Since posting this blog (which includes a repost about David Crowder’s contemplative practices and Catholic-leaning mysticism), I’ve read additional bits and pieces here and there about Crowder’s contemplative and Emergent heresies. I decided to peruse Amazon.com, to see what I could find in Crowder’s own writings.
It didn’t take long to find what I was looking for. One of Crowder’s books is Praise Habit: Finding God in Sunsets and Sushi (Experiencing God). It is immediately apparent that the youthful, loved-by-youth Crowder is one of many poster children for occultish Spiritual Formation/Contemplative Spirituality, as well as the Emerging/Emergent movements.
Consider these quotes from Amazon.com. And these were found before I even clicked on Amazon’s “Read Inside” feature!
First, consider Amazon’s book description:
Praise is something we are, not something we do. Musician David Crowder redefines our perspective of God and helps us develop a habit of praising Him by reflecting on targeted psalms from The Message//REMIX.
Ideal for teens and those who love the beauty and music of the Psalms.
The above sounds okay – except for the reference the Eugene Peterson’s The Message paraphrase. This should be a huge red flag.
In the Reader Comments, Crowder’s heresies become really evident. Consider this excerpt from the Reader Comments, by Amos M. Rawley (April 27, 2007):
Crowder uses the ancient practice of “Lectio Divina”, which he later explains. This method consists of reading Scripture not to try and pull things out of it, but rather slowly reading through a passage of Scripture, chewing it up, and just being quiet and meditating on what you just heard. Breathe it in slowly, absorb the perfume of God’s Word, let it settle in on you. Then, after some time, when settled, write your own response.
Crowder examines 21 different Psalms from the Old Testament (starting w/ Ps. 1 and ending w/ Ps. 150) in Lectio Divina style. In each of these very short chapters, he starts by writing the Psalm for the reader. All Psalms are taken from Eugene Peterson’s “The Message Remix”. This was for me reading these 21 Psalms in a new light than ever before. And the view was breathtaking. (I’m buying a Psalm book in “The Message” now, because I was so taken aback.)
After the Psalm, the reader will find Crowder’s own “lectio divina” on that Psalm. Crowder is an extremely unique writer and an amazing communicator.
[Following is a quote from his Psalm 29 “lectio divina”]: “”Let the knowledge of His transcendence bring us back to life. Let it flow like blood to sleeping limbs, and feel them tingle as they awake in awe. Shake life back into your legs and let them carry you running with wind and thunder. Shake life back into your chest and let your heart beat in pounding reverence. Let praise come face to the ground, trembling with life an awareness that we are found by a holy God.”
– pg. 70, on Psalm 29
Does a nun have to decide what to wear in the morning? No, she just puts on her habit… day in, and day out. And so should we, our Praise Habit, until it becomes “habit”ual.
On the back cover is a reference to Psalm 64:10; “… Good-hearted people, make praise your habit.” There’s a brief, three paragraph synopsis of the book, starting out, “Praise is something we are, not something we do.” This first of Crowder’s books is, on the back cover, recommended by Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz, To Own A Dragon, Through Painted Desserts) and Brian McLaren (pastor, author of A New Kind of Christian, voice for the today’s emergent church). [Note – Miller and McLaren are just a few of the contemplatives and Emergents who recommend- and are recommended by – Crowder.]
Note – I plan to add more comments on the heresies of David Crowder. This is just the tip of Crowder’s deadly theological iceberg.
Hello Dave,
Are you calling David Crowder heretical because he practises lectio divina and because he is endorsed by Brian McLaren and Donald Miller?
Yes, Jeremiah, that is part of it. The bottom line is, David Crowder, like Brian McLaren and Donald Miller, seems to have a postmodern, Emerging/ Emergent theology. One of the things that concerns me most about Emerging/Emergents is that they seem to detest any theology or church practice that is “fundamentalist.”
BTW, My primary definition of “fundamentalist” is anyone who holds to the Fundamentals of 1910-1915: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-fundamental-doctrines-of-the-fundamentals-1910-1915/ I consider most of the articles in this 1910-1915 series to represent a born again, bibically sound theology based on a rock solid view of the Bible (King James Version) as the inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God. I don’t know of a single Emerging/ Emergent (Crowder, McLaren, Miller or anyone else) that holds such a high regard for God’s Word.
A low view of Scripture is just one of the heresies of Emerging/ Emergents.
I’ve written elsewhere about Crowder and McLaren. Here is some Emergent info I found on Donald Miller: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/bluelikejazz.htm
I hope this helps clarify my position opposing David Crowder. God bless you – Dave
I know David Crowder personally and have also read and adored the book Praise Habit. I believe it is unjust to group him so brashly with Brian McLaren and other post-modernist emergent “pastors”. McLaren’s main fault, among others, lies in his failure to accept Jesus Christ as the fully divine Son of God. This is heretical. Nowhere does David Crowder express any belief that goes against fundemental evengelical theology.
You must remember that God has created each of us uniquely, and each of us relates to God in a different way. David Crowder is a poet, not a mystic. He is speaking of a God Who is not locked in the Bible, but who is someone who desires a real relationship with us that is outside of our everyday theology. For example, I can know everything about Brad Pitt- what he likes, where he lives, etc but not have a personal relationship with him. So it is with God- we can know ABOUT God without actually knowing God, and that is the type of thing Crowder is expressing.
I would encourage you to actually buy a copy of his book instead of merely pulling quotes out of an amazon online copy that seem to fit your argument. That is in fact where heresy begins- when we pull quotes and scripture out of context to fit an argument that we already have decided upon. I don’t claim to have all the answers but I am passionate about Truth and that it would be spoken in every aspect of life and I feel as though I can spread a little bit of light in this issue.
Some folks would rather defend man than the Word of GOD, even when man doesn’t hold the Word in high regard. Let’s not forget about Crowder’s close association with the well-known emergent and all-out heretic Rob “no hell” Bell…
Thanks for your comment, Redeemed. I was not aware that Crowder had connections with Bell. I located this YouTube clip of the two together: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5g-zSUR2eo0 Some would say we’re using the principle of “guilt by association”. On the contrary, if a person (like Crowder) associates with a known heretic (like Bell), then Crowder very likely IS a heretic as well. This saying almost always holds true: “Birds of a feather flock together”. God bless you – Dave
I’m assuming that no one here objects to the practice of Lectio Divina itself, since it was first observed practiced by Christians in the 300’s (not to mention if you actually look at the steps outlined, most Christians are reading Scripture utilizing this method without even knowing).
Vagrant, thanks for the info. Myself and many readers/supporters do oppose Lectio Divina. It is a contemplative practice, which in today’s form has incorporated aspects of Eastern religions (such as emptying one’s mind). And I can’t find any passage in my Bible that teaches Lectio Divina. Googling the search string “Lectio Divina heretical” brought up a number of articles which match my position against Lectio Divina – here is one such article: http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/lectio_divina.html As I’ve mentioned elsewhere I have nothing against Catholics personally. I have various Catholic acquaintances who are wonderful, upstanding individuals. But I believe Catholic Church teachings have brought many heresies into Christianity. I’m defining “heresies” here as false, extrabiblical teachings, teachings I do not find in the 66 books of my Bible but rather have been developed and decreed by the Church Fathers, the Popes, etc. Protestants such as myself have no need and no desire for such teachings. Hope that better explains my position. God bless you, and thanks again for your feedback and info – Dave P.S.: I need to mention that my prayer is for Catholics to become born again in the Protestant sense of the term, and follow the Five Solas (which summarize how Protestants differ from Catholics). For me Lectio Divina and other contemplative practices are just a side heresy which needs addressed…
Although you say that Lectio is a “side heresy”, I would say it would say that it ties into how we can examine the history of the Christian Church. Looking at how Christians came to believe what they believed, where devotional practices came from, tracing things back to the source.
A term I came up with a bit ago is “doctrinal consistency”. Doctrine is immutable, unchanging. You can change practices and customs. You can change things like the language used during a service, fasting regulations, things of that nature. What cannot change is the Truth, the doctrine of Christ. When I survey the landscape, what do I see?
– I see certain Christian denominations changing their doctrine to allow for divorce under certain circumstances.
– I see certain Christian denominations changing their doctrine to allow for marriage to be something other than one man + one woman.
– I see certain Christian denominations changing their doctrine so that they condone certain aspects regarding the holocaust of abortion.
– I see certain Christian denominations changing their doctrine so that birth control is permitted, or at least “up to the couple to decide”, despite that before the 30’s *every* Christian denomination opposed it, and the logical consequence of having birth control is that there needs to be a method to terminate the pregnancy if it fails.
– I see certain Christian denominations changing their doctrine so that “dying with dignity” is acceptable.
Meanwhile, I see thus far over 2000 years or so the Catholic Church has remained consistent on each of those.
I talk more about this here; http://vagrantcatholic.com/2015/03/02/on-doctrinal-consistency/
Thanks for your feedback, Vagrant/Rickard. You made a number of great points regarding the changing position of many denominations on divorce, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. – I agree 100% with your assessment… I also checked out your blog, and in your current posting I see you mentioned the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura – so you obviously are familiar with the Protestant Reformation teachings I mentioned in my previous comment (the Five Solas). In short, I suppose we could say I’m looking at Catholicism from a Protestant point of view, while you’re looking at Protestantism from a Catholic point of view. Before commenting much more now, I hope to peruse more of your blogs soon, to get a better handle on where you’re coming from doctrinally. It seems we do agree on a lot (as well as differ in some significant areas IMHO). Thank you for providing a link to a list of your archived blogs. I appreciate your blogs and all the effort you put into writing them. I hope to correspond with you more regarding these matters – you seem like a reasonable person and a knowledgable blogger. God bless you – Dave
Thank you for the reply, Dave, Apologies for the delay in response, things have been busy!
I’m familiar with the Five Solas, yes. Twice I dated Protestant women who subscribed to some elements of it. I talk a bit about those experiences here; http://vagrantcatholic.com/2015/05/17/on-having-an-emotional-faith-the-need-for-reason/ – (long story short; first relationship didn’t work out, I resolved myself to learn more about Protestantism and Catholicism. Second relationship one went a “bit” better, as I got my wife and son out it).
The idea of Doctrinal Consistency is one which fascinates me, especially when contrasted with pseudo-Christian cults like the “Latter Day Saints”. We’ve had them drop by our home a few times, with each time my wife and I invite them in to have a good natured discussion. Something they made clear is that Mormons claim they have proper authority, that all other Christian denominations are apostate. However when you look at something as fundamental as marriage – how can they claim this? How can they possibly claim that all other Christians are apostate when they have changed their stance on marriage several times? When it flys in the face of Scripture? When all records of the early Christian Church gives a clear definition and outlook as to what marriage is? Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful that they are speaking in favor of marriage being between one man and one woman, but considering *that* belief is one they used to not have, can we be certain they won’t change?
Before I continue, let me say here and now that the Mormons do not believe in the Christ that we as Christians believe. And that any comparison between Mormons and other Christians must take into account that other Christians do have the True Jesus, whereas Mormons truly do not. Well meaning people being led astray, the Mormons. Be sure to pray for them.
Anyway. the comparison between “reformed” theology and “restoration” theology is an interesting one, as both make the claim at some point there was a break from Christian doctrine. Thus far Mormons have yet to provide evidence the Catholic Church has broken away from doctrine, which is fascinating when you consider the strong words Joseph Smith claims to have received from “Jesus”. In the case of Reformists, the argument is that the Five Solas are the original doctrine, which Catholicism has broken away from. It’s too Reformists credit that at the very least, it’s written down and expressed that this is the case (unlike the Mormons). However for the Five Solas to truly be “original doctrine”:, we would have to see a clear chain from the current interpretation of the Five Solas, to the Early Church. Starting with the Bible, followed by the Church Fathers (ending with Isidore of Seville, the Last Scholar of the Ancient World), heading into the Middle Ages, heading up to the present day, After reading the Church Fathers, I can’t find any references to the Five Solas at all.
Of course, there’s also assorted other doctrines, like the ones I mentioned before with marriage, abortion, and birth control being the biggest culprits.
Thanks for your detailed feedback, Vagrant – lots of food for thought. I did find the following article maintaining that the Early Church Fathers did believe in the Five Solas: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/09/the_gospel_according_to_the_ch.php And here’s another such article: http://theaquilareport.com/did-the-early-church-fathers-believe-in-sola-scriptura/ I’m looking for more such articles regarding the Early Church Fathers, articles from both sides of the issue. God bless you – Dave
Thank you for the reply, David. I looked through the links you provided, and corroborated the information through other sites along with the original text. If I may use Irenaeus as a primary example, it appears as if the quote provided in the links has both been removed from it’s original context, but also misrepresented.
3:3:1 “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times
3:12:9: “But while I bring out by these proofs the truths of Scripture, and set forth briefly and compendiously things which are stated in various ways, do thou also attend to them with patience, and not deem them prolix; taking this into account, that proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.”
They pieced four different pieces together to form what looks like a full paragraph stating something, but clearly isn’t when looking at the source material. Additionally, when looked at in conjunction with the larger tapestry of his work, Irenaeus subscribing to Sola Scriptura doesn’t add up. Later on in his first book, he writes:
“As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth”.
Here he not only repeatedly talks about tradition, but about how the Church safeguards it. Later on he goes on to say “for they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity”.
Rather than be proof of Sola Scriptura, this quote is actually Irenaeus discussing what Catholics call “Apostolic Succession”. It’s consistent with how he said the Church body keeps the Truth safe, as the unbroken line of succession from the Apostles givers a further channel for the Truth to be passed down. This has a Scriptural basis as well, in Matthew 16 where Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Of course, no Christian should deny that Scripture is profitable and useful for teaching. In fact, with some of the quotes provided by the sites you listed, that’s exactly what’s being said. However, when looking at the totality of their work – and Irenaeus is just one example – Sola Scriptura doesn’t fit in with their message. Basil, Justin and the others are in the same position – in particular, what strikes me is the disregard for the greater framework of the beliefs and message these writers represented. Justin Martyr, for example, goes into concrete details about what form of worship was used during his time; it’s Mass, which itself comes from Scripture. The practices therein however, were passed down from one person to another.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on here, and if you do not object, I will continue to do so 🙂
Many blessings to you and your loved ones on this day.
Thank you for your reply, Dave. I appreciate your forthrightness in stating what exactly about Catholicism you disagree with, as it ties into a few questions that I wanted to ask earlier. A warning you in advance there’s quite a few of them, so I understand if you take your time in replying. Please note these are sincere questions, which I genuinely want to know information about.
1) If the core tenants and beliefs of Christianity are to be found within Scripture alone, shouldn’t the Scriptures itself contain a list of what books should be found within it?
2) Without the specific books being mentioned in the Bible itself, how would anyone know which specific books should have been included within the Canon by using Sola Scriptura?
3) How do you know which books should be in the Bible? Why are Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians included, but Clement’s letter tot he Corinthians was not?
4) When was the Canon officially ratified, and when did they decide how many Books should be in the Bible ?
5) By whose authority was the Canon decided, and when?
6) What Bible would you currently be using if Luther was successful in removing the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation?
Related to
7) Before the Canon was ratified, did the early Christians practice Sola Scriptura without there being an official list of approved books?
8) If early Christians did, practice Sola Scriptura, how exactly did they do so without accomplish anything without a Bible?
9) Why is it you have only 66 books in your Bible?
Regarding Mary, I wrote a blog post a couple of years ago about her and her role in Scripture and within the Christian faith. You can find it at http://vagrantcatholic.com/2012/11/15/on-marian-devotiom-the-immaculate-conception/ – although to be honest what I would really like is information regarding the nine questions previous.
Many thanks, and may the Lord bless you. I will take yours and your loved ones intentions with me and offer them up to the Lord during Mass tomorrow night.
PS: You can call me Rickard (“The Vagrant Catholic” is my online moniker).
Thanks for your comments and questions, Rickard. Ironically, several days ago I looked up a bit of info on the development of various canons in church history. Specifically, I was reading the Wikipedia article on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon To be fair, I will try to locate and research articles on the 66-book Protestant Bible/Canon from various points of view (Protestant and Catholic). I do have some thoughts on the subject, but I want to make sure my positions are based on fact, not just personal opinions or hearsay or what others have taught me. I hope to get back with you soon, to answer your questions as best I can, stating my views. God bless you – Dave.
Rickard, sorry I haven’t posted a response to your nine questions yet (I definitely have thoughts on all nine questions). If it’s okay with you, I may post this discussion of canonicity as a separate blog, since it diverges a bit from the topic of my original blog (David Crowder). In the meantime, following are some Protestant links (which I would say match my views) which I’m using as sources; I hope to add more such links here as I locate them. I’m trying to include only links which are relatively respectful and polite to Roman Catholics (i.e. not name calling and not using hateful language). The authors of these links are more knowledgable than I regarding the topic of canonicity; the links may in fact contain answers to many of your nine questions:
http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
BTW, I find it interesting the various books that various religions and cults consider part of their canon – fascinating reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
God bless you – Dave
Also, as an ammendmeum; there’s a Paulistic Principle at play here. Paul, when talking to Timothy, states that “all Scripture is useful and useful for teaching”. Yet the New Testament wasn’t written yet; Paul was literally unknowingly writing a portion of it while saying this to Timothy, The Scripture being referred to was the Scriptures of Timothy’s youth, the Old Testament – as the Biblical Canon was not yet ratified.
In many of the Church Fathers quoted, the canon had not yet been ratified. The canon wasn’t ratified until much later, with Scripture not being widely accessible until much later due to sheer logistics (no printing press, the manpower it took to create a Bible). Not only does this further lend credence to Irenaeus’ comments on how the Church safeguards the Truth, but it also ties into the Apostolic Succession and how in Matthew 16 Christ Himself states that Peter is the Rock, gives him the Keys, and states “the gates of Hell will not prevail against you”.
Thanks for the comments, Vagrant. Some points I disagree with, but I definitely agree that Mormons are not Christians and do not believe in the same Jesus. .. I’m no expert on Roman Catholic history and teachings, but following is one of my bones of contention with the Roman Catholic Church. It seems to me that the Apocryphal books, Roman Catholic writings, papal decrees, etc. are regarded as having equal or greater authority than the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. In addition, there are certain Roman Catholic teachings which contradict teachings in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible (I hope to find or compile a list of these). Sorry, but like many Protestants, there is no way I would consider Roman Catholic teachings as inspired (“God-breathed”/given directly from God), as I consider the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to be. On the contrary, I believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches many heresies which are incompatible with the Protestant Bible. Here are a few of the Roman Catholic teachings I consider the most anti-biblical and thus heretical: papal infallibility, baptismal regeneration (including infant baptism), and Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Sorry if I’m coming across as too blunt or rude here – I just wanted to get right to the point. Well I gotta run. Later – God bless you – Dave
Hello, very interesting blog. I wanted to leave my opinion as a Christian. I agree with many of your assessments made here. I personally think most if not all mainstream artists are not worshiping Jesus and are deeply rooted in the occult. I understand that the church has a whole has already been led astray with numerous false teachings that your blog has talked about.
The emergent church is just another such misstep for the church today. But I want to point out that as with any lie ever told there can be truth found in it. If we lump an entire misled movement or ideology together as “that’s all bad mkay” what we would be doing is a great disservice by showing evil by the telling of lies.
I’ll give an example and then apply it. Think of any possible lie. No matter how brief the lie there is always truth attached to it. This is done because first it is very difficult to not affirm truth in some way and second no one would believe the lie unless ill. Example: the sky is falling. Brief and to the point. Currently the sky is not falling so this would be a lie. However I did affirm the following: there is such a thing as the sky, that things exist, that things can fall, that there is a property of height things can fall from, that there is a mechanism in place to allow things to fall, that language has meaning, that the law of non contradiction holds true and so on.
With that illustration out of the way hopefully it is clear that to lump an entire belief system into one category, false, is shortsighted at best. I understand it was your intent to show that they are categorically different than Christians but that is not to say they have no truth in their stance. This actually can weaken your position in that others will come along and point out many new inconsistencies which you will now contend with.
With that said let me point out something about the emergent church movement that is a complex, misunderstood and often rashly misjudged. I am referring to meditation.
Most Christians that are against the emergent church assume meditation is the channeling of one’s inner spirit or some other middle eastern occultic ritual designed to let satan in. Perhaps so for the occultists. However as a Christian like myself would define it, is simply being still and aware. What claim of evil can be effectively brought against that? God Himself commands us to be still and know that He is God. In fact I believe it is according to the evil ones plans for mankind to be so busy an preoccupied with their thoughts to never sit and just be. To be mindful from that perspective is to let go of the worry and popcorn brain thoughts that are ever present and appreciate the present moment for what it is. Scientifically speaking this breaks one from the hypnagogic state that is so common for mankind to exist in. The state that encourages everyone to not question their reality and look for truth.
Of course if one holds to a constant emptying of the mind of deeper thought, then that is counterproductive to the tasks of life. I have read so many in your position make claim that meditation (read as the emptying of one’s thoughts) is evil but no factual evidence given to substantiate the claims. In fact, whenever I read such misgivings I immediately recognize that there is very little fundamental understanding of what is being talked about. I would refer to this as equivocation. I do not mean to insult your intelligence but I find the lack of understanding concerning. Furthermore this is in stark contrast to the commandment to be still and know that He is God. That is a prescription to empty the mind of all thoughts except one very basic truth. I would encourage you to try this sometime. This will allow you to be more present. I think it is satans desire for us to live in the past with sadness or to live in the future with worry. But what is the point of that anyways when one cannot exist in any other point in time than the present? It is futile and self defeating. This is not to say we shouldn’t learn from the past or prepare from the future but simply an exhortation to resist dwelling there.
There is actually a lot to be found when one takes the time to unwind occasionally and stop thinking to practice scientifically proven methods of relaxation. I am not refering to occultic practices but instead to methods such as slowing down one’s breath. This does not cause demons to spontaneously appear. Instead this activates your brains parasympathetic nervous system and forces oneself to calm down. Misgivings like the ones I’m talking about are often held by Christians trying to show what is wrong with the emergent church movement. However they appear superstitious as they are assuming causes and consequences which are unfounded.
Instead these scientifically proven techniques can spark eureka moments for some. As part of my personality I am an intuitive. I examine trends and draw conclusions which I then prove. This shows that I have a well developed intuition. Again this is not some occultic 6th sense(although we have at least 11 senses) rather it is my most fundamental and logical portion of my brain that is constantly putting things together. Everyone does this but most people never pay attention to it or the alarms it sends out when it realizes something is not as it seems. This is the same mechanism at work and is ignored by victims of horrendous crimes. They ignore the gut feeling they get before something bad happens thinking its superstition. Actually it’s their brain which is much smarter than them sending off warning signals. They’ve missed connections that their unbiased brain did not as it is constantly reading every signal from every sense and cross referencing.
What I’m trying to highlight here is that this topic is quite intricate and should be handled delicately. I Greatly oppose Christians offhandedly dismissing hundreds of different activities by blindly lumping them together as categorically false with an absurdly low amount of proof and even less understanding of the issues at hand. I find this almost as damaging as any other false teaching today. With that said that I thank you for your time and I hope you will consider these things. I hope you agree with this but if not feel free to give a rebuttal. My intention is not to offend rather to rebuke what I see as harmful and misleading rhetoric. Take care.
JD, thank you for your polite, detailed feedback. I’ll give just a short answer for now; I hope to respond to more of your points later.
Years ago, many Christians held a position of refusing to undergo hypnosis. Why? Because they believed it was dangerous and wrong to lose control over their conscious minds. I would say the same applies today to meditation/contemplative prayer. Note – I will be using the term “contemplative prayer” in my response here (although you primarily used the term “meditation”), since the blog you commented on re: David Crowder mentions contemplative prayer.
Back to the topic at hand. Many Christians today hold a position of refusing to engage in contemplative prayer. Why? As with hypnosis, because they believe it is dangerous and wrong to lose control over their conscious minds. (I believe “emptying one’s mind” can lead to “losing control over one’s conscious mind”.)
Richard Foster, in the beginning of his bestseller Celebration of Discipline, writes that in contemplative prayer one first empties his mind, then he can be open to what God wants to tell him. I believe ANY emptying of the mind can lead to a variety of dangers – everything from an altered state of consciousness to demonic oppression (of born again Christians) and possession (of nonbelievers). Interestingly, even Richard Foster warns contemplatives to be careful when engaging in contemplative prayer. I believe the biblical route to “hearing” what God has to tell us is this: always focus directly on God and His Word the Bible (thus driving out extraneous thoughts).
You stated, “I have read so many in your position make claim that meditation (read as the emptying of one’s thought) is evil but no factual evidence given to substantiate the claims.”
Not to be rude, but exactly what kind of factual is evidence and documentation are you seeking? Googling the search strings “contemplative prayer dangers” and “contemplative prayer evil” brings up many articles. To me these articles provide ample factual evidence that contemplative prayer is both dangerous and evil.
Hopefully I’ll get a chance to make a list of the most pertinent links giving factual evidence (IMHO) that contemplative prayer is dangerous and evil. I realize we may end up in a fruitless debate here (with neither of us changing our positions), since you are already aware there are many articles out there that match my views 😊 Thanks again, JD, for your polite, detailed feedback. God bless you – Dave