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