ burning bush, Paul’s blinding light, Fox’s “inner light,” Krishna’s Lord of Light, Böhme’s light-filled cobbler shop, Plotinus’ fire experiences, Bodhisattvas with the flow of Kundalini’s fire erupting from their fontanelles, and so on. Light is the common thread that ties together near-death experiences as they occur in various cultures." (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 146)

Ellen warned us about this stuff. Today, when lukewarm Adventists (of all people) flock to this false teacher of mysticism, her words are fulfilled. Fulfilled.

This is New Age gobbledygook and should have no place in the Christian discussion except to be roundly refuted from Scripture.

"For Christianity, the central problem is how God could have become person. How spirit could transform itself into matter. Word become flesh. Consciousness become protoplasm. The direction is from the top down. For Judaism, on the other hand, the problem is how humanity could possibly attain to God’s word and intention. How matter could raise itself to spirit. How simple desert souls could hear the word. Human substance attain consciousness. The intention is “to permeate matter and raise it to spirit.” The direction is from the bottom up. Perhaps the two traditions, one moving down, the other moving up, are destined to meet in the divinity of humanity." (82) (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 191)

The claim that humans are Divine and moving upward toward Divinity is an eastern occult concept that has no place in the proclamation of Biblical Truth. Tom, Greg. Let me ask you genuinely, is this what you wish to defend? If so, go ahead.

Rejoice always,

`G

John 15:16

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K. Olger, in farness to this discussion, I will make several statements in response. My statements should be taken individually and may not be related to other statements.

1) I do not know if you have quoted them accurately or in context. But, to be fair to the discussion I will respond.

2) I have more concern for some statements and less concern for others. IOW, I do not consider them to all be of equal weight.

3) You, (Olger) appear by your post, to fail to distinguish between spirituality and religion. Common meanings of spirituality exclude aspects of religion, while common meanings attached to religion include meanings attached to spirituality. You appear to me to not understand this difference. Perhaps, I am wrong? But, that is how it looks to me.

4) Your citations include issues of which I have no interest. So, I guess that means that other than to see for myself what Sweet actually teaches, I would not be reading his books.

5) If I were to take your collected quotations as accurate and representative of the rest of his writings, I guess that I would not be reading his writings and would not understand why he would be a speaker at SDA meetings. I guess that this means that I wonder if there are not other aspects that you have not shared with us.

6) Olger, I am responding in an attempt to be fair to you and to foster appropriate dialogue. Do you see my responses in that light?

7) Please note that I have never either defended or attacked Sweet. I do not know enough about him to do either. In this response, I am simply responding to what you have shared about him.

[Tom Wetmore]

Interesting that you zero in so quickly on those quotes from one of his books. Have you read it yourself? Or is that just stuff that you have cut and pasted from other's critiques of him?

I took a look at his website to see if I could find any info that could inform our discussion. Here is what he posted as an answer to his critics regarding the book you are quoting from -

Quote:

Let me say first of all that for me, New Age rhymes with sewage. I have such a low threshold for Gaia worship that in the middle of the movie "Avatar" I had to take a break, so severe was my attack of Gaiarrhea. In fact, I have challenged "new age sensibilities" (which now are known as "integral spirituality" or "Enlightenment," not "New Age") for the way in which they goddify the self and expect others to orbit in a Youniverse that revolves around them as if they were a god. "The Secret" of the universe is not that you can have life your way. "The Secret" is that Jesus is The Way (Colossians 3). Jesus did not come to make us divine. Jesus came to show us how to be authentically what God made us to be--human. Because of the culture in which we live, I have encouraged the daily ritual of starting the day by standing in front of a mirror and saying: "God is God and I am not."

I wrote a book 20 years ago called Quantum Spirituality, and a few years ago made it available as a free download on my website. Back when "New Age" was a movement, I was inspired by the brilliance of the Apostle Paul in evangelizing pagans, to show how even New Agers, like atheists or other non-Christian groups, could be evangelized for orthodox Christianity if only we learn how to speak to them. For example, the recovery movement language of "higher power" or "higher consciousness" can be turned into "Christ consciousness." Instead of "New Age," we might adopt and adapt the "New Light" language of Charles G. Finney, the founder of modern urban revivalism and the leader of the Second Great Awakening, who called his followers "New Light" evangelists because they used new methods like altar calls and hymns to bring early 19th century Americans to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Would I write the same book today? No. Would I say some things differently? Yes. I started working on the book in my late 20s. I hope I'm older and wiser now. But this was the first book to examine the challenges confronting Christianity as it entered into the uncharted waters of a new postGutenberg, postChristian, postmodern culture, and I quoted and referenced New Age thinkers who seemed to "get" this cultural transition better than the church did while I outlined avenues of approach to their minds and hearts.

By quoting and referencing people outside the faith, I am doing nothing more than Peter, Paul and Jesus himself did. Paul circumcised Timothy and made a vow in the temple. Some Christians could have easily interpreted these actions as proof that Paul was a legalist. But he was simply being "a Jew to the Jew," speaking their language to get their hearing, yet not compromising the gospel at the same time.

Because I quote someone does not mean I agree with everything that person ever wrote. Paul quoted pagan philosophers in the Book of Acts. Quantum Spirituality was the first book that broke up the text on a page and inserted side-bars and images and quotes, a feature which is now the norm for most books. Some of the quotes I chose were meant to provide contrasting positions to my argument, some to buttress my argument, some even to mock my argument. The key consideration to whether I quoted someone was not "Do I agree with them?" but "Does this quote energize the conversation?" "Guilt by association" is intellectually disreputable and injurious to the whole body of Christ.

Kind of speaks for itself, wouldn't you say? Assuming you had written a book when you were a young man, let's say just after you had converted to Adventism, should we judge you now based on those words? Even in our own context we recognize that some things that Ellen White wrote in the early days of her prophetic ministry are rather hard to defend since she obviously grew in her own understanding. Kind of the hazard of writing a lot over a long period of time. Does that discredit what she later wrote and stood for later in life, as her critics so frequently charge?

Anything else, Ger?

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: Gregory

I find it interesting that mel20 doe not provide us with any information as to who his is. He has that right to post in CA without providing us with any information, not even his actual name. But, I wonder why he post such comments and does not want anyone to know who he actually is. I will suggest that he should have the courage of his convictions to let us know who he is. Check on his CA profile and it has nothing about him.

I will suggest this only mattered because you did not agree with Mel. I will also suggest that, since he has the right to post just as he is doing, you do not have the right to criticize him for so doing.

You probably would not mean to be criticizing all of the other posters here who have non-revealing usernames, or would you? (And there are more than a few in this category.)

The sarcasm in the latter part of your post is unbecoming of an Adventist pastor, and it is unseemly to speak so cynically of Elder Ted Wilson on the part of any member, much more a pastor and chaplain.

Selah,

Green Cochoa.

BINGO!!!! First thing I thought. Don't agree so find something to bi*** about.

[Tom Wetmore]

I also did a quick search of this forum to see if we had discussed Leonard Sweet before and I found this short quip from olger -

Leonard Sweet is a great person to listen to if you desire to grow in emergent interfaith confusion.

Ger, you didn't mention this issue in your post, but assuming this is still one of your criticisms of Sweet, I'll just go ahead and post the second part of his response to crtitcs' accusation that he is a leader of the emerging (or emergent) church movement.

Quote:

It is doubly ironic that I am under attack for being Emergent or a leader in the "emerging church" movement when I am known in emerging church circles as one of its severest critics. In fact, four years ago Relevant Magazine hosted and published a conversation between Brian McLaren, Tony Jones and myself where my "Include Me Out" critiques of the "emerging church" were aired and discussed, RELEVANT Issue #21 (July/August 2006) In panel discussions I have looked Brian McLaren in the eyes and lamented "The Unbearable Wrongness of Brian." The gospel is not simply about "principles of justice" but the person of Jesus, the very Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, who came to die for our sins, descended into hell, rose again on the third day, and is now seated with the Father while he lives his resurrection life in and through us by the power of the Spirit. I elaborate this more in the book I co-wrote with Frank Viola, The Jesus Manifesto (2010). If wanting to be a "Jesus manifest" is what it means to be "mystical," then I plead guilty. For I do believe in the present tense of Jesus: I do believe that "Christ is Alive!" I do believe that "We Serve a Risen Savior." I do believe that "He's in the world today."

I can still call Brian McLaren (and others) my friends while critiquing their theology. The "emerging church" is a young movement grown old very quickly because . ..

1. It is prone to cause political ruckus when it should be rocking the world for Christ;

2.It is missing a hunger and longing for the salvation of others, a passion for others to fall in love with Jesus and the sense that there are things at stake here that have both earthly

and eternal consequences . . .

3. It appears more and more to be a new evangelical form of the old 70s liberation theology

4. It makes the mistake of separating the Person of Jesus from His teachings

5.It deconstructs everything, including the historic creeds of the church and the divine inspiration of the entire biblical canon

6. It revels in spreading doubt more than faith

The founder of my tribe, John Wesley, found himself under attack by "discerning" ministers and ministries for being a Moravian "sympathizer," an "enthusiast," and for having a flaky theology of the "spirit." Even though Wesley critiqued many aspects of Moravian theology, these "discerning" ministries felt Wesley had not condemned them vigorously enough and that he was thus a deceiver and a danger to orthodox faith.

In response, Wesley issued a public letter in which he professed to live peaceably with "all men" and was not prone to stir up controversy or defend himself. He especially did not want to engage those with a hair-trigger for heresy, which was unbecoming of someone who followed Jesus. If Wesley ever felt moved to enter into a dispute, he stated, it would only be with "men of understanding" who actually read his writings and were capable of honest theological dispute. Because he sensed his "discerning" opponent was a person of goodwill whose attacks were not slanderous and splintering but temperate and genuinely concerned with strengthening the body of Christ, he issued a lengthy reply. There was (and is) enough of an unChristian culture in the church. Wesley did not want to add to it with his response; his only desire was to make the church more Christian.

For the whole response - Response to Critics

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom: I am dumbfounded by your citations and response to Olger. I responded to him in an attempt to be fair to him and fair to this subject. While I said that I did not know if he had quoted accurately and in context, I assumed that he was quoting from a current publication and had made some attempt to cite accurately.

To learn that those quotations come from a book published many years earlier and do not reflect Sweet's current thinking leaves me feeling intentionally deceived and set up.

Well, so much for assumption of the best.

Olger, the date of publication, which you neglected to give me was an important piece of information. History is replete with Christian thinkers who over years and decades changed their thinking of some aspect of God. I have done so.

It was an important piece of information that Sweet no longer holds certain views that he once held.

Olger, I feel very foolish for trusting you with a higher level of accuracy and context than actually existed. I am more than disappointed.

Tom, thanks for bringing this to our attention.