I feel privileged to be Facebook Friends with John Henderson, a member of the “anti-Emergent” Facebook Group Concerned Nazarenes. This Facebook Group is attempting to confront and warn members primarily of The Church of the Nazarene denomination.
I, John, and many others are concerned about the doctrinal falling away of many evangelical churches and entire evangelical denominations. Most of these churches are falling away from biblically sound doctrine into the postmodern heresies of Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, Leonard Sweet, etc. etc.
Interestingly, all of the above individuals have spoken and/or taught at the heretical George Fox University and/or George Fox Evangelical Seminary, schools in the Evangelical Friends Church International (EFCI) denomination. The EFCI was once (relatively) biblically sound. But, in recent decades, all the Regions of the EFCI (including the once very biblically sound, Wesleyan Holiness EFC-ER) have begun trending quickly into postmodern “progressive evangelical” apostasy.
By the way, John – like myself – is Wesleyan Holiness in doctrine. We hold to the Wesleyan-Arminian position that a born again Christian can turn his or her back on God, walking away into apostasy and “losing” his or her salvation. Technically, we believe in “conditional eternal security”.
So why exactly is the EFCI (and many other evangelical denominations) falling away? There are many factors I’m sure – factors which I will not attempt to enumerate here. But I did find the following post by my friend John Henderson very pertinent. Click here for the original source of this post. Note: I am inserting comments [in brackets] and emphasizing certain points by bolding.
This is one of those things where I would welcome, would embrace, having someone tell me I was wrong and showing me how so. It has to do when a person or a group has gone so far in the wrong direction, making wrong choices, and ignoring and neglecting God that they will never return to their better days outside of a divine miracle of intervention.
It happened first in the Garden of Eden. God made it clear to Adam and Eve what the limits were and what would happen if they went beyond them. They went past them and, in the day they sinned, they died spiritually on the spot and physically a few years later. Not only were those the consequences to them but they brought sin and damnation upon all of their descendants that only the Cross of Christ could overcome.
One might argue that God’s creation was perfect and it was impossible for man to undo what God had done. That is a good argument but it was not what happened. Salvation is perfect but man can still trample the perfect redemption.
That is how it is. There is a point where a person can go beyond the possibility of repentance—not because God is powerless but because his or her conscience is so seared by unbelief and rebellion that they cannot come to repentance. Someone has likened it to no longer hearing God’s call because the heart is so filled with animosity to the things of God and the attractions of the world that His call is drowned out by the din of those things. The call has not diminished. The hearing has ignored it so long that it is as though there is no call.
We have a grandfather clock in our hallway. It chimes the Westminster chimes every 15 minutes. Frankly, I do not notice them very often because I am accustomed to ignoring them. A visitor sleeping in a nearby room will often remind me of them. I try to remember to silence the chimes when we have overnight guests.
For this reason, I think a backslider who once followed Christ faithfully is less likely to return than would be a reprobate who has never received Christ. I think of the man who wrote that great song, “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” who apparently never made it back. There are statics [sic] that say younger people are more likely to receive Christ than are older people. I often wonder if I would have ever turned to Christ had I put it off at the age of 15 until a later time; had I decided to taste of the world a bit before considering Christ.
There are many sad stories of people who put off salvation so long until all opportunities are gone. I do not like to hear of them but they are out there. Many of them I knew personally.
That same thing is true of once-great churches. I have yet to learn of a backslidden church or denomination that ever returned to its original level of spiritual life, activity, and influence after having started down the road of compromise. The slide was always gradual and hardly noticeable in the beginning. After a while, people started to notice something was wrong and eventually there were those who began to warn about it. There were occasional turnabouts, but not many and not often. Once the fatal drift took hold, it was too late. The cancer of sin had eaten away too much for there to be a recovery. If there ever was to be a cure, it had to be divine, but usually God had been so excluded that He was no longer considered that relevant and His call was no longer being heard.
The good news is that it does not have to turn out like that. There is still that clarion call and most can still hear it. Some will turn to Christ who seemed beyond the call.
I was told that when news got out that I had been saved, there were some who found it unbelievable about me. One person reportedly expressed such disbelief as to say: “Not him! Not that Henderson boy! Anybody but him could be saved!” I am glad that the Holy Spirit thought differently. God may have had to reach a little farther for me but He did. The stain of sin may have penetrated deeply even at my young age, but the Blood of Jesus went deeper than the stain had gone.
I have often thought that my own point of no return was very near then. An accident that should have been fatal convinced me of that. I had come to Christ shortly before the accident—maybe a week, two at the most—and believe I would have perished in the accident if I had put off salvation. I broke my neck in three places in a diving accident and walked away with no permanent damage of any sort.
Genuine revival is still possible. Maybe it won’t look like we used to know or expect, but it can be every bit as real and far-reaching as ever. As long as the Holy Spirit is still with and in us, everything pertaining to the preaching of the gospel is still just as possible as it was in the beginning. That will not change or diminish until Jesus comes again.
Malone University Spiritual Formation Department recently posted the following Chapel schedule – showing its increasing promotion of Evangelical Friend Richard Foster’s Spiritual Formation/ Contemplative Spirituality heresies.
Click here [broken link – article no longer online] for the original site of this chapel schedule. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets].
Click here for a printable list of chapels, so that you can plan for those you’d like to attend or check off those you’ve already gone to.
The Spring semester traditionally features several Signpost Series chapels. The purpose of the Signpost Series is to invite guests to speak about how they integrate their faith with their specific area of expertise or academic discipline. This gives us a wider perspective on how the Christian faith is woven into all areas of life – academics, relationships, politics, media, sport, etc.
Chapels have different emphases, based on the day of the week. Tuesday chapels are “Community Worship,” featuring worship of God through prayer, Scripture, sermon and song. Wednesday chapels are “Convocation,” which includes a variety of topics, artistic presentations, lectures and guest interviews. Friday chapels are “Spiritual Formation,” featuring teaching on Christian spiritual disciplines and practice of those disciplines together in the Sanctuary. See the Friday dates below to find out which disciplines will be addressed and what they encompass — work cited: Spiritual Disciplines Handbook by Adele Ahlberg Calhoun. [Click here to read Amazon info, and click here to view many pages online. This book is extremely heretical and extremely dangerous theologically. I can’t believe Malone University – which once held to a staunchly fundamentalist Wesleyan Holiness theology ala its predecessor Cleveland Bible College – is allowing this book to be endorsed and cited.Click here, here and herefor discernment ministry exposes of the book and its author/compiler.] Evening chapels include a variety of speakers and topics in a workshop format.
Malone Chapels are held Tuesdays (10:30-11:10 a.m.), Wednesdays (10:05-10:45 a.m.) and most Fridays (10:05-10:45 a.m.) in the Sanctuary of the Johnson Center for Worship and the Fine Arts. Evening chapels vary in time and location.
Chapels will begin Tuesday, January 15.
Tuesday, January 15, 10:30 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert
Wednesday, January 16, 10:05 a.m.: Suzanne Nicholson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, “Who is Jesus?”
Friday, January 18, 10:05 a.m.: Pastor Stan Hinshaw, Lead Pastor of Canton First Friends Church, “Why do spiritual disciplines matter?” www.firstfriends.org/leadership/pastoral-team [With all due respect, many pastors in the Evangelical Friends denomination have been warned about the heresies and dangers of Spiritual Formation/Contemplative Spirituality – yet they continue to spread these occultish practices. I believe God will someday judge them accordingly, if they do not repent. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (see Luke 12:47-48).]
Tuesday, January 22, 10:30 a.m.: Jeff Leon, Malone Life Coach, sharing the Gospel and kicking off the Signpost Series
Wednesday, January 23, 10:05 a.m.: Jeff Leon, Signpost Series
Friday, January 25, 10:05 a.m.: Celia King, Director of Service Learning; Discipline: TBA.
Tuesday, January 29, 10:30 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert
Tuesday, January 29, 7-9 p.m. in Silk Auditorium (MH): Terry Thomas, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College, “How to Read the Bible” workshop. Students should attend from 7-9 p.m.www.geneva.edu/object/faculty_terry_thomas
Wednesday, January 30, 10:05 a.m.: The Quaker Testimonies – understanding peace-making, simplicity, integrity and equality. www.esr.earlham.edu/support/comprehensive-case/the-vine/the-quaker-testimonies [Earlham is a school administered by the Friends United Meeting denomination. FUM is non-evangelical i.e. not born again. A close reading of this and other pages on their website will make this obvious.]
Friday, February 1, 10:05 a.m.: Director of Spiritual Formation Linda Leon; Discipline: Slowing – a spiritual discipline which helps us to savor the moment and curbs our addiction to busyness, hurry and workaholism.
Tuesday, February 5, 10:30 a.m.: Rev. Saleem Ghubril, Exec. Dir. of The Pittsburgh Promise, “Loving and Serving Our Neighbor,” Signpost Series. www.pittsburghpromise.org/about_staff.php
Wednesday, February 6, 10:05 a.m.: Rev. Saleem Ghubril, Signpost Series
Friday, February 8, 10:05 a.m.: Resident Directors Stacy Utecht and Mike Hansen; Discipline: Pilgrimage – walking while keenly aware of God’s presence.
Tuesday, February 12, 10:30 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert
Friday, February 15, 10:05 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert; Discipline: Silence and Solitude – freeing oneself from addiction to noise and entering into time alone with God.
Wednesday, February 20, 10:05 a.m.: Singer and speaker Justin McRoberts, www.justinmcroberts.com
Friday, February 22, 10:05 a.m. Student Director of Spiritual Formation Avery Linn; Discipline: Fasting – to let go of an appetite in order to seek God on matters of deep concern for ourselves and others.
Tuesday, February 26, 10:30 a.m.: Annual Senior Preacher chapel featuring Bob Book and James Talbert
Tuesday, February 26, 7-8 p.m. in JC Memorial Chapel: Tom Willett, musician, author and entertainment industry executive speaking on “Faith and Creativity,” Signpost Series. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Willett
Wednesday, February 27, 10:05 a.m.: Departmental Convocation (students attend convocation at various campus locations TBA)
Friday, March 1, 10:05 a.m.: Chapel Worship Coordinator Tim Longbrake; Discipline: Music – understanding music as a way to worship God.
No chapels this week – Spring Break!
Tuesday, March 12, 10:30 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert
Wednesday, March 13, 10:05 a.m.: Theological panel with guests Steve Moroney, Ph.D., Bryan Hollon, Ph.D., and Woolman Lecturer Eleanore Stump, Ph.D.
Friday, March 15, 10:05 a.m.: Celia King, Director of Service Learning: Discipline: Writing as Soul Care – writing and reflecting on God’s presence and activity in, around and through me.
Tuesday, March 19, 10:30 a.m.: Annual Excellence Chapel, including staff/faculty awards
Tuesday, March 19, 7-8 p.m., JC Memorial Chapel: evening chapel with Spiritual Formation staff Tim Longbrake and Linda Leon
Wednesday, March 20, 10:05 a.m.: Faith and Expression – panel of guests representing literature, music, theatre and the visual arts; featuring poet and author Julia Kasdorf, Signpost Series. www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/362
No Friday chapel this week due to the Air Band setup in the JC Sanctuary.
Wednesday, March 27, 10:05 a.m.: Choose a different option from yesterday.
No Friday chapel this week due to Easter Break.
Tuesday, April 2, 10:30 a.m.: Football head coach Eric Hehman, “Faith and Sport,” Signpost Series
Wednesday, April 3, 10:05 a.m.: Rev. Alistair Begg, Senior Pastor of Parkside Church, www.truthforlife.org
Friday, April 5, 10:05 a.m.: Director of Spiritual Formation Linda Leon; Discipline: Meditating on the Names of God – contemplating names and titles for God which express His character, presence and authority.
Tuesday, April 9, 10:30 a.m.: University Chaplain Randy Heckert
Wednesday, April 10, 10:05 a.m.: Alumni Career Chapel (students attend chapel at various campus locations TBA)
Friday, April 12, 10:05 a.m.: Resident Director Kat Gritter; Discipline: Prayer of Examen – to notice both God and our God-given desires throughout the day.
This will be the final Friday chapel of the semester.
Tuesday, April 16, 10:30 a.m.: Musician JJ Heller, www.jjheller.com
Tuesday, April 16, 7-8 p.m., Stewart Room (BCC): evening chapel with Spiritual Formation staff Tim Longbrake and Linda Leon
Final Chapel: Wednesday, April 17, 10:05 a.m.: Senior Chapel, an annual tradition organized by the senior class representatives
For most of my life, I have had great respect and admiration for Evangelical Friend Everett L. Cattell. In his lifetime he held many wonderful positions, including missionary, Malone College president, etc. However, after recent research, I feel I cannot overlook or downplay the various examples of his heretical ecumenical side which I have discovered.
Many Evangelical Friends have applauded Dr. Cattell’s ecumenism. Yet the tragic truth is, Dr. Cattell’s ecumenism (particularly his Quaker ecumenism) contributed greatly to the liberalism/downfall of the born again Evangelical Friends denomination (EFCI). (Dr. Cattell was not alone – some other Evangelical Friends leaders also pushed for Quaker ecumenism.) Largely due to their poor denominational decisions, today the EFCI is finding itself solidly in the grips of the heretical Emerging/Emergent church movements.
I have reposted a blog by “Emerging/Convergent” Evangelical Friend Wess Daniel of Northwest Yearly Meeting, applauding Dr. Cattell. In his blog, Wess also reveals Dr. Cattell’s heretical ecumenical side. Click here for the original source of this blog. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]:
This is a part of a series I will be doing on Cattell and his contributions to the Friends Church and missiology.
Everett Cattell is an important figure when it comes to missiology within the Friends Church. He and his wife Catherine DeVol were sent to India in 1936 where they spent 21 years … as missionaries. There he had the opportunity to work alongside a number of different missions organizations and even got to know Leslie Newbigin and Donald McGavran, two of missiology’s most influential people of the last 50 years. In 1957, he and Catherine returned to the U.S. where he was made the superintendent of Ohio Yearly Meeting (Damascus) for three years. In 1960, he became the president of Malone College in Canton, Ohio and worked there for 12 years (Abbott, 2006:41-42). Cattell was a leading figure in the Holiness movement within the Evangelical Friends Church and helped to create openness among a variety of Friends branches. Through his interactions with a number of different missions organizations while in India he became good at working ecumenically among those within his own tradition. Quaker scholar David Johns writes,
Cattell’s influence in the Society of Friends has been unparalleled with respect to the conceptualization of the nature of Christian missions and in establishing a model of sorts of an evangelical ecumenicism. A notable strength of Cattell is that he provides enough clarity and conviction to address those who are hazy and unconvinced; yet, he also provides enough ambiguity to humble the most self-assured (Johns, 1992:5).
Cattell was not only good at ecumenicism but also worked hard as a renewal leader within the Friends Church. At the age of 16 he gave a lecture at yearly meeting on ”How Can Ohio Yearly Meeting Take A Forward Step” (Johns, 6). In the late 1960′s he helped organize [an ecumenical Quaker] conference in St. Louis, which took place in 1970 and was focused on the theme ”The Future of Friends” (a theme I am particularly interested in). There he gave one of three keynote addresses; his was titled “A New Approach for Friends.” (Also see his essay “The Future of Friends” in Quaker Religious Thought 1966 Vol. VIII No. 2 p. 10-14.)
His book Christian Mission (1981) is one of only two books in the Quaker tradition covering the general study of mission theology I am aware of. The other is by [Friends United Meeting’s] Elton Trueblood and is called, The Validity of Christian Mission. Cattell’s is the more articulate and seasoned of the two. The book sets out to give a general theology of mission using Scripture, current missiological texts and his own experience as a missionary in India as the basis for his understanding.
In this blog about the history of the Evangelical Friends Church International (EFCI), particularly the EFC-ER (formerly Ohio Yearly Meeting), I wrote that Quakers from George Fox through the Orthodox Friends [before Gurney’s missionary visits to America circa 1854] were not born again – in spite of what Evangelical Friends have been taught.
My comments are confirmed in a blog by Dr. Napier, which I have reposted below. Click here for the original source of this blog; in this repost I have omitted some comments which do not deal directly with nonevangelical Quakers. I should point out that Quakers have their own terminology, their own definitions for “evangelical” Quakers and “non-evangelical” Quakers:
Evangelical Quakers/Friends – Traditionally, “evangelical” refers to Quakers/Friends who believe in being born again (see John Chapter 3), accepting Christ as Saviour and Lord. They come to Christ by conversion. Traditionally they oppose George Fox’s heresy of the Inner Light/the Light of Christ in every man. In fact, in 1877-1879 Ohio Yearly Meeting of the Gurneyite/Evangelical Friends made an official statement condemning the Inner Light teaching. Evangelical Friends held tenaciously to Wesleyan Holiness teachings between approximately 1854 (with the influence of John Joseph Gurney) and 1965 (when Ohio Yearly Meeting joined the Evangelical Friends Alliance – now the EFCI). The height of Wesleyan Holiness doctrine in OYM, in its most born again “fundamentalist” form, was between approx. 1892-1942. Historically, OYM (now EFC-ER) was the most biblically sound/ fundamentalist/separatist of the Evangelical Friends Yearly Meetings (now referred to as Regions of the EFCI-NA).
Unfortunately, following the lead of Northwest Yearly Meeting of the EFCI-NA, many Evangelical Friends today are open to ecumenical ties with non-evangelical Quakers/Friends (as defined below). Also, following the lead of Northwest Yearly Meeting, they are becoming increasingly involved in Richard Foster’s Spiritual Formation as well as Brian McLaren’s postmodern (Emerging/Emergent) teachings. (Both Foster and McLaren – and many other postmoderns – have taught/preached in Northwest Yearly Meeting’s churches and schools.) Like many so-called “evangelical” denominations today, the EFCI is leaning further and further away from biblically sound, born again, “fundamentalist” Christian doctrine.
Non-evangelical Quakers/Friends – They oppose the concept of being born again, believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord. They come to Christ by convincement. They do believe in the Inner Light/the Light of Christ in every man. Non-evangelical Quakers/Friends include many ungodly groups, including extremely far left liberal Quakers, LGBT Quakers, Christian universalist Quakers, “nonchristian” universalist Quakers, New Age Quakers, Buddhist Quakers, etc., even atheist (nontheist) Quakers. Most of these non-evangelical Quaker groups believe in the Inner Light, “Christ in every man” – a concept that fits in very neatly with today’s New Age teachings of “Christ consciousness“, “the cosmic Christ”, etc. Non-evangelical Quakers/Friends comprise a number of denominations.
Non-evangelical Quakers can be very vocal about their non-belief in being born again. In this YouTube video, a liberal Quaker raps these lyrics:
“I’m not a Christian but I’m a Quaker, I’ve got Christ’s Inner Light but he’s not my Saviour…”
In the repost below, I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]. I should point out that Dr. Napier and I come from different vantage points theologically, but we reach the same conclusion: most Quakers (including George Fox and other early Quakers) were/are not born again.
Some readers will say “What a stupid question! OfcourseQuakers areChristians!” Almost all Believers will say this. But, is it true? To put it bluntly, it does not really matter what your opinion is on the issue. Come to that, it does not matter what my opinion is, either! In fact, the same principle applies to all Biblically-based truths. What matters is WHAT GOD SAYS IN HIS WORD. God’s word is declared with authority. It is never offered as a possible answer, but as THE answer. And this is the way we must always approach the question of whether or not somebody (or a group) is Christian. In other words, what God says is law. If we say something different to that law, then what we think is irrelevant, if not sinful.
With that in mind: are Quakers Christians? If they are not, then Quakerism is a cult and Quakers are cult members. Quakers are usually represented on major Christian committees, but that is no guarantee of their Christian status. In this brief paper, we will show that mainstream Quakerism is not Christian, but is a cult. (There are other forms of Quakerism, which claim to be Christian and which would disassociate themselves from the Quaker beliefs mentioned here. [Sentence omitted from repost-DM (1).] They would also not accept the doubts [about Quakers being Christians] expressed in this paper).
The founder of Quakerism, George Fox, did not set out to call his followers ‘Quakers’. His concern was with the falsity and stagnation within the churches of his day. So he traveled Britain warning people of their spiritual danger. A problem arises because we cannot be all that sure about his personal salvation or about his real motives. For example, in his own writings he refers to the ‘light (of God) in everyman’, but does not appear to differentiate the saved and the unsaved. When he talks about being saved and unsaved, it seems he is saying that to be saved is more or less a matter of not doing bad things (a particular strain of Arminianism). At other times, he appears to talk in orthodox gospel terms. The confusion may just be in the way I have interpreted the work of Fox, though I do not think so, for a similar confusion of ideas seems to run throughout Fox’s writings.There are other problems with what Fox does and says, as even some Quaker writers have admitted.
Today, there are several different types of Quakerism, which could easily be called ‘denominations’. One even refers to itself as being ‘evangelical’, but what seems to be the mainstream U.K. form of Quakerism referred to here is a cult from top to toe! Why say this? Just a brief examination of its basic beliefs should be sufficient to convince the reader…
In mainstream Quakerism, few Quakers believe in the need for Biblical-salvation. This is because few of them accept the reality of Satan, or of sin. Obviously, if there is no sin, there is no need for salvation! To many Quakers, ‘sin’ is merely a vestigial remain within a man which can be removed by doing good. Satan is said to be a figment of the imagination and Jesus Christ is said to have been just a very good man.
With this as a basis, there is no need to repent either! If we do not sin, then what is there to repent of? As for the Bible, well, individual Quakers may take it or leave it. However, some Quakers may, if they wish, read certain texts at their meetings, just for ‘inspiration’. The Bible is viewed as merely one of many books of inspiration. Any ‘uplifting’ piece of literature will do, even that of a pagan Roman emperor known for his savagery against early Christians!
Modern Quakers specialise in doing good works and encouraging peace initiatives. This they see as of vital importance. Many are archetypal New Agers for they mix their good works/peace ideas with ancient Eastern beliefs and all kinds of esoteric/occult teachings. (Note: ‘Many’ not ‘all’!).
Those who call themselves ‘evangelical Quakers’ complain when they are referred to as ‘cult members’. This is a problem of their own making. Even if they are real Believers, they have no business being amongst those who are predominantly unbelievers. The Bible clearly tells us we are to mark those who pretend to be of God but who, by their actions and words, defy Him.We are told that we must separate from them immediately and must then shun them. The reason for this is that their beliefs and teachings are ‘works of darkness’, inspired by Satan, corrupting the best of men. [Sentence omitted from repost-DM (2).] If they wish to be known as ‘Christians’ then they must leave and stop affiliating with a known cult.
Thus, for a saved person to be a part of Quakerism (or any other cult) which, by definition, is predominantly evil, is to oppose God’s commands. There is no reason whatever for a Believer to be known by any other names than those found in scripture e.g. ‘Believer’ or ‘Christian’… for any other title is superfluous. Indeed, to be called by the title ‘Quaker’ is to indicate one’s real loyalty, a loyalty to a man-made organisation and not to the authentic relationship between a person and God which has been effected through the salvation given by Jesus Christ.
In a very real sense, then, the movement/denomination of ‘Quakerism’ is a foe of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ, whether ‘official’ or Arminian. Do not be misled by its outward show of goodness. As for genuine Believers in the Quaker camp – they must come out from it! There is no alternative for a Believer.
Bible Theology Ministries – PO Box 415, Swansea, SA5 8YH Wales United Kingdom
—————
ENDNOTES
(1) In the omitted sentence, Dr. Napier states that Evangelical Friends are heretical because they are Arminian (he opposes even the milder forms of Arminianism held to by Evangelical Friends). With all due respect to Dr. Napier, I view this differently. I would say Evangelical Friends are heretical because they are New Evangelical (since approx. 1942), ecumenical with non-evangelical Quakers (since 1970), contemplative (since Evangelical Friend Richard Foster’s bestseller was published in 1978), and Emerging/Emergent (since the early 1990s, particularly in Northwest Yearly Meeting).
(2) Same issue as Endnote #1. My Comment to author 07/24/12
Greetings! I was searching for articles and blogs about the heresies of George Fox and other Quakers. I grew up in the Evangelical Friends denomination (EFCI). I now have a blogsite critiquing and exposing their many heresies.
BTW, I see you mentioned Arminianism as cultic. I would have to agree. Growing up Wesleyan-Holiness, I do see the problems in Arminianism, which is more extreme than the Wesleyan-Holiness movement.
Before I present Ken Silva’s article, I want to present some background from my own experiences with Quakers. I grew up in what today is called the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church Intl.), traditionally known as Gurneyite Friends. I thank the Lord that, between approximately 1854-1965, Gurneyite Friends held a born again, biblically sound Wesleyan Holiness theology – particularly in Ohio Yearly Meeting.
Unfortunately, the Evangelical Friends/Gurneyite Friends never completely broke away from the heretical heritage of the Quakers. I would estimate that from approximately 1930 on, Evangelical Friends leaders behind the scenes were increasingly pushing for more relations with non-evangelical (aka heretical) Quaker denominations. These Evangelical Friends leaders were very hesitant to point out the history and heresy of George Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching (perhaps for fear of alienating nonevangelical Quaker denominations). Even today, Evangelical Friends professors and pastors paint George Fox as a born again, biblically sound evangelist. This, despite the fact that Fox’s own writings show he was a heretical “Christian mystic.”
Only in recent years, after reading articles like the following by Ken Silva, did I realize just how heretical and nonchristian my own Quaker ancestors had been (prior to 1854).
I would note that today the Quakers (both evangelical and nonevangelical denominations) vary widely in theology. Evangelical Friends speak very little of the Inner Light; many newer members have never even heard the term. Yet as we know, the Evangelical Friends have fallen head over heals in love with Spiritual Formation’s Richard Foster, who grew up, pastored and taught in the Evangelical Friends denomination.
I find it very odd that Foster chose to preach and teach among Evangelical Friends. His heretical teachings line up much more closely with two other major Quaker denominations, both considered nonevangelical: 1) the moderate Friends United Meeting (FUM) which nonetheless has many Christian universalists, and 2) the liberal Friends General Conference (FGC).
I’m sure Richard Foster fancies himself as walking in the footsteps of George Fox. It’s obvious in his various writings that Foster loves Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching. So what exactly did George Fox mean by the “Inner Light”, and why is this heresy so dangerous? Ken Silva explains, in his article reposted below. Click here for the original site of Silva’s article.
We now continue this examination of the history of the Quakers and their core doctrine of the Inner Light that is allegedly within all of mankind and which supposedly was “revealed” by God to their founder George Fox. In Part One I opened with testimony concerning current Quaker beliefs from author and mystic Dr. Mary Conrow, a third generation member of The Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers). We also got further corroboration through an article by Friend Anne K. Riggs which as of today (5/5/06) is found at the official Friends website Quaker.org.
Shedding Light On Quaker Origins
Dr. Riggs by the way is also co-editor of QUEST: Quaker Ecumenical Seminars in Theology. I then showed that the contemplative spirituality currently taught by Quaker Richard Foster is so consistent with the mysticism of New Age teachers and the meditation of Zen Masters that he is listed (as of 5/5/06) at the Living Spiritual Teachers Project among an odd assortment of heretics and unbelievers.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica brings out that the term “Quaker,” according to founder George Fox came to be applied to this group “because we bid [people] tremble at the word of God.” In addition however, it is “likely that the name, originally derisive, was also used because many early Friends, like other religious enthusiasts, themselves trembled [i.e. quaked] in their religious meetings and showed other physical manifestations of religious emotion” (9/838). This is confirmed in New Religions: A Guide while Richard Hoskins is teaching about a sect of “healers and ‘spiritual’ leaders” from the Dominican Republic called “The Ngunzist movement.” Hoskins tells us the “Ngunzists are often called trembleurs because of their ecstatic shaking (rather like the origin of the term Quakers) (55,emphasis mine).
Next, from his fine work Christianity Through The Centuries (CTTC) noted Church historian Dr. Earle Cairns tells us that:
The Quakers appeared on the English religious scene during the chaotic period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth. They set aside the doctrines of an organized church and the Bible as the sole and final revelation of God’s will in favor of the doctrine of the Inner Light, by which they meant that the Holy Spirit can give immediate and direct knowledge of God apart from the Bible (381, emphasis mine)
The well-respected Handbook Of Denominations In The United States (HOD) from Mead and Hill adds that the Quakers date “from the late 1650’s in England” and “ the Society of Friends, or Quakers, is an unconventional but esteemed Protestant body.” The Quakers are unique because “they affirm the ‘Inner Light,’ the spiritual nerve center that God has placed in every person.” As we saw in Part One as well “classical Friends deny the validity of clergy, liturgy, and sacraments” (140, emphasis mine). HOD then gives us a further historical background:
The Society of Friends began with the vision of George Fox (1624-91), a British seeker after spiritual truth and peace during the turmoil of the English Civil War and its aftermath. After failing to find satisfactory truth and peace in the churches of his time, Fox discovered what he sought in a direct personal relationship with Christ: “When all my hopes in [churches] were gone… I heard a voice which said, ‘That is the Inner Voice, or Inner Light, based upon the description of John 1:9: “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (KJV)” ‘ “ This voice, Fox maintained, is available to all and has nothing to do with the ceremonies, rituals, or creeds over which Christians have fought. Every heart is God’s altar and shrine (140,141, emphasis mine).
In World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present we find out further it was in the wake of “the struggle” within various religious sects following the Reformation that:
Quakerism was born. These “seekers,” [sound familiar?] as they called themselves, abandoned all traditional Christian outward forms – ministry, creeds, sacraments, liturgy, systems of theology – and waited in silence, meditating on the Bible until they felt the “inner light” of God dawning within them and the Holy Spirit to speak. In their small communities they stressed the comradely life of love and works or charity inspired by the mystical experience of Christ through the Spirit (445, emphasis mine)
The Divine Spark Emerges In The Inner Light
Christian researcher Ray Yungen shares an interesting bit of information about the Quaker Guru of Contemplation Richard Foster with us in A Time of Departing when he asks:
Just how influential has Foster become in Christian circles? For certain, his effect on the evangelical church cannot be overestimated. In a 1993 poll by Christianity Today, the magazine revealed that Foster’s book, Prayer: Finding The Heart’s True Home, was the number one most popular books with its readers. Astoundingly, this is the same book that well-known New Ager Rosemary Ellen Guiley has on her suggested reading list in the back of her book, The Miracle of Prayer (80).
Guiley is also the author of Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (HEMPE) published by HarperSanFrancisco, the company that also happens to publish Foster himself. It should strike us as odd that a “Christian” sect should be found in such a secular publication devoted to spiritualism. And yet Guiley tells us in HEMPE that Quaker theology “stresses a personal, almost mystical knowledge of God and the workings of the Lord’s ‘inner light’ within all people.” And Fox himself taught:
faith is based solely on firsthand knowledge of Christ as a living, personal reality, not on logic, reasoning, historical reporting, or even Scripture. This empirical proof came to be called the Quaker Way: the idea that worshippers need not consult preachers or the Bible to receive knowledge of the Holy Spirit–the so-called “inner light of Christ” present in every human heart (556, emphasis mine).
This idea in Quaker theology that every man has this alleged “Inner Light” is further corroborated in GREAT RELIGIONS of the World which tells us that Fox “insisted that the ‘light of Christ’ glimmered in all men” (375, emphasis mine) We’ll be coming back to this “inner light” that is supposed to glimmer “in every human heart,” but first, in his classic two volume set A History Of Christianity (AHOC) the great historian Kenneth Scott Latourette adds a bit more background information about the person through whom the Quakers originated:
Their founder was George Fox (1624-1691). Of humble birth, from boyhood he had heard Puritan preaching and had acquired an intimate familiarity with the text of the English Bible… For four years he suffered severe spiritual depression induced by the spectacle of human suffering,…and by the doctrine of predestination which he heard expounded from Puritan pulpits. By temperament a mystic, he was eager for direct and unhindered access to God… Eventually (1647) the light broke. He came to feel Christ could speak to “his condition,”… He believed that God is love and truth and that it is possible for all men so to open their lives to Him… [Fox] would follow and have others follow the Inner Light” (Vol. II, p. 822, emphasis mine)
The True Light Of Holy Scripture
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. (John 1:9-10)
As we get set to shed additional light on the unique Quaker doctrine of the “Inner Light” we need to remember that George Fox was a seeker and a mystic by nature, well versed in the Scriptures, and a man who chose to rebel against solid Biblical preaching. This is actually not too unlike what we see leaders within the Emergent Church doing today. Fox apparently didn’t like the fact that God instituted an authority structure within the local church so he decided to seek the Lord on his own terms. And sure enough Fox finally hears what he wanted to hear all along as he tells us “I heard a voice which said, ‘That is the Inner Voice, or Inner Light, based upon the description of John 1:9: “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (KJV)” (HOD, 141). Not only that but this seducing spirit allows for Fox’s defiance of authority as well as he is told that this Inner Light “is available to all and has nothing to do with the ceremonies” of the local church. Then in the mystic tradition of classic Gnosticism Fox hears that all mankind has a spark of divinity because every human being “is God’s altar and shrine” (141).
This above information is extremely important to understand regarding the spiritual excesses of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers). Now you should be able to see an aberrant view of mysticism is already rooted in the base theology of the Quakers. Their founder George Fox, who was himself prone to mysticism, wished for a “personal” approach “to God” that ended up being “apart from the Bible.” As such Fox began with his theology already turned backward by believing that it is man who seeks after God and as a result the Scriptures were forced to take a back seat to his own way of approaching the Lord. We need to carefully consider the above information. Fox is seeking a “direct” and “mystical experience” with God. Admirable yes, but it is the LORD God Almighty–the glorious and transcendent Creator of the universe–Who set the prescribed means of interacting with us through conscious prayer and His Words in Holy Scripture.
I will show you more about this “Inner Light” below, but notice that Fox was “eager” long enough while waiting “in silence” until “the light broke.” And he finally received his mystic delusion that “it is possible for all men” to “open their lives” to God. As I said, the “experience” of George Fox shoved the Truth of the Bible into a secondary place in favor of this mystical view that it is possible that “all men” are capable of opening themselves up to God. Clearly this would appear to be a reaction on his part to the strong Biblical “Puritan preaching” which assisted him in acquiring “an intimate familiarity with the text of the Bible.” For you see Fox has absolutely no excuse for missing this critical Truth from God’s Word:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.(Psalm 14:1-3)
And it’s not like this is some obscure passage the Puritans latched onto but is open to various interpretations, because it appears again in Psalm 53 below almost verbatim:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one (vv.1-3).
We aren’t able to escape this absolute Truth concerning the actual nature of mankind in the New Testament either. O the sappy sentimentality of new evangelicalism just loves to focus on the goodness of God and to tell us that He sent Jesus to meet our every need and to solve all of our problems. However, as I will continue to say, Christ Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator–the dreadful and awful–holy and majestic LORD God Almighty standing upon His planet. And concerning the fallen nature of humankind the Master unequivocally tells his Own disciples – “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11)
And then Jesus even clarified what He meant by “though you are evil” as He says – “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” (Mark 7:21-23). Why you’d almost have to think our Creator is trying to get a point across to self-centered and arrogant mankind when later the inspired Apostle Paul is led by God the Holy Spirit to pick up those very same passages in the Psalms mentioned earlier:
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10-12)
You won’t hear all of this preached by e.g. by men like Joel Osteen in The Ecumenical Church of Deceit, but the bottom line in all this simply couldn’t be any clearer than Ecclesiastes 7:20 – There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins. Ah, that is except – Jesus Christ, the Righteous One (1 John 2:1). So tragically, because George Fox denied this clear teaching from God’s Word, two major and spiritually fatal flaws emerged in his theology. Out went the Pastoral Epistles for God’s prescribed method of spiritual leadership within His local churches; and instead of objectively judging all experience by Holy Scripture, “the Quaker way” became proper understanding of the Bible would be determined by subjective mystical experience in “the Inner Light.”
And it is this very same mortal theological wound of interpreting the text of the Bible by the spiritual experiences a given person may have that is also central to the postmodern approach of the Emergent Church, of which Richard Foster is unquestionably “a key mentor.” I’ve already pointed out that Foster considers mystic Teresa of Avila as one of “the great writers of the devotional life.” You will come to see that even this is also consistent with Quaker theology and interestingly enough, on the page prior to the coverage of the Quakers by Dr. Cairns in CTTC is a short piece about a mystic movement within “the Roman Catholic Church during the seventeenth century” that would come to be known as “Quietism.”
The Inner Light Reveals The Global Family
I now draw your attention to the fact that “the Inner Light” just happened to be a core teaching of this Quietism. Dr. Cairns informs us that this theological view within the Church of Rome:
emphasized an immediate intuitional approach to God by the passive soul opening itself to the influence of the inner light. It was a reaction to the emphasis on the rationalization of dogma. [Sound familiar?] Forerunners of the Quietists were Ignatius Loyola; the godly Charles Borromeo (1538-84), cardinal and archbishop of Milan; Teresa of Avila (1515-82); and Francis de Sales (1567-1622) of France… These mystics of the Counter-Reformation were succeeded by the Quietists of the seventeenth century. (ibid., 380, emphasis mine)
You can see that Teresa of Avila was prominent among those who influenced what would itself become a “quiet” reformation within the Roman Catholic Church and would end up bringing it further and further away from Biblical doctrine in favor of this mystic superstition. George Fox and the Quakers would somewhat parallel this quiet decent into the mystical silence of demonic deception. It’s a trap as old as the Garden of Eden where the Devil promises good will come to men who follow him in opposition to what God has said in the Bible. There have been mystical approaches to God virtually since the time of the Fall and the LORD God Almighty has already told us that rather than “emptying” our minds of all thought we are instead to – “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).
In AHOC Latourette also supplies another key piece of information in understanding the deadly flaw which has emerged from the theology of Fox when he brings out that “Fox and other Quakers insisted that every man who comes into the world is illuminated by an inner light which is Christ” (Ibid., p. 981, emphasis mine). Men and women, here we glean some critical insight into why we are seeing the reemergence of interest in Contemplative/Centering Prayer (meditation) within new evangelicalism. This above view by “Fox and other Quakers” is also indicative of the inevitable result of the practice of this “Christian” mysticism as well. Can you see it: If this alleged Inner Light is already within every man then we don’t have to risk persecution as we stand for the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because now we will have opened the door to a universalism which negates any real need for anyone to have to be “born again.”
And here we have uncovered the reason why so many professing Christians today can believe that all religions should be friends now and seek our common ground as we work together to usher in “the kingdom” of God’s Global Peace. Take an honest look at the warped and toxic theology of men like Richard Foster, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Alan Jones, Steve Chalke and even the Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren–all men involved to one degree or another in the practice of contemplative spirituality. You see no bold stance on their part that the only way any human being anywhere upon God’s planet can ever be saved from an eternity of conscious torment in a literal place our Creator called Hell is personal faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His vicarious penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross. In fact, you will see in my article “Evangelicals” Attacking The Atonement it is actually quite the contrary.
George Fox University is the most liberal/Emergent school in the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church International). So I was not surprised to learn they had held an interfaith dialogue. Thank you, Ken Cook, for your excellent critique of what I consider an anti-christian event, held at what basically has become a heretical Emerging/Emergent New Evangelical school.
Click here for the original blog, copied and pasted in its entirety below. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]:
Sacred Journey: A Protestant at an Interfaith Dialogue
[Author: Ken Cook, January 25, 2012]
When a pastor friend of mine told me that there was an interfaith dialogue at George Fox University, the local college, I was excited to go. I have read, studied, and listened to and about this type of thing, but never had attended one in the flesh. I figured it would be an eye opening experience.
The speakers were a Zen Buddhist teacher, a Rabbi, a Muslim and a Woman Pastor (From George Fox). The music and rayers [sic] were done by the local Baha’i Center. (see their bios)[Excuse me? This was held at a “Christian” university – so why did they not take the upper hand and lead the music and prayers? Why did they allow followers of Baha’i to do so?]
The Jewish Rabbi spoke first. I took notes. By no means is this a complete discussion or recounting, but rather it just hits the things that I felt were most noteworthy. He was discussing the Jewish “Master Story”. He said it was a story of the confronting of power and that the story was centered in Exodus and Numbers. He went on to explain that need to confront power (Pharaoh) and go to the promised land.
The thing that really got to me was the Rabbi’s discussion extolling doubt as a virtue. He started of like this: “You know those tv preachers… I am envious of them, of their confidence.” *Audience has sporadic laughter and agreement*. He continued to expound on the idea of doubt is a virtue of faith. This idea was linked to the idea of a rabbi discouraging a non-Jew from becoming Jewish. It was a somewhat non-nonsensical argument in my mind.
From a Christian perspective this guy was coming out of shallow left field. Doubt isn’t a virtue. Faith is. Nowhere in his presentation, which included a lengthy discussion of Jews seeking justice for the oppressed, was there anything about looking for a messiah. Maybe it is just my Christian perspective, but I thought that the Jews were still looking forward to the Messiah. How is it that we can have a discussion of faith and not mention Jesus the whole time. I wish that he would have answered the question: Who is Jesus to you?
The Muslim speaker presented next. He opened up with a commentary on the moderators opening comments. He was focused upon this idea of justice, and how justice was missing from many of the presentations of this kind (speaking of interfaith discussions I believe). I found myself somewhat frustrated by this talk of justice by a Muslim. It was my belief that justice for this man meant something that is injustice from not just a Christian perspective, but from every other perspective represented there: namely, Sharia Law. I had stopped listening and my mind was flooded with the few specifics of Sharia that I knew and perhaps the only verse in the Qur’an that I know by heart – O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. — Qur’an 5:51. So Here is a man standing before me who is preaching a justice that would mean my (and the rest of those present who were not Muslim) subjugation, oppressive taxation or death. My mind then went on to wonder how many people were actually understanding what he wasn’t saying here. How many people would understand that his concept of justice is in fact unjust.
I came back from my thoughts, in time to hear him begin discussing how cartoons of the prophet are offensive. He explained that from the Islamic perspective all the prophets are to be respected. He then went through in Arabic some of the highlights of the OT prophets, asking the crowd if they could recognize which prophet he meant. Then he got to Isa. I knew I was about to be galled. The crowd of course didn’t recognize the name. He pressured them and finally told us that it was the prophet we would call Jesus; and that we got his name wrong. The smug arrogance of the statement was thick in the air. I could tell that many of the Christians had a deep disagreement and frustration by this statement, which was oddly encouraging that they seemed to take a stand on something. I would have loved to press this guy on this idea and on the concept that he actually respects Jesus as a prophet, given that he denies what Jesus taught. I get the feeling that he doesn’t understand that Jesus claimed for himself divinity ( John 8:48ff).
He then went on to discuss Muslim prayers, something that I found interesting is that he said that you get more credit [with Allah] if you pray with at least one other person. The idea was that it was somehow a better work than simply praying alone. He then discussed heaven and how it is about having more good works than bad works. I was sure that his 15 minutes had elapsed at this point. He must have discussed prayer for another 5 minutes.
He seemed to be winding down, with the concept of missionary work being offensive to Muslims. He said if you come to the poorest and dig a well that is good, but if you dig the well and “Bring your Christ” it is offensive. He made it seem like this type of thing is akin to taking advantage of the poor. With this he finished. I sat back thinking to myself how he really just didn’t tell the whole story. From my understanding, the concept here is that Jesus is not God in Islam. That to come and preach that Jesus is God is what is offensive to the Muslim. They need us to do these things for them, but don’t want Christ preached beyond what the Qur’an says about him.
Here is the problem: The Message of Christ is Offensive. ( cf. Gal 5:11, 1 Pet 2:8, Rom 9:33) I know this may come as a shock to you — the Gospel of the crucified God-Man Jesus Christ is just as offensive to the Muslim as it was to the Jews and Greeks.
One might think that I am a bit off the reservation with the whole justice and Sharia law issue. After Mr. Ahmed’s presentation, I went up to him and asked him if he felt that Sharia law was perfectly Just. His answer was no surprise, he said that it was absolutely just. I would assert that any man who consistently holds to that position, and believes that such a law should govern any land, can never ultimately have religious agreement with a non-Muslim. The difference in concept of justice is so definitively separate. To be clear, that doesn’t mean that he will be violent, abusive or destructive to those of another faith.
Mr. Carlson Spoke after the break. I am not really going to say much about his presentation, for two reasons. 1. Buddhism as a non-Abrahamic faith would require a lot of explaining and 2. Given that he holds to a non-theistic view of Buddhism, the specifics don’t matter as much as the general theism issue in my mind. He is simply an Atheist with an Eastern philosophical-religious system at the end of the day. I believe he should be addressed as any atheist would.
The Final speaker of the night was Sarah Baldwin, the George Fox Campus Pastor. I did Call Mrs. Baldwin a couple days after the event to clarify a couple of things. Sarah presented what she called a “Theology of Suffering.” The focus of her presentation was that we experience the Christian life not as Jesus and me, but as Jesus and we. She stated off with a story about going to Calcutta. She said she was struck by the amount of suffering. She began to tell of a woman who was naked on the streets, and how she experienced “Jesus in the flesh, in the eyes of that woman.” She then said that she could make sense of the gospel, “whatever you do for the least of these.” I was ready to lose it.1 The Gospel is not whatever you do for the least of these, the Gospel is defined for us by Paul as –
…That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:3ff (ESV)
I would say that if we are offering up a gospel different from what Paul dictates for us in scripture, we are in serious trouble.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Galations 1:8-9
However, the most problematic statement by Mrs. Baldwin was, “by Jesus’ Death, he carries our suffering.” I don’t need a crucified savior to relate with my suffering, I need him to remove my sin.[Amen!]
Here’s my big problem with the whole event. There wasn’t a clear proclamation of law and gospel. There was no call to repentance of sinners. I understand an event to gain knowledge about other faiths, but I believe that Christians that are given an audience of non-believers, should be compelled to call them to repent. If we believe that hell is real, and people are really going there, how could we function otherwise? [Therein lies the problem. George Fox University has gone from a born again evangelical position to an Emerging/Emergent position. Those holding to an Emerging/Emergent position would never preach so “offensively” that “ungodly sinners need to come to Christ in repentance to escape a fiery eternity in the Lake of Fire.” After all, they say, “we need to practice missional and/or attractional evangelism, not confrontational evangelism.” And they call themselves Christians?]
If interfaith events can create unity between contradictory faiths, it must be by the abandonment of the uniqueness of each or one. Moreover, Biblical Christianity is incompatible with any other religion, if we are to keep its unique truths. I believe Paul says it best:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
1 — in my later call with Sarah, she clarified that the gospel isn’t “whatever you do for the least of these,” and she described the gospel as what I would call the Eschatology of Hope, the good news of resurrection and the kingdom of God becoming present.
I know I’ve come across as very caustic in many of my blogs about Evangelical Friends. But I truly do love the teachings of the Ohio Yearly Meeting (Gurneyite) and what they stood up for between approx. 1854-1965. I believe the Evangelical Friends have nearly lost many of the biblically sound fundamentalist stands J. Walter Malone, Edward Mott and others in the Ohio Yearly Meeting took vs. modernism, Quaker modernism, Christian universalism (the Inner Light teaching), Quaker ecumenism, etc.
Not to mention more recent heretical movements within evangelicalism that are gaining momentum among Evangelical Friends. Such as Spiritual Formation, postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) teachings, postmillenial dominionist Emergent/Kingdom Now eschatology, Third Wave Pentecostal IHOP teachings, etc. etc. It breaks my heart.
I find it shocking that very few Evangelical Friends are speaking out openly against heresies invading their churches. Instead, most “concerned Evangelical Friends” seem to be quietly leaving the Evangelical Friends churches for “safer ground” – bibically sound churches such as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. Instead of “quietly” leaving, concerned Evangelical Friends need to first confront their pastors, youth leaders, etc. about false teachings. To those who say nothing: you are putting remaining attenders at risk of falling into false teachings.
I’d also like to receive more feedback from Evangelical Friends who disagree with my blogs – I think these things need to be discussed/debated so people realize what’s going on. Other evangelical denominations (such as the Nazarenes) seem to be much more open about discussing the doctrinal changes that have taken place in their denominations over the years. Nazarenes on all sides of the issues have written a number of books and articles discussing major doctrinal shifts. Among the Wesleyan Holiness denominations, the Nazarenes seem to be the most prolific writers.
Ecumenical and Convergent Quakers use this phrase: “let the conversation continue.” I would modify this to: “let the open, honest discussions/ debates over doctrinal changes increase.”
NOTE – The blog below is not my latest blog. To find more recent blogs, browse through the “Archives” section to the lower right. ——> ——> ——>
——————————————————————————————————– NEWS FLASH – Click here to read about Malone University’s Spring 2013 Chapel schedule, showing its increasing emphasis on occultish Spiritual Formation/Contemplative Spirituality.
——————————————————————————————————
(revised 01/04/15)
I gave up on my former denomination (Evangelical Friends Church International aka EFCI) long ago, and in recent years I have encouraged individuals via my blogs to separate from the denomination.
Let me get one thing straight – I don’t “hate” the Evangelical Friends denomination. On the contrary, I love what the Evangelical Friends once stood for. Specifically, I loved Ohio Yearly Meeting (Gurneyite) up until 1965, with its gospel hymns such as “Power in the Blood” and “There is a Fountain Filled With Blood”, its salvation messages, and its altar calls. And yes, the OYM (like many denominations then) used the King James Version only. And we had only organs and pianos – no guitars or drums or Contemporary Christian Music. But all that was soon to change. (Some proponents of Bible versions and CCM may have good intentions. Unfortunately, over the years, heretical teachings have become increasingly widespread in many Bible versions and CCM songs.)
But I digress. Back to the Evangelical Friends: I believe that, in 1965, OYM (today the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region or EFC-ER) lost its biblical mooring when it joined with more liberal Evangelical Friends Yearly Meetings to form the Evangelical Friends Alliance (now Evangelical Friends Church International or EFCI). Pre-1965 OYM and today’s EFC-ER are like day and night theologically. Today I am extremely discontent with the theological positions of EFC-ER and EFCI; I would never consider becoming a member again.
I am not alone in my discontent. Many online discernment ministries (ODMs) have spoken out against EFCI professors and leaders – and Quakers in general – yet have met fierce resistance from supposedly born again EFCI individuals. One discernment leader, James Sundquist (click here and here), wrote this to George Fox University Vice President and Dean Chuck Conniry in 2010 [see entire letter here]:
Additional ODMs which have written about and/or confronted EFCI professors and Quakerism are David Cloud andDr. K.B. Napier. And this is just the tip of the iceberg – many more ODMs have exposed the heresies of contemplative Evangelical Friend Richard Foster specifically.
Note – I would suggest you make a list of all the authors your church leaders quote in sermons, Sunday School classes, etc., then research the authors to see if they are contemplative/Emerging/Emergent.
Consider these excerpts regarding George Fox University and George Fox Evangelical Seminary, reposted here:
March 22nd, 2007 | Author: Lighthouse Trails Editors
The Missional Matrix conference [broken link] is being held this weekend at the Vineyard Community Church in Shoreline Washington. George Fox University (a strong proponent of contemplative spirituality) is sponsoring the event, and speakers include Scot McKnight (author of The Real Mary; see our related article below), and Todd Hunter, North American president of the Alpha Course and a proponent of the Emerging Church…
Unfortunately, contemplative and Emerging Church leaders identify the meaning of these “twists and turns” in a most unscriptural manner. McKnight is a major catalyst for the current sway by evangelicals towards Catholicism while Hunter is a partner with Renovare (Richard Foster’s organization). In addition, George Fox University [as well as George Fox Evangelical Seminary] is a hub of contemplative/emerging activity with a list of adjunct professors [and visiting professors at GFES] that includes Dan Kimball and Leonard Sweet. In 2005, George Fox hired[broken link] Todd Hunter, Leonard Sweet and Brian McLaren to teach certain classes, and chapel speakers at the university have included Richard Foster and Brennan Manning. Recommended and required reading for classes at George Fox include a wide assortment of staunch contemplatives/mystics like Thomas Keating, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton.
I think you get the point…
Moving on, I have written a number of blogs pointing out various heresies invading the EFCI. The readership response has been very encouraging, and positive for the most part. I praise the Lord for all the Evangelical Friends who are taking an interest in these blogs.
Regarding specific heresies in the EFCI (in addition to Emerging/Emergent teachings), check out this excerpt from one of my other major blogs:
Some in the EFCI (Evangelical Friends Church International) have suggested I be more “positive” in my denominational blogs. Currently I don’t have very much positive to say about the EFCI, due to the involvement of most of its Regions in the following heresies. These are in roughly chronological order; dates are approximate:
In the EFC-ER’s favor, it seems the EFC-ER is still the most biblically sound of the EFCI Regions in North America. Click here for a history of Ohio Yearly Meeting (OYM, later renamed EFC-ER) during the “biblically sound” years of 1854-1965. I thank the Lord I was in OYM during part of this godly time period.
Yes, you heard me right: the EFC-ER is still the most biblically sound of the EFCI Regions in North America. Unfortunately, certain individuals in the EFC-ER are allowing the above mentioned heretical teachings to come in to the EFC-ER – many via professors and pastors “transferring in” from other denominations (“non-evangelical Quakers” and non-Quaker Emerging/ Emergent evangelical denominations such as the Nazarenes), as well as the other more liberal Emerging/Emergent Regions of the EFCI.
To make matters worse, some of the leaders of the EFC-ER are also leaders of the EFCI. And they have let the “tail wag the dog,” so to speak. Since various Evangelical Friends yearly meetings merged in 1965 into the Evangelical Friends Alliance (now the EFCI), the “progressive evangelical” NWYM (Northwest Yearly Meeting), particularly, has increasingly held sway over the theological positions of the EFCI. To put it another way: the physical headquarters of the EFCI is in the EFC-ER; the theological/ideological headquarters of the EFCI is in NWYM. And the leadership of the EFCI has gone along with the NWYM leadership – in a big way. Unfortunately, many members of the EFC-ER are not aware of this ungodly accommodation of the NWYM (as well as the other increasingly “progressive evangelical” Regions) by the EFCI leadership. (Click here for links to all the Regions of the EFCI.)
I’m trying to “be nice” here, not mentioning names of individuals (particularly individuals I have not yet spoken with or corresponded with). But I feel compelled to speak out against false doctrine. This is what God’s Word commands us to do.
An official high in the EFCI was kind enough to respond to my concerns somewhat (see the comments at the bottom of this blog). But after several messages back and forth, this official declined to correspond any further, stating that I am “being divisive.”
At first I took umbrage at being referred to divisive. Like many loved ones before me who were born again, biblically sound Evangelical Friends pastors and missionaries, I believe strongly in the born again, biblically sound salvation message preached by Evangelical Friends – including J. Walter Malone – between approx. 1854-1965. I would label myself a “separatist fundamentalist Gurneyite Quaker/Evangelical Friend.” Separatist fundamentalism is the traditional view of the Evangelical Friends. If I defend this traditional standard of the Evangelical Friends – and am called “divisive” for my stand – something is seriously wrong with the current theological state of the EFCI.
To summarize, yes, I am being “divisive” – in a sense. I am being divisive towards the heretics who have invaded the EFCI. These heretics themselves are being divisive to the born again Body of Christ. They are hijacking the biblically sound doctrinal stance of the EFCI.
Speaking of “hijacking” the EFCI: I would say the most infamous heretic in the EFCI has been Spiritual Formation’s Richard Foster, who grew up in the EFA/EFCI. Throughout Foster’s life, the EFCI has always welcomed him with open arms. God help the EFCI. If the EFCI had cut off Foster at the outset and condemned his teachings, perhaps we would not see the theological devastation and apostasy of occultish contemplative spirituality across evangelicalism today.
Regarding the gospel message – traditionally the core of the term “evangelicalism” – we are losing the born again message of salvation through Jesus Christ. We all need to wake up before it’s too late. When is the last time you heard the “negative” aspects of the salvation message in an EFCI school or church? Namely:
1) “Hellfire and brimstone” preaching of God’s damnation to Hell of those who reject Christ: 18b) … he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:18b-19, KJV). Also, 12a) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life… 15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:12a,15, KJV).
2) The bloody sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary, our Atonement, providing eternal life to all those who turn from sin and accept Him as their Saviour. Think of Christ’s bloody, gory suffering – this is the brutality our Saviour bore for us: 4) Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (Isa. 53:4-7, KJV).
The last time I personally remember hearing a hymn about the Blood in the EFC-ER, was when Earl Smith led the song “Power in the Blood” at Yearly Meeting in the early 1970s. Folks, that’s forty years ago – sad!
Listen to the following song, entitled “Nothing But the Blood (Still Saves the Lost)”. describes how the message of the Blood and the Cross has virtually disappeared from many evangelical churches in recent decades. If you feel uncomfortable hearing this song, you need to get right with God! The message of the Blood and the Cross is what Christianity is all about. It is an abomination when churches omit this message – or water it down – to avoid turning off seekers (unsaved attenders). Here’s the song:
Regarding the EFC-ER today, I do have some words of encouragement. I believe there is still hope theologically for individuals throughout the EFC-ER – even if the EFC-ER leaders (administrators, professors, pastors and youth leaders) will not listen. I believe there is hope for individuals here and there in the other Regions of the EFCI as well – although change may be more difficult. Some of the most encouraging and influential supporters of this blogsite are from EFCI Regions outside the EFC-ER.
As I continue to see and hear of heresies invading the EFC-ER, I will be blogging about individual “invaders”/”hijackers” in Malone University and in specific churches. I am still trying to avoid criticizing EFC-ER members by name at this point. My main objective is not to attack or hurt anyone, but to help attenders of Malone University and various EFC-ER churches to:
1) See the invading heresies,
2) Join with myself and other concerned Evangelical Friends in protesting loudly, and
3) If nothing changes, leave for biblically sound churches. Currently I recommend three groups/denominations:
#1) Certain kinds of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches – see this Ohio Baptist directory adapted from David Cloud. (Note especially the churches with three asterisks; these are the churches where Bro. Cloud has spoken, and which he recommends personally. And here are the traits Bro. Cloud looks for, in placing Baptist churches in his directory. I realize that, doctrinally, IFB churches are somewhat different from the Wesleyan Holiness heritage of the Evangelical Friends. Yet, of all denominations and independent churches in America today, I believe these Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches are closest in faith and practice to the Evangelical Friends churches of approx. 1900-1950.
Each of the above three groups has their own distinctive teachings, as well as pros and cons. No matter which group(s) you decide to check out, make sure the churches you are visiting still use the KJV (aka Authorized Version) only. Almost inevitably, churches that sympathize with other per-versions end up falling prey to false teachings/heresies.
Following are the websites of Malone University and the EFC-ER churches, so you can see for yourself what’s going on. I am considering writing critiques of Malone and various churches; these critiques will include discussions of “problem areas” (aka heresies). I’m sure there are some in the EFCI who will view these critiques as divisive – but in these End Times I believe we need to wake up, and wake up fast. Evangelical denominations including the EFCI are literally being torn apart by Spiritual Formation and Emerging/Emergent teachings (among other heresies).
I know a number of you at “problem churches” (churches accommodating heresies) in the EFC-ER have already spoken up and/or left for biblically sound churches. I believe the Lord is pleased with your actions. For those of you who currently need help battling the invasion of heresies in Malone University or EFC-ER churches, please contact us. (You can reach us via the Comment box at the bottom of this blog; comments will be kept private unless you wish them to be published). We’re here to help. And together – with God’s help – I believe we can make a difference for eternity.
Just a word about exposing and confronting false teachers. In the past, if I were upset with a pastor’s doctrinal errors, I would simply leave the church and attend elsewhere. After all, I figured, the pastor was still a “man of God” and should not be “attacked”, right? Since then I have changed my position on this. If a pastor is teaching serious error, his other followers need to be made aware of this. (The trick is how to do this in a “loving” way.) If a pastor or church leader does not expose the false teachings of another pastor or church leader, he himself becomes a false teacher. Click here for a blog explaining my position in more detail.
Now on to the EFC-ER directory (click here to access the original listing, under EFC-ER’s “Directory” menu item). To show a church’s size, I’ve added the average Sunday morning attendance between January 1, 2009-December 31, 2009 (source: 2010 Yearbook – EFC-ER).
Church size is important. It seems almost a rule of thumb that large evangelical churches (say 500+ attenders) become spiritual “conduits” for bringing in heretical teachings. For example, currently I am closely following a number of large EFC-ER churches in addition to Malone University. These large churches are doing most if not all of the following:
– Using the church growth principles found in Dan Kimball’s Emerging/ Emergent book The Emerging Church
– Pushing “new ways of doing church”
– Promoting “missional” outreach (the “social gospel” repackaged)
– Using Eugene Peterson’s heretical The Message paraphrase in sermons and bulletins
– Downplaying or eliminating senior programs and traditional services in favor of blended services and contemporary services
– Replacing pianos and organs with full bands (complete with full drum sets behind glass panes)
– Providing coffee bars and sofas in their lobbies
– Building new “campuses” that resemble schools not churches, with movable chairs in their gymnasium-like “sanctuaries”
– And so on…
Notice a common theme? While making church more appealing to “seekers”/ newcomers, all these changes have reduced our reverence for the Lord, our “holiness unto the Lord.”
Also, all these postmodern practices are encouraged by heretical Emerging/ Emergents. And there are many more red flags to watch for. Click here to see many more traits of an Emerging church – how many of these traits are present in your EFC-ER church?
On a more personal note: in discussing the EFC-ER, I have mixed feelings. I feel very close to many individuals in many churches – I feel rather guilty for seemingly “attacking” the EFC-ER. On the other hand, I believe the EFC-ER’s “theological situation” needs to be watched very closely. We need more “watchmen on the wall” to stand up against incoming heresies. Satan knows his time is short before Christ’s return – Satan and his minions are doing everything they can to destroy the Body of Christ.
EFC-ER DIRECTORY of individuals, Malone University and churches
I’m providing this info here – including website links Facebook links – not to attack individuals, but for readers to question them directly regarding their doctrinal positions, and the doctrinal positions of the EFC-ER and EFCI. Some individuals are biblically sound, while others are questionable. I will not single out heretical individuals at this point – readers can correspond, ask, discuss, and conclude for themselves which individuals are spreading the heresies I listed at the beginning of this blog.
Be discerning and be persistent in your questions. Some individuals (particularly the elderly) may sincerely be unaware of Emerging/Emergent heresies invading the EFCI (for example Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, etc. teaching at George Fox University and Seminary). Other individuals may be aware of at least some of the heresies invading the denomination; they may be very helpful and give you the straight scoop on the heresies they’re aware of. On the other hand, those who support these heresies may deny their approval/involvement, skirt the subject, or say things like “Dave Mosher and those old fundamentalist Gurneyite Friends are being divisive – they don’t really know what they’re talking about.”
Yes, we are being divisive! We are concerned about all the heresies I mentioned near the beginning of this blog, that are invading the EFC-ER and the EFCI. And we care more about the true Body of Christ and the eternal salvation of souls, than about an ecumenical quasi-unity with nonevangelical (nonchristian) Quaker denominations and groups (the Convergent Friends movement).
Now on to my EFC-ER directory:
EFC-ER ADMINISTRATION (as of 2012)
EFC-ER World Outreach Center (click here for the EFC-ER website)
Dr. John P. Williams Jr. (EFC-ER General Superintendent, head of EFCI)
– EFC-ER bio
Ken Albright (EFC-ER Southern Area Superintendent) –EFC-ER bio
Quint Bryan (Youth Leadership Resources for EFC-ER, pastor of Sebring Evangelical FC) – Facebook status page
Board of Trustees
(I am trying to list only individuals closely associated with the Evangelical Friends as of November 2012; many trustees are people in the community who have no real input regarding the religious aspects of Malone)
EFC-ER CHURCHES AND PASTORS
I am mainly including links to pastors and youth leaders, as I find them. Note 01/4/15: Numbers in parentheses are number of attenders as of 2012. Also note: many pastors and youth leaders have relocated since 2012. For the most recent directory info go to http://www.efcer.org
(listed in 2010 EFC-ER Yearbook only, not on EFC-ER website): Baltimore Hispanic (125) Kingston Hispanic (140)
Philadelphia Hispanic (120)
Philadelphia West Hispanic (90)
(listed in 2010 EFC-ER Yearbook only, not on EFC-ER website):
Brooklyn Haitian (100)
Miami Haitian (280)
Tabernacle Haitian (55)
Union Haitian (48)
Michigan District
I stumbled across this fascinating article by Quaker universalist Chuck Fager. In spite of his heretical views, Fager has been very helpful in confirming what I have said all along: various Gurneyite Quakers (aka Evangelical Friends) were on opposite sides of Quaker ecumenism.
Specifically, Edward Mott (along with J. Walter Malone) strongly opposed Quaker ecumenism. Dr. Everett L. Cattell (as well as Walter R. Williams and Byron L. Osborne) favored Quaker ecumenism. I knew Dr. Cattell and his two cohorts personally; I deeply respected and admired all three men in the past. But upon learning of their ecumenical stance, I feel deeply betrayed. I stand squarely in Edward Mott’s corner, opposing Quaker ecumenism.
Chuck Fager’s article shows remarkable insight by a man who strongly rejects the born again message of salvation (“Christ as Lord and Saviour”, not just “Christ as Teacher and Lord”). I find it equally remarkable today that many Evangelical Friends cannot discern the dangers of ecumenism in general, and Quaker ecumenism specifically.
Click here for the original text of Fager’s article. I am emphasizing certain points by bolding, and inserting comments in [brackets].
QUAKERS OF THE YEAR: EVERETT CATTELL AND EDWARD MOTT (Chuck Fager, A Friendly Letter, January 1985)
Forty months ago, in Issue #6 of this letter, I wrote optimistically that thespirit of divisiveness [this shows Fager’s bias – it is not “divisive” to stand up for the biblically sound doctrines of separatist, fundamentalist, born again Gurneyite Quakerism; also, Fager knows full well that where Quaker ecumenism has crept in, doctrinal compromise has always followed] seemed definitely on the wane among Friends, substantially replaced by that of ecumenical dialogue[“dialogue” always means compromise, as David Cloud points out here] and cooperation. Yet in the past year, it has become clear that astruggle between these conflicting attitudes is continuing and may well be intensifying, andthat its outcome is by no means clear.
Two men in particular, Edward Mott and Everett Cattell, seem to me to epitomizethese contrasting attitudes. While both are deceased, their statements and attitudes stillsum up best the forces at work among us. Indeed, repeatedly in 1984 it almost seemed as if Iwere witnessing a clash between these two eminences, which has led me to nominate them asQuakers of the Year. Both were evangelicals, Mott from Oregon(now Northwest) YM [actually Mott served in New York Yearly Meeting (Gurneyite), then in Ohio YM (Gurneyite), then in Oregon YM (Gurneyite)], Cattellfrom Ohio YM, now the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region. Mott was prominent in the1920s through the 1940s, as clerk of Oregon YM and a well-known preacher; Cattell spent mostof these years as a missionary in India, returning as president of Malone College in Ohio.Both were active in Quaker ecumenical relations, but from almost exactly opposite directions,and to opposite effect. [Interestingly, Mott and Cattell both were connected with Cleveland Bible College, which later became Malone College- now Malone University. Yet Mott and Cattell held opposite views regarding Quaker ecumenism.]
Does Continuing the Conversation spell Death?
Everett Cattell, while a lifelong, committed evangelical, was also a pioneer of recent Quaker ecumenical contacts. Two of his most memorable statements in this regard cameout of the 1970 St. Louis Conference of Friends leaders, the first when he admitted candidly,“I struggle in my heart to define what a Quaker is today. I do not know the answer.” Thesecond remark came later, when as conference chair he gravely recommended, “Let the conversationcontinue.” [I would not say Cattell “gravely” recommended this; on the contrary he seemed thrilled to recommend this over the protests from some other Evangelical Friends at the Conference.]
Cattell’s remarks and attitudes contrast starkly with those of Edward Mott. Ashe [Mott] stated plainly in his memoirs,
“Orthodoxy and heterodoxy cannot coalesce… The attempt to fellowship and work with unbelievers (which is what he considered other varieties of Friends –Ed. [Fager]) spells death. Any conclusion to the contrary is ruinous to all concerned.” [Mott was right – events since 1970 have shown that, as stated above, ecumenical ventures with non-evangelical Quakers has always been followed by doctrinal compromise.]
At an All-Friends Conference in 1928, he [Mott] delivered a speech intended, he said, “To thwart the verypurpose for which the conference was held, the promotion of fellowship among the groups.”(It [Mott’s intent] largely succeeded, too.) As Clerk of Oregon YM he led it out of the Five Years Meeting(later renamed Friends United Meeting), and pushed successfully to cut its ties with the AFSC [American Friends Service Committee].He railed repeatedly against the moves toward yearly meeting reunification then underway in Philadelphia, New England and elsewhere. Mott’s sentiments were sincere and consistent, andnot unusual among fundamentalists of his generation, Quaker and otherwise.
Dealing With a Born-Again Separatist Movement
For his part, Everett Cattell did not minimize his differences with liberalFriends. Yet his was an evangelicalism which, contrary to Mott, was able to conclude at St. Louis that “There are good reasons for continuing dialogue with such folk… ” Again, likeMott, Cattell practiced what he preached, both among Friends and other denominations. [What Fager failed to mention here, is that Dr. Cattell was a New Evangelical. New Evangelicals have no problem “dialoguing” with non-evangelical denominations and establishing ecumenical ties.]
If Cattell’s attitude was in the ascendant only three years ago, what has happenedto put these sentiments in eclipse? Much of the answer, I believe, can be found in a recently-published, widely-read book by a very influential non-Quaker fundamentalist: TheGreat Evangelical Disaster, by the late Francis Schaeffer. It is a clarion call to action byconservative Christians in denominations which are, in Schaeffer’s view, fatally infected withnotions of “the pluralistic church.” Such a body is one in which there is room for more than his brand of theology, based on his view of the Bible as “objective, absolute truth in allthe areas it touches upon,” and the interpretations he draws from it. Most Friends groupswould fall in to this category [of pluralistic churches], even many of the evangelical ones [I’m assuming Fager was referring to “progressive evangelical” churches here, such as those in NWYM. Remember, Fager wrote this in 1985 – and Evangelical Friends heretic Richard Foster, for example, had been active in NWYM since before 1978]. Schaeffer’s manifestois not only widely-read; the outlook it expresses is also being heeded by many, , as a platform for action. [“Some” is the key word here. By 1985, many Evangelical Friends had become “brainwashed” as New Evangelicals, increasingly accepting the concept of pluralism to one degree or another. Many of these “New Evangelical” Friends did not take Schaeffer’s manifesto to heart. Granted, they may have stayed away from denominations belonging to the ecumenical National Council of Churches. Yet they saw little danger in ecumenical ties with heretical non-evangelical Quaker denominations.]
Schaeffer calls on his adherents to “stand clearly for the principle of the purity of the visible church… ” To do this will require “discipline of those who do not take a proper position in regard to the teaching of Scripture.” This discipline is to be imposed at all levels and in all settings of church activity, because “the church belongs to those whoby the grace of God are faithful to the Scriptures.” However, if “a denomination comes to aplace where such discipline cannot operate,” then the orthodox members must prepare “to stepout.” (Quotes from Schaeffer, pp. 55, 74, 82, 85, 87.)
In the light of these passages, both the rationale of many recent events and the echoes of Edward Mott’s broadsides against association with “Hicksite modernistic Friends”of half a century ago are unmistakable. For that matter, Schaeffer also hears echoes of the1920s and 1930s here. He insists that “we must recognize that there is a direct parallel betweenwhat happened in the early decades of this century and what we are facing today…” (p. 88)
Have we really been treated to such rhetoric as this among Friends in 1984? Myanswer is yes, repeatedly: in the pages of Quaker Life; at the FUM Triennial; in the flap overElizabeth Watson and the Friends Ministers Conference (see Issues #35 and #44)[of Chuck Fager’s A Friendly Newsletter]; and in otherincidents. [Unlike Fager, to all these protests against Quaker ecumenism I give a hearty “Amen!”] As these have accumulated, I have attempted to maintain the earlier optimisticattitude about the overall trend of events: I still thought I heard more of Everett Cattellin the air than of Edward Mott and Francis Schaeffer.
Riding the Wave of History Onto the Rocks of Division
But no more. In the political arena, supporters of the Schaeffer-Mott perspective [technically, Schaeffer became a New Evangelical in the 1940s or 1950s, while Mott remained a separatist fundamentalist his entire life – click here for an article providing hints of Schaeffer’s drift away from J. Gresham Machen and separatist fundamentalism] won a smashing victory in the 1984 presidential election; they feel confident they areriding the wave of history. And events show that they are determined to press ahead withtheir vision of a purified Christianity, in Quaker circles as elsewhere. Indeed, they canhardly do otherwise: as Schaeffer and Mott repeatedly pointed out, their basic principlesare at stake; this is a matter of conscience for them.
What will be the outcome of such efforts? If the parallels with 50 years agohold true, they will likely yield a melancholy harvest of separations, bitterness and recriminations, even among the orthodox. That is due not least to the fact that their Number Onetargets for “discipline” are not liberals–who are considered already lost–as much as otherevangelicals, particularly those who are prepared to tolerate liberals in an “unpurified,”pluralistic Quakerism. Schaeffer admits and laments this unhappy record, and urges thechurch’s “true owners” to exercise their discipline over heretics in a loving spirit, rareas such a process may have been in church history, Quaker and other.
Everett Cattell On Coping With Such Campaigns
The arena in which this struggle among Friends should become most intense is likely to be, as it long has been, Friends United Meeting. Yet it is clearly not limited toFUM. There are also several yearly meetings, spanning the continent, whose unity seems to meto be at risk from such drives to establish the “purity of the visible church” against theinfiltration of pluralism. Everett Cattell understood the divisive potential of these trends,even in 1970. He called for Friends to consider some form of organizational “realignment”which would “set each other free to be himself,” and make dialogue and cooperation possiblewithin a symbiotic relationship qf mutual respect without compromise. He argued this mightbe the only real alternative to eventual acrimonious ruptures.
Here as elsewhere, Everett Cattell now seems to have spoken wisely to our condition.And the question can fairly be asked: Is it now time for some Quaker bodies, facedwith the likelihood of a rerun of the upheavals of the 1920s and 1930s, to explore the ideaof Cattell’s realignment? And is it time for those Christian Friends who are comfortablewith the diversity among Friends today to consider how best to preserve and defend theirconviction in the face of this intensifying challenge?
A year ago I would have considered this whole topic a minor matter, and the namesof Cattell and Mott would not have occurred to me as possible Quakers of the Year. It doesnot seem minor anymore; and these two, while not perhaps the happiest nominations, now seemunquestionably the appropriate ones.
They say hindsight is 20/20. Since Fager wrote this article in 1985, the pendulum has swung away from the “Schaeffer-Mott” scenario. Richard Foster’s Spiritual Formation teachings have continued to spread like wildfire in both evangelical and non-evangelical Quaker denominations. And the Emerging/Emergent/Emergence teachings have also taken deep root in all Quaker denominations, having become popularized around 1990-1995. The EFCI is in a sad state of affairs as far as separatist fundamentalism is concerned. In fact, today EFCI leadership fully supports Dr. Cattell’s ecumenical steps at the 1970 St. Louis Conference. It appears that, if anything, Quaker denominations – evangelical and non-evangelical – are headed not for a “realignment” (aka an agreed-to split) but for an Emergent “Convergent Friends” movement. God help the Evangelical Friends, if they continue to head down this road of ecumenical Quaker apostasy.
Addendum: It would be interesting to see Chuck Fager’s analysis currently regarding the state of Quaker ecumenism – particularly involvement today by Evangelical Friends.
It is my prayer for the EFC-ER to separate itself from the EFC-NA, returning to the state it was prior to 1965 and the formation of the EFA [Evangelical Friends Alliance], as a separate entity.
Here is my reason for saying the above: prior to 1965, the EFC-ER (formerly called the Ohio Yearly Meeting (Gurneyite) was the only Friends/Quaker Yearly Meeting in the United States that – in my opinion – still held strongly to the biblically sound beliefs of Wesleyan Holiness Friends/Gurneyite Friends. I believe that, if it had remained its own entity, there would have been a chance for Ohio Yearly Meeting to hold on to their unique beliefs and keep them from being lost. Here is the key: to me, this separation would have included keeping out all traces of Spiritual Formation and postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) teachings.
Now, over 45 years later, the EFC-ER shows no signs of separating from the EFCI. Nor does it appear that Spiritual Formation and postmodern teachings will disappear from the EFC-ER. How tragic!
Bottom line – I’m just trying to blog my feelings, some way, somehow, that in my mind the “pure” faith and practices of of Holiness Friends/Gurneyite Friends have died out. Or, that they are very close to dying out, as “the older generation” passes on. And as earnestly and as passionately as I can say this, I truly mourn this passing.
In his memoir, Sixty Years of Gospel Ministry, Edward Mott decades ago stated, “The attempt to fellowship and work with unbelievers [non-evangelical Quaker denominations] spells death. Any conclusion to the contrary is ruinous to all concerned.” Although Mott was referring to non-evangelical Quaker denominations, today there are many Evangelical Friends in yearly meetings/regions other than the EFC-ER whom I believe are, in reality, unbelievers.
As I have stated elsewhere, I am not the only Wesleyan Holiness Friend/Gurneyite Friend that has felt this way. I believe there is a great cloud of witnesses, including many of my deceased Friends pastor relatives and missionary relatives, who would have agreed with me that the Ohio Yearly Meeting in essence “died” when it joined the EFA in 1965, then opened the door to Spiritual Formation and Emerging/Emergent teachings. [Perhaps I should cut people some slack here. It is very possible that Ohio Yearly Meeting still would have become involved in Spiritual Formation and Emerging/Emergent teachings, even if it had not joined the EFA in 1965.]
As I look back on the recent passing of my father, a wonderful Holiness Friends/Gurneyite Friends pastor, I can’t help but think of what we have lost since 1965. Wonderful church services, the King James Version (call me old fashioned), those wonderful old gospel hymns and choruses, testimony time, frequent salvation messages with altar calls, Sunday evening services, Wednesday night prayer meetings – all those wonderful “old fashioned” things. (I thank the Lord there are many churches – albeit outside of Quakerism – that have managed to hang on to all these church practices. These are primarily Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches.)
I have been hoping – perhaps hoping beyond hope – that Evangelical Friends would be able to converse. That Evangelical Friends would be able to follow the Quaker tradition of being a people of truth. That we would be able to openly dialogue and/or debate about these issues. I have had Evangelical Friends contact me in private, stating their disappointment and frustration that they have not been able to present their concerns openly on these very issues. Some have been afraid of offending other Evangelical Friends. Others have been afraid of reprisal or ostracism. When did the EFCI reach this state? Why can’t the EFCI just be open and honest, telling EFC-ER members clearly how Emerging/Emergent the denomination is becoming?
And so I have created this blogsite. If it creates strife, so be it – EFC-ER members need to know what changes are transpiring in the EFCI. (I’m used to strife over theological issues – anyone who has attended seminary will know what I mean, LOL.)
Now for the good news – if any is to been seen in such a mournful situation (or angering situation, depending on which side of the fence you stand concerning my blogsite). Blogging is certainly not the most diplomatic way to get a conversation going, but a conversation has begun nonetheless. So far the conversation has been very encouraging. I’ve received more compliments than complaints from readers. A number of readers have thanked me for my research, and for opening their eyes to what is going on in the EFCI and EFC-ER.
To locate my other blogs on this denomination, simply search on my blogsite for Quakers, Friends, EFCI, EFC-ER, etc.
Click 
Tuesday, January 29, 7-9 p.m. in Silk Auditorium (MH): Terry Thomas, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies at Geneva College, “How to Read the Bible” workshop. Students should attend from 7-9 p.m. 
“Loving and Serving Our Neighbor,” Signpost Series. 
Tuesday, February 19, 10:30 a.m.: Rev. Diana Swoope, Ph.D., Arlington Church of God, “Faith and Civility in Culture,” Signpost Series 
Friday, March 15, 10:05 a.m.: Celia King, Director of Service Learning: Discipline: Writing as Soul Care – writing and reflecting on God’s presence and activity in, around and through me.
Tuesday, April 16, 10:30 a.m.: Musician JJ Heller, 
Author: Lighthouse Trails Editors
Christians United Against Apostasy 
