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

[Narcah]

You can't say you don't agree with something you wrote 20 years ago, but still actively sell it. That's not living what you preach.

[lazarus]

But the main concerns about "The One Project" vs GYC are:

Experience over Reason

Images over Words

Spirituality over Doctrine

Subjective Feelings over Absolute Truth

Earthly Justice over Salvation

Social Action over Eternity

Please substantiate your concerns.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: olger

What we have here, is a core group of Club members who's liberal reflex is to automatically support anything that opposes the core doctrines of Adventism.

Let see examples of this or is it just hyperbole?

So.....It hyperbole again.

What is described as "core doctrines of Adventism" is nothing of the sort and is simply personal preference that is magnified to the point where it provides an avenue for an "I'm more holy than you attitude".

GYC would have a better flavor without the hangers-on who feel the need to denigrate other ministries while extolling the virtues of GYC.

[mel20]

"EVERLASTING GOSPEL", please. Not the "Evasive Gospel"

Be aware of "The One Project" gospel that blatantly but blindly proposing "The Supremacy of jesus" by continuously ignoring & settling the real challenges. (Evasive mentality at the expense of our Lord Jesus)

Homosexuality? Leave them alone. Don't say anything about that issue but let's all focus on Jesus. Simply Jesus. All.

Theistic-Evolution? Leave them alone. Don't say anything about that issue but let's all focus on Jesus. Simply Jesus. All.

Breaking the Sabbath? Leave them alone. Don't say anything about that issue but let's all focus on Jesus. Simply Jesus. All.

Christian lifestyles & a healthy living? Leave them alone. Don't say anything about that issue but let's all focus on Jesus. Simply Jesus. All.

Too much in exaggerating "jesus" but rejecting His power to give us victory over sin. And rejecting the unity in Biblical doctrines.... These all has been creating a careless post generation and teenager Adventists.

Certainly this kindda mentality is a product of the "evasive gospel" which is not interested in Bible Study and Biblical lifestyle & appetites, but too enthusiastic only about "praise, worship and exalting jesus", yet eschew to deal with HIS power to overcome their real issues such as homosexuality, Evolution, lifestyles, breaking the Sabbath, etc.

And "The One Project" people become too lazy to proclaim the everlasing Gospel, to share the Biblical Truth and to defend it. What do they need to defend if the worldly standards are in their favor, anyway? NOTHING TO DEFEND.

No self sacrifice and self denial involved while at the same time keep saying:

"jesus. All."

[lazarus]

Dude, point me to a vid, transcript etc.

[CoAspen]

a lot of buzz words get used, but no definition! Generic phrases, without explanation as to what the poster is talking about. It's called "with out substance". Where is the validity? It seems we have some folk who like a church that only agrees with their 'ology'. If not in agreement, then find fault and express dire things and condemnation. Talk about being in a state of unhappiness!!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said that he spoke today with someone who is well aquainted with Sweet.

So did I speak to one such today. He has visited Sweet in his home. He has spent hours with him. I mentioned specific criticisms that are being posted here. He listed others that have been made. The bottom line is that he is convinced that the critics are wrong about Sweet.

He then want on to mention other conservative SDA theologians who have spent time with Sweet and concur with his thinking.

I responded to one specific conservative SDA theologian and simply said: Well, no one could ever call him a liberal.

NOTE: Since this was 2nd hand, it would not be ethical for me to mention names.

[Unity]

There are a number of Biblical passages that comment on this:

Matthew 7:1 & 5

Luke 6:37

John 7:37

There are others.

Let us be clear: The Bible clearly teaches:

1) We must each make judgments on moral issues and on doctrinal issues.

2) We must each apply those judgments to our personal lives.

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It sets conditions on when we should judge. Using deduction we can conclude that the person judging should first consider everything Jesus has said concerning their own character and personal motivations.

Matthew 18:15-17 very clearly disagrees with your conclusion. It's a direct command from Jesus concerning how to deal with those who trespass (sin).

We can't just take verses and come to conclusions while ignoring verses that are clearly contradictory to our conclusion. When a contradictory verse is found, deduction must be performed on the sum of one's present understanding.

I have certainly been guilty of moments where I judged in ways that were in error. I would later realize that what upset me was what I was in fact doing myself, and usually I was simply projecting my own character flaws upon others. This was exactly as Jesus had said in Matthew 7. Then I came across Matthew 18:15-17 and that hasn't happened since.

However what will probably happen to me if I go into an SDA Church in the US is that I will be trespassed against. Then I will be trampled down by swine (Matthew 7:6) if I try to not let the sun go down upon my anger (Eph 4:26). The majority of Adventists in the United States, and probably in many other places, are clearly not constrained by Matthew 18:15-17. Thankfully the rest of the world Church keeps the truth upheld in the General Conference session and writes it in the Church Manual. There we can find a true definition of biblical Judging.

Those who I have met from The One Project do not uphold this truth.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The majority of Adventists in the United States, and probably in many other places, are clearly not constrained by Matthew 18:15-17

aww...Unity, that's painting with an awfully broad brush, isn't it?

[Tom Wetmore]

You can't say you don't agree with something you wrote 20 years ago, but still actively sell it. That's not living what you preach.

Actively selling in a rather loose sense. The book is out of print. Was made available for a time as a free download on his website. Available through second hand book sellers.

Again here is what Sweet says about it -

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.

[Unity]

Not from my experience. Plus this is a major piece of the puzzle concerning disunity and nobody mentions it. It's like everyone wants to tell others what to do but they want it to be by their own authority.

Read the Church Manual. That's where the Pastor's get their authority. It also constrains their ability to discipline. They don't teach where their authority comes from, and I've read many examples of them going outside of the bounds of their authority to unilaterally discipline people. It hasn't been hard for me to find examples, but that's because I look and I know what is authentic.

If you wonder why Church Members go off on their own directions and we have so many different beliefs, they are only following their Pastor's example.

The reason we are so divided is because we are following in the example of our Pastors. If he/she is not constrained by the authority above them, why would his sheep not do the same?

[Gregory Matthews]

Matthew 18:15-20 clearly sets out some standards:

1) It sets our some standards as to how we are to deal with people who offend us personally.

2) It sets out some standards that involve membership in the congregation.

I did not think that we were dealing with either of the above. I thought that we were dealing, in part, with the judgment of another's salvation.

NOTE: There will be people in heaven who are not SDA.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not from my experience. Plus this is a major piece of the puzzle concerning disunity and nobody mentions it. It's like everyone wants to tell others what to do but they want it to be by their own authority...

The reaction of painting with a rather broad brush I believe was in reaction to this statement you had posted:

Originally Posted By: Unity

The majority of Adventists in the United States, and probably in many other places, are clearly not constrained by Matthew 18:15-17. Thankfully the rest of the world Church keeps the truth upheld in the General Conference session and writes it in the Church Manual. There we can find a true definition of biblical Judging.

Those who I have met from The One Project do not uphold this truth.

The point she made is confirmed in your statement, "Not from my experience." To say a majority of Adventists in the United States is to refer to at least a half million people. And comparing your conclusion regarding them in contrast to "the rest of the world Church" is referring to about 17 million people. Unless you have had opportunity to know and regularly interact with or even directly observe that many people of the Church, you are indeed painting with a very broad brush. I am fairly confident your experience is vastly more limited.

This is the problem with this whole discussion. Broad swipes, sweeping condemnations, and comparisons based on very limited substantive information or personal knowledge. It is precisely the problem for which we are warned to refrain from judging. It is passing judgment without sufficient knowledge or personal experience.

Your last sentence about those you have met from the One Project not upholding that truth begs for more specific information to confirm your broad conclusion about the One Project.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

.....truth begs for more specific information to confirm (any) broad conclusion...

Too many discussions, as of late, are lacking such!!

[Johann]

Not from my experience. Plus this is a major piece of the puzzle concerning disunity and nobody mentions it. It's like everyone wants to tell others what to do but they want it to be by their own authority.

Read the Church Manual. That's where the Pastor's get their authority. It also constrains their ability to discipline. They don't teach where their authority comes from, and I've read many examples of them going outside of the bounds of their authority to unilaterally discipline people. It hasn't been hard for me to find examples, but that's because I look and I know what is authentic.

If you wonder why Church Members go off on their own directions and we have so many different beliefs, they are only following their Pastor's example.

The reason we are so divided is because we are following in the example of our Pastors. If he/she is not constrained by the authority above them, why would his sheep not do the same?

Do you know the percentage of the pastors who are following the Church Manual, and those who do not? Are you just basing this on a few examples?

[Johann]

However what will probably happen to me if I go into an SDA Church in the US is that I will be trespassed against. Then I will be trampled down by swine (Matthew 7:6) if I try to not let the sun go down upon my anger (Eph 4:26). The majority of Adventists in the United States, and probably in many other places, are clearly not constrained by Matthew 18:15-17. Thankfully the rest of the world Church keeps the truth upheld in the General Conference session and writes it in the Church Manual. There we can find a true definition of biblical Judging.

Those who I have met from The One Project do not uphold this truth.

How many have you met with whom you have discussed this issue?

[mel20]

Quote:

It's like everyone wants to tell others what to do but they want it to be by their own authority.

That's right dear Unity. Indeed, this ego and self-centered spirit always prevent us to set aside any differences for the sake of the church's unity.

Now you may go to your local SDA churches to see that sometimes the speakers are not pastors but lawyers, police, MD/dentists, Board of Nursing, Constructions, Bankers, pilots, etc..

You know for the worldwide SDA church, it's OK for non-ordained ministers to preach or at least teaching Sabbath Schools.

Whatever kindda job that might be, their professional-skilled jobs-especially in term of licensing/certification or permits-are usually used as sermons notes or as personal testimonies on how important it is to have principal and standard under certain authority, and how dangerous it is to have a mindset that our God doesn't have the Absolute Truth in His Laws, Principals and Standards for us to obey merely because God is love. What do you think about that?

Indeed, Judges 21:25 is still the most frequent Bible verse as the Professional SDA lay preachers' challenge:

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

[CoAspen]

......Say what????????

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

...how dangerous it is to have a mindset that our God doesn't have the Absolute Truth in His Laws, Principals and Standards for us to obey merely because God is love. What do you think about that?

Indeed, Judges 21:25 is still the most frequent Bible verse as the Professional SDA lay preachers' challenge:

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

If the underlined above is a statement of fact, I have to agree with it. And the preacher would seem to me to be acting responsibly if spending time listening to God speaking through the written Word.

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."2 Corinthians 5:18-20 NASB

God saves! Jesus cares!

[debbym]

when every difficulty you have with Church leaders, lay leaders, pastors, and class teachers, pastors etc... becomes an opportunity to surrender more fully to your creator, and to deepen your unity with the Holy Spirit.... to tune your heart to the self denying, self sacrificing love of Christ

then issues of unity in the body of Christ become mute.

[Green Cochoa]

Matthew 18:15-20 clearly sets out some standards:

1) It sets our some standards as to how we are to deal with people who offend us personally.

2) It sets out some standards that involve membership in the congregation.

I did not think that we were dealing with either of the above. I thought that we were dealing, in part, with the judgment of another's salvation.

NOTE: There will be people in heaven who are not SDA.

[olger]

Sweet claims to have been misunderstood. If so, then I sympathize with him and apologize for being one of the “misunderstanders.”

Yet the book Quantum Spirituality is still offered on his website and at no point do I see that Len disagrees or repents of what he states in Quantum Spirituality. So I would have to say that Sweet agrees with what he wrote but disagrees with the conclusions others including myself came to.

On Sweet’s site it lists this book as already called “a spirituality classic,”Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic is the book that launched what today is called “postmodern publishing” as well as Len’s ministry to postmodern culture. A book written in a circle, the reader is invited to begin anywhere, stop anytime, and end wherever. This was Len’s “coming out” book as a postmodern disciple after his 1987 knockdown, drag-out Damascus Road encounter with God, who (as he describes it) “knocked me off my high academic horse and said, ‘Sweet, are you going to get a mission for the world you wish you had or the world that’s actually out there.” So it seems obvious to me that Sweet does not disagree with the writing or conclusions he came to.

Without apology Sweet writes that he is part of a “New Light Movement” and he describes those he especially admires as “New Light Leaders.” Sweet lists New Age leaders Willis Harman, Matthew Fox (who the Catholic church kicked out as a heretic) and M. Scot Peck. How then can these men be Sweet’s role models and heroes?

A self-professing Christian leader should be warning the church about these New Light leaders not holding them up!

Willis Harmon (1918-1997) was a social scientist/futurist with the Stanford Research Institute where he started a futures research program. Later he was President of the New Age Institute on Noetic Sciences and well connected to many fellow new age leaders.

Another one of Sweet’s “personal role models” and “heroes” is Episcopalian priest Matthew Fox. Fox is a former Catholic priest who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for openly professing the heretical teachings of Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard Chardin (and other new age teachers), who is frequently referred to as the father of the new age movement.

Fox teaches that all creation is the Cosmic Christ. Sweet not only hails Matthew Fox as one of his spiritual “heroes” but he also describes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as “Twentieth century Christianity’s major voice.” Again, Chardin is a Jesuit priest.

After his 2010 “Answer to Critics” Sweet wrote:

“The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The “good news” was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The “good news” was the story of a person’s life, as reflected in The Apostle’s Creed. Leonard Sweet

The above shows characteristic of all of these recent emerging convergences, a MANIFESTO accompanies the agenda being promoted jointly by Sweet and Frank Viola. It is called “A Magna Carta for Restoring the Supremacy of Jesus Christ a.k.a. A Jesus Manifesto for the 21st Century Church.” This Manifesto does not hearken back to the written Word of God in order to follow Jesus or His teachings. Instead it speaks of “implantation and impartation” and “incarnation.” This is based on imaging, imagining, visualization, meditation, and following a “Presence,” even using the term “cosmic Christ.”

This book and Manifesto was not written in Leonard’s past where he can just try to explain it away; rather it was written and then published in June 2010. Such a statement has all the earmarks of the Emerging church, in spite of Sweet’s brief 2010 attempt to distance himself from the Emergent Movement.

The document also makes this amazing statement – an example of psycho-spiritual biblical revisionism:

“These are but a sampling of Len’s three-ring mission: as a historian of American culture; as a futurist/semiotician who “sees things the rest of us do not see, and dreams possibilities that are beyond most of our imagining;” and as a preacher and writer who communicates the gospel powerfully to a postmodern age by bridging the worlds of academe and popular culture.

Is it not a bit frightening that a pastor, or any other self-professing Christian for that matter, claims that he sees things others cannot see? And that their imaginations are limited compared to his? If we believe what he says in one instance, how do we know when he errs in his pronouncements?

Conclusions.

If Sweet sincerely disagrees with what he wrote in Quantum Spirituality, then the responsible thing to do is stop selling the book on his website.

Also, if he now disagrees with what he wrote in the book, he should make a public apology to all those whom he led astray, and repent and renounce the book. He hasn’t done any of this.

It seems more likely that Sweet’s response to critics (which criticisms are justified based on his heretical writings) is a desire to open doors that are closing to his new age teachings. The popular radio Bible teacher Alistair Begg recently withdrew from speaking at a conference when he found out that Leonard Sweet was also going to be there. He did not want to be associated with mysticism, interspirituality, and pantheism. Regrettably, the One Project leadership has not disassociated itself from such dangers.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Is it not a bit frightening that a pastor, or any other self-professing Christian for that matter, claims that he sees things others cannot see?

oh, the irony...

[CoAspen]

[olger]

:)