Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Northwest Yearly Meeting’ Category

(revised 05/29/13)

The Evangelical Friends Church International (EFCI) was once staunchly born again, “separatist fundamentalist” Wesleyan Holiness. Yet today the EFCI treats heretical Emerging/Emergents like Tony Campolo, Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, Brian McLarenLeonard Sweet, Randy Woodley, etc. as their “darlings.” All of these heretics have taught and/or are teaching at George Fox University and/or George Fox Evangelical Seminary.

I came across an excellent 3-part series of articles exposing the blasphemous “theology” held by a number of Emerging/Emerging individuals, including most of the individuals above.  I have reposted this article below.  I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets].

———————————————————————————————–

Click here for the original site of Part One reposted below.

(Part One)
What are the Emergent Church’s ’95 Theses’?

By Dr. Paul M. Elliott

The Emergent Church movement promotes itself as a “new Reformation” with its own “95 theses” in a book by Emergent guru Brian McLaren. Despite their claims of charting the way forward for the church, the architects of this theological Tower of Babel are bent on taking the church back into pre-Reformation darkness.

Part one of a series.

Since the turn of the new millennium, the Emergent Church movement has been grabbing headlines as the darling of the religious media. Its influence has spread like wildfire in mainline liberal, Evangelical, and Roman Catholic seminaries alike.

A New Luther?

In 2004, Emergent Church guru1 Brian McLaren published what was hailed as a landmark book called A Generous Orthodoxy.2 Phyllis Tickle, who according to her website is “a lay eucharistic minister and lector in the Episcopal church,”3 wrote the foreword, in which she said:

Religion is like a spyglass through which we look to determine our course, our place in the order of things, and to sight that toward where we are going. On a clear day, no sailor needs such help, save for passing views of a far shore. But on a stormy sea, with all landmarks hidden in obscuring clouds, the spyglass becomes the instrument of hope, the one thing on board that, held to the eye long enough, will find the break in the clouds and discover once more the currents and shores of safe passage. Ours are stormy seas just now; and I believe as surely as Martin Luther held the spyglass for sixteenth-century Europe, so Brian McLaren holds it here for us in the twenty-first..

…The emerging church has the potential of being to North American Christianity what Reformation Protestantism was to European Christianity. And I am sure that the generous orthodoxy defined in the following pages is our 95 theses. Both are strong statements, strongly stated and, believe me, not lightly taken in so public a forum as this. All I can add to them in defense is the far simpler statement: Here I stand.

So, on that basis, the one thing that remains is to invite you to join thousands and thousands of others who have already read these words and subsequently assumed them as the theses of a new kind of Christianity and the foundational principles for a new Beloved Community.4

A “Beloved Community”?

The “Beloved Community” of which Tickle speaks is a term coined by pseudo-Christian philosopher Josiah Royce (1855-1916). In his 1913 book, The Problem of Christianity, Royce said that the doctrine of the incarnation is not about the coming of God in the person of Jesus Christ, but the incarnation of God in the visible church. He added that “the visible church, rather than the person of the founder [Jesus Christ], ought to be viewed as the central idea of Christianity.” To Royce, the “problem of Christianity” was Jesus Christ.

Royce also said that the visible church forms a “Universal Community of Interpretation” that redefines “Christianity” to suit the conditions of the times. Tellingly, Royce’s book was recently republished by the Catholic University of America, an institution of the greatest chameleon-church on earth.5

Confused and Proud of It

McLaren is clearly comfortable in the company of people like Tickle and Royce. The full title of McLaren’s “95 theses of the Emergent Church” is quite a mouthful:

A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional – Evangelical – Post-Protestant – Liberal/Conservative – Mystical/Poetic – Biblical – Charismatic/Contemplative – Fundamentalist/Calvinist – Anabaptist/Anglican – Methodist – Catholic – Green – Incarnational – Depressed-Yet-Hopeful – Emergent – Unfinished Christian

Rather than being ashamed of his confused state of mind, McLaren wears this complex and contradictory title proudly, and uses each of the descriptions in the lengthy title of his book as the title of a chapter within it. McLaren presents himself as the guru of a “new Reformation” built not on orthodoxy, but on what another Emergent spokesman has called “orthoparadoxy”.

A followup 2007 book, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, authored by McLaren and twenty-six other Emergent thought leaders, is an equally confused and confusing theological Tower of Babel. Its architects and builders are bent on not simply tearing down the Reformation, but on taking the church back into pre-Reformation darkness. In the process (lest a Scripture-driven Christian have any doubts) McLaren and his fellow Emergents show us clearly that they are not Christians at all.

How Do Emergents Measure Up?

How does this “new Reformation” compare to that of the 16th century, which freed Biblical Christianity from the shroud of Romanism? What of the five solas that were the rallying cries of that Reformation –

  • Sola Scriptura: Our Authority is Scripture Alone
  • Sola Gratia: Salvation is by Grace Alone
  • Solus Christus: Salvation is Through Christ Alone
  • Sola Fide: Justification is by Faith Alone
  • Soli Deo Gloria: The Glory Belongs to God Alone

Emergents say that adherence to such fundamentals is “a constant reminder that religion can be a source of chaos and confusion.”6 But who is it that is really living in the realm of chaos and confusion – those whom the Emergents deride as “fundamentalists”, or Emergents who have exalted themselves against the knowledge of God? In our next article, we shall begin comparing the theological currents flowing through the Emergent Church with the Reformation’s great and fundamental statements of the Biblical faith “once for all delivered to the saints.”

References:

1. We use the term “guru” advisedly; McLaren and other Emergent Church leaders position themselves as spiritual advisers imparting transcendental, higher knowledge – higher than the Word of God.

2. Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional-Evangelical-Post-Protestant-Liberal/Conservative-Mystical/Poetic-Biblical-Charismatic/Contemplative-Fundamentalist/Calvinist-Anabaptist/Anglican-Methodist-Catholic-Green-Incarnational-Depressed-Yet-Hopeful-Emergent-Unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004).

3. Her website, phyllistickle.org, notes that she was the “founding editor of the Religion Department of Publishers Weekly, the international journal of the book industry, is frequently quoted in print sources like USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times as well as in electronic media like PBS, NPR, The Hallmark Channel, and innumerable blogs and web sites. Tickle is an authority on religion in America and a much sought after lecturer on the subject….Tickle is a founding member of The Canterbury Roundtable, and serves now, as she has in the past, on a number of advisory and corporate boards.”

4. A Generous Orthodoxy, pages 11-12.

5. Josiah Royce, The Problem of Christianity, 1913, republished in 2001 by Catholic University of America Press, pages 43 and 340.

6. Barry Taylor, “Converting Christianity” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), page 165.

Click here for the original site of Part Two reposted below.

(Part Two)
What does the Emergent Church movement believe about Sola Scriptura?

By Dr. Paul M. Elliott

Emergent Church leaders will tell you they are uncertain of most things. In fact, they wear ambiguity like a badge of honor. But of one thing they are certain: The Bible is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, uniquely authoritative Word of God.

This is part two of a series. Read part one.

As we continue our series, “Was the Reformation a Mistake?” we take up this question: How does the Emergent Church movement’s so-called “new Reformation” compare to the one that freed Biblical Christianity from the shroud of Romanism in the 16th century? What of the five solas that were rallying cries of that Reformation? –

  • Sola Scriptura: Our Authority is Scripture Alone
  • Sola Gratia: Salvation is by Grace Alone
  • Solus Christus: Salvation is Through Christ Alone
  • Sola Fide: Justification is By Faith Alone
  • Soli Deo Gloria: The Glory Belongs to God Alone

We shall let Emergent spokesmen answer for themselves.

Inerrancy is “Foreign to the Bible’s Vocabulary”

What do Emergent Church leaders say is the nature of the Bible? Emergent guru Brian McLaren says that “the Bible is “an inspired gift from God – a unique collection of literary artifacts”.1 Emergent leader Doug Pagitt agrees with McLaren, hinting at what they mean by “inspired”. The “history of the Christian faith,” Pagitt says, is that “the Scriptures come from and inform the church.”2 In other words, they do not come from God in the sense of verbal, plenary, authoritative inspiration spoken of in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

McLaren is even more explicit. He says that “the purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works.”3 The italics are his. McLaren and other Emergents repeat this statement often in their writings, almost as a mantra. But there is never a word about Scripture’s telling mankind how to become one of God’s people, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Throughout their writings, Emergents’ assumption seems to be that everybody is already one of “God’s people.” You just have to get busy doing “good works.”

But then, after stating that “the purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works” McLaren follows immediately with this:

Shouldn’t a simple statement like this be far more important than statements with words foreign to the Bible’s vocabulary about itself (inerrant, authoritative, literal, revelatory, objective, absolute, propositional, etc.)?4

Just how “foreign” does McLaren think these words are to Scripture? He does not hesitate to tell us, in a book with one of the most ironic titles ever: Adventures in Missing the Point, co-authored by McLaren and so-called “evangelical left” spokesman Tony Campolo. McLaren and Campolo’s title reflects their fatuous belief that the Bible-believing Christian church has “missed the point” on just about everything (and, of course, Emergents have “gotten the point”). “The Bible is an inspired gift from God – a unique collection of literary artifacts,”5 McLaren says. But it is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, propositional, revelatory, absolute, objective, Word of God. What’s more, McLaren asserts, “not even one-hundredth of one percent of the Bible” presents “objective information about God.”6

Those are some pretty absolute statements from a man who claims that little, if anything, is certain. But McLaren is just getting warmed up. The Christian Church, says McLaren, has misrepresented the Bible as something containing “universal laws” – “We claimed that the Bible was easy to understand” – “We presented the Bible as a repository of sacred propositions.” All of that was wrong, he says. And, echoing the true position of the Roman Catholic church, McLaren laments that “we mass produced the Bible” and gave Christians the impression that they could interpret it for themselves.7

Not Orthodoxy, But Orthoparadoxy

According to Emergents, how are we to approach this “inspired” but humanly-originated, non-inerrant, non-infallible, non-authoritative Bible? Emergent spokesman Dwight J. Friesen, a professor of practical theology at Mars Hill Graduate School (Seattle) and a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches, says that Christ was not interested in orthodoxy but in “a full and flourishing human life.”8 What must develop, says Friesen, is not orthodoxy – correct teaching – but a piece of Emergent doubletalk called orthoparadoxy, “correct paradox.” Friesen writes:

Orthoparaxody represents a conversational theological method that seeks to graciously embrace difference while bringing the fullness of a differentiated social-self to the other. Through the methodology of orthoparadoxy, competing ideas, practices, and hermeneutics are seen as an invitation to conversational engagement rather than as something to refute, reform, or revise.”9

“Current theological methods that often stress agreement/disagreement, win/loss, good/bad, orthodox/heresy, and the like set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to their way of believing.”10

“Orthoparadox theology is less concerned with creating “once for all” doctrinal statements or dogmatic claims and is more interested in holding competing truth claims in right tension..Orthoparadox theology requires a dynamic understanding of the Holy Spirit.”11

“[S]ee conversation starters where you once saw theological disagreement.”12

This is how we must approach the Bible, according to Brian McLaren:

“Drop any affair you may have with Certainty, Proof, Argument.The ultimate Bible study or sermon in recent decades yielded clarity. That clarity, unfortunately, was often boring – and probably not that accurate, either, since reality is seldom clear, but usually fizzy and mysterious.”13

“Find things to do with the Bible other than read and study it” [and McLaren suggests several that are forms of medieval, mystical meditation commended by the Roman Catholic church].14

“In the recent past we generally began our apologetic by arguing for the Bible’s authority, then used the Bible to prove our other points. In the future we’ll present the Bible less like evidence in a court case and more like works of art in an art gallery.”15

“In the recent past we talked a lot about absolute truth, attempting to prove abstract propositions about God (for instance, proving the sovereignty of God).” [That, McLaren asserts, is passé in the postmodern world.]16

Protestants Have the Bible All Wrong

According to McLaren, Protestants have gotten it all wrong about the Bible, using propositional truth, right and wrong, to “lay low” their Catholic “brethren” –

“Protestants have paid more attention to the Bible than any other group, but sadly, much of their Bible study has been undertaken to fuel their efforts to prove themselves right and others wrong (and therefore worthy of protest). the Bible does not yield its best resources to people who approach it seeking ammunition with which to lay their [Catholic] brethren low. How many Protestants can’t pick up their Bibles without hearing arguments play in their heads on every page, echoes of the polemical preachers they have heard since childhood? How much Bible study is, therefore, an adventure in missing the point?”17

Warmed-Over Neo-Orthodoxy

Students of church history will recognize much of Emergent Church thinking on the Bible as the warmed-over 20th-century neo-orthodoxy that destroyed most mainline Protestant churches as well as many conservative ones. Emergents are following in the insolent footsteps of Karl Barth, Rudolph Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and others, who in turn were influenced by early 19th-century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, whose great gift to theology was to assert that there is no such thing as objective truth.

One of the main reasons the Emergent Church movement is finding acceptance among Evangelicals is that few Evangelicals are students of church history. As such, they are condemned to repeat the deadly mistakes of the past by embracing a theology of nonsense that leads souls to Hell.

Acceptance in Reputedly Conservative Seminaries

The Emergent Church movement is spreading a new wave of spiritual poison through Christian academia. The fact that Emergents are welcomed on the faculties and in the classrooms of openly liberal seminaries is no surprise. But the response to the Emergent movement in the majority of reputedly more conservative Evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries is also friendly. It ranges from favorable classroom exposure to outright advocacy. Seminaries that are falling into the Emergent web include Dallas Theological Seminary, Houghton College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Biblical Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Erskine College and Seminary, Biola University, Taylor Seminary, and most Southern Baptist schools.

It only takes a a few years of exposure to false teaching for young minds to become the generation that will carry the poison out of the seminaries and colleges, into the pulpits, and into the pews.

Next: Emergents on Salvation

References:

1. Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), page 75.

2. Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, editors, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope: Key Leaders Offer an Inside Look (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), page 171.

3. Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional-Evangelical-Post-Protestant-Liberal/Conservative-Mystical/Poetic-Biblical-Charismatic/Contemplative-Fundamentalist/Calvinist-Anabaptist/Anglican-Methodist-Catholic-Green-Incarnational-Depressed-Yet-Hopeful-Emergent-Unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), page 183.

4. A Generous Orthodoxy, page 183.

5. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 75.

6. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 262.

7. Adventures in Missing the Point, pages 76-77.

8. Dwight J. Friesen, “Orthoparadoxy: Emerging Hope for Embracing Difference” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, page 204.

9. Friesen, page 207.

10. Friesen, page 208.

11. Friesen, page 209.

12. Friesen, page 212.

13. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 84.

14. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 85.

15. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 101.

16. Adventures in Missing the Point, page 102.

17. A Generous Orthodoxy, page 138

————————————————————————————————

Click here for the original site of Part Three reposted below.

(Part  Three)
What does the Emergent Church movement believe about the Reformation solas of salvation?

By Dr. Paul M. Elliott

As we continue our series, we examine the movement’s “new Reformation” teachings versus the salvation solas of the 16th century Protestant Reformation:

  • Sola Gratia: Salvation is by grace alone
  • Solus Christus: Salvation is through Christ alone
  • Sola Fide: Justification is by faith alone
Once again, we shall let Emergent spokesmen answer for themselves.
This is part three of the series. Read part two.

An Insult to Their Intelligence

The writings of Emergent Church spokesmen contain many recurring themes, but one is especially prominent: The Biblical doctrine of personal salvation from sin and wrath by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, is an insult to their intelligence.

Emergent Church spokeswoman Nanette Sawyer is an ordained Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) minister with degrees from both Harvard and McCormick divinity schools. Her story is typical:

My explicit rejection of Christianity happened when our family minister implicitly rejected me. When I was a preteen, he visited our house, spoke with my parents, then pulled me aside, the eldest, for a chat of our own. He asked me if I was a Christian. This is a very interesting question to ask a child who has been raised in a Christian household. Being asked such a question I was, in essence, being told that I might not be a Christian. I responded that I didn’t know. The conversation went downhill from there and ended with my saying that I guessed I wasn’t a Christian. He told me that I had to believe [on Jesus Christ as Savior] to be a Christian and I didn’t believe it.

After that, I spent a good fifteen years defining myself as not Christian. Some of the things that I had been taught in Christian contexts, both explicitly and implicitly, were unacceptable to me. I was taught, for example, that there are good people and bad people, Christian people and non-Christian people, saved people and damned people, and we know who they are.

…I was taught that I was inherently bad, and that I would be judged for that. I was told that the only way out of the judgment was to admit how bad I was.

Thinking back on that pivotal interaction with my childhood minister, I believe the whole conversation missed the mark in a big way. He was defining Christian identity as assent to a list of certain beliefs, and he was defining Christian community as those people who concur with those beliefs.In asking me if I was a Christian, and accepting [my] answer, he essentially told me that I wasn’t part of the community. I wasn’t in; I was out.1

Insulted by this, Sawyer says that she later became a “Christian” through Hindu meditation and the medieval, mystical Roman Catholic practice of “centering prayer” – all while a student at Harvard, taking a master’s degree in comparative world religions. She then tells of her experience while attending the services of a liberal Presbyterian church in Boston:

The minister there invited me into the community by serving me communion without asking if I was a Christian. He didn’t ask, “Are you one of us?” He didn’t say, “Do you believe?” He simply said, “Nanette, the body of Christ, given for you.”2

On this basis, Sawyer says, she became a “Christian” and was subsequently ordained as a minister in the apostate PCUSA.

With all this background, you may understand the reason my statement of faith, my personal credo, written in seminary and required for ordination in the Presbyterian Church [USA], included the line: “I believe that all people are children of God, created and loved by God, and that God’s compassionate grace is available to us at all times.”

Imagine my surprise when a particular pastor challenged me on this point. He suggested that “children of God” is a biblical phrase, and that I was using it unbiblically. He believed that not all people are children of God, only Christians.3

Imagine a pastor having the nerve to say that to be a “child of God” is a doctrinal term with a specific Biblical meaning! How thoroughly un-postmodern can you get? Sawyer recounts her shocked reaction to this intellectual baboon: “I focused on not letting my jaw hit the floor.” She continues:

So what about the Bible on this question of the children of God? Is it unbiblical to call all people the children of God? It is true that there are many places in the New Testament that talk about the children of God as the followers of Jesus. But it is not true that this must lead us to the kind of arrogance that asserts that non-Christians are not children of God..

Even if we could answer the question of who is and isn’t a child of God, it wouldn’t help us be better followers of Jesus; it would only help divide people into more categories.4

Sawyer goes on to misread three New Testament passages to support her contention that even the Bible itself is “undermining such an exclusionary claim.”5

Rather than submitting to the Gospel teaching that only those who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior have the authority to be called the children of God (John 1:12), Nanette Sawyer, like most of her fellow Emergents, takes refuge in the theology of paradox. Those who believe the Bible’s categorical, propositional truth claims are arrogant and superficial, she says. They have not ascended to the lofty realms of higher knowledge that can only be attained by embracing paradox:

There is a beauty in paradox when it comes to talking about things of ultimate concern. Paradox works against our tendency to stay superficial in our faith, or to rest on easy answers or categorical thinking. It breaks apart our categories by showing the inadequacy of them and by pointing to a reality larger than us, the reality of gloria, of light, of beyond-the-beyond. I like to call it paradoxology – the glory of paradox, paradox-doxology – which takes us somewhere we wouldn’t be capable of going if we thought we had everything all wrapped up, if we thought we had attained full comprehension. The commitment to embracing the paradox and resisting the impulse to categorize people (ourselves included) is one of the ways we follow Jesus into that larger mysterious reality of light and love.

The Gnostics, who sought to destroy the Biblical faith of the early church by leading it to a “higher” mystical knowledge beyond Scripture, would be proud of Nanette Sawyer. So would the church of Rome, whether 16th- or 21st-century.

Like Nanette Sawyer, Brian McLaren also takes umbrage at the Bible’s doctrine of salvation:

.I used to believe that Jesus’ primary focus was on saving me as an individual.For that reason I often spoke of Jesus as my “personal Savior” and urged others to believe in Jesus in the same way.6

Through the years.I became less and less comfortable with being restricted to the “personal Savior” gospel.7

McLaren says that his rejection of the Biblical Gospel is rooted in his rejection of the Bible’s teaching of eternal punishment in Hell for those who do not receive Christ as Savior. He says that “radical rethinking” of the doctrine of Hell is needed.8 Since McLaren can’t stand Jesus’ own words on the subject (He spoke of Hell far more than of Heaven), he dares to put these words in Christ’s mouth:

“I am here to save you.not by telling you to.focus on salvation from Hell after this life (as some people are going to do in My name) – but by giving you permission to start your participation in God’s mission right now, right where you are, even as oppressed people. The opportunity to start living in this new and better way is available to you right now: The kingdom of God is at hand!”9

The audacity of Emergents in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) seemingly knows no bounds.

Given these and other statements by Emergent Church leaders, it seems almost ludicrous to compare their mindset with the salvation solas of the Reformation, but we shall do so, because it further reveals the depths of their darkness.

Grace Alone?

The term “grace” does not appear often in Emergent writings, and the reason is simple: Since everyone is a “child of God,” no one needs the kind of grace of which the Bible speaks. When Emergents do speak of “grace” at all, it is not as the basis of salvation from sin through Christ. In the Emergent lexicon, grace means inclusiveness. And that is the basis on which, they claim, God is saving society and the environment through the moral example of Christ.

Emergent spokesman Samir Selmanovic, who grew up as a Muslim, became a Seventh Day Adventist pastor, and now serves on the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches, writes a chapter in The Emergent Manifesto of Hope called “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness.” His theme is that everyone, “Christian” and non-Christian, is going to be “saved” by the grace of inclusiveness:

For the last two thousand years, Christianity has granted itself a special status among religions. An emerging generation of Christians is simply saying, “No more special treatment. In the Scripture God has established a criteria [sic] of truth, and it has to do with the fruits of a gracious life” (see Matt. 7:15-23; John 15:5-8; 17:6-26). This is unnerving for many of us who have based our identity on a notion of possessing the truth in an abstract form. But God’s table is welcoming to all who seek, and if any religion is to win, may it be the one that produces people who are the most loving, the most humble, the most Christlike. Whatever the meaning of “salvation” and “judgment,” we Christians are going to be saved by grace, like everyone else, and judged by our works, like everyone else.”10

By using such twisted definitions of “grace” Brian McLaren is able to assert that:

The average Roman Catholic today (at least, among those I meet) is increasingly clear about God’s grace being a free gift, not something that can be earned or merited. It’s hard to keep protesting against [such] people.11

On the basis of such an inclusive “grace”, McLaren says that we need to redefine – actually deconstruct – what it means to be a Protestant, and come together in an all-embracing Christendom:

“What if we were to redefine protest as ‘pro-testifying,’ pro meaning ‘for’ and testify meaning ‘telling our story’? . . . Both Catholics and Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox too, can come together as pro-testifiers or post-Protestants now, because together we are reaching a point where we acknowledge.we have a lot to learn from the very people we’ve been protesting.[and] can come together searching for what we are for.”12

Christ Alone?

McLaren devotes several chapters in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, to the subject of Jesus Christ. They are in a section deceptively titled “Why I am a Christian” in which McLaren brazenly demonstrates that he is no Christian at all.

Chapter one is titled “Seven Jesuses I Have Known”13 and chapter two is titled “Jesus and God.”14 You may have already guessed from the title of the second chapter that McLaren teaches a distinction between Jesus and God. The undiscerning reader might miss this, at least in the beginning. McLaren uses a lot of Bible words and even Bible quotations to describe Christ. Jesus is the “Son of God” – “the image of God” – “the radiance of God’s glory” – “the image of the invisible God.” But McLaren’s definitions of these terms are not the Bible’s.

McLaren refuses ever to say that Jesus is God. He spends several pages explaining why he stops short of this: “God is not a male” (italics his).15 He goes on to say:

The masculine biblical imagery of “Father” and “Son” also contributes to the patriarchialism or chauvinism that has too often characterized Christianity.

There is so much more that could be said, but for now, let’s conclude: “Son of God” is not intended to reduce or masculinize God.16

When McLaren comes to his fourth chapter, “Jesus: Savior of What?”, he says that Christians have “demoted” Jesus by claiming that He died on the cross to save individuals’ souls from eternal damnation:

I believe we’ve also misconstrued, reduced, twisted, and torqued the whole meaning of what words like savior, save, and salvation are supposed to mean for generously orthodox Christians.17

.it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you “know” about what it means to call Jesus “Savior” and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention.

Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means “rescue” or “heal.” It emphatically does not automatically mean “save from hell” or “give eternal life after death” as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon.18

Elsewhere in the same chapter, McLaren denies the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for sinners, and places Jesus in the category of a moral example pointing the way in man’s quest to improve society and the environment.

To say that Jesus is Savior is to say that in Jesus, God is intervening as Savior in all of these ways, judging (naming as evil), forgiving (breaking the vicious cycle of cause and effect, making reconciliation possible), and teaching (showing how to set chain reactions of good in motion). Jesus comes then not to condemn (to bring the consequences we deserve) but to save by shining the light on our evil, by naming our evil as evil so we can repent and escape the chain of bad actions and bad consequences through forgiveness, and so we can learn from Jesus the master-teacher to live more wisely in the future.19

“This,” McLaren concludes, “is a window into the meaning of the cross.”

Elsewhere in A Generous Orthodoxy McLaren makes it clear that when he uses Biblical terms such as “reconciliation” – “evil” – “repent” – and “forgiveness” he has nothing like the Bible’s definitions in mind.

By “reconciliation” he means the reconciliation of oppressed social classes and their oppressors, and the reconciliation of those who differ theologically under the umbrella of inclusivism – not the reconciliation of men to God through the blood of Christ.

“Our evil” is “the oppression of the poor and disadvantaged” – not the sin nature and eternal death sentence passed on to the entire race through the Fall of Adam.

The “consequences we deserve” are societal and environmental consequences here on earth – not eternity in Hell.

“Repent” means making society and the physical world a better place – not turning from sin to faith in Christ, or ongoing repentance through the operation of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

“Forgiveness” means forgiving each other of our injustices – not being forgiven by God, the One offended in all offenses, based on propitiation of His wrath by the blood of Christ.

These things, not what the Bible actually teaches, are what McLaren and his fellow Emergents claim the Bible means by “words like savior, save, and salvation.”

So much for solus Christus, salvation from eternal damnation through God the Son alone.

Faith Alone?

At this point it may seem even more absurd to ask about Emergents’ attitude toward sola fide. But we press on, if only to demonstrate that Emergents’ notions of “Biblical faith” are at least as astonishingly un-Biblical as their notions of “grace” and “salvation”.

We shall cite just one example. Emergent leader Randy Woodley, one of the contributors to An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, is a Cherokee Indian who works for an organization called First Nations Ministries. As a discerning Christian reads Woodley’s chapter titled “Restoring Honor in the Land” it becomes obvious that his theology is rooted in the animism of the American Indian.

Woodley quotes liberal theologian Walter Brueggemann as saying that “land is central, if not the central theme of Biblical faith” (italics his). The Scripture-driven Christian may ask, “Really? And how is such a ‘Biblical faith’ to be worked out?” Woodley tells us: Through the “salvation” of Indian lands “stolen” by white Europeans – that is, the return of the entire North American continent to its “rightful owners” –

As a Native American, I view the land given to my people through covenant with the Creator as sacred. We have developed ceremonies, stories, and traditions [all steeped in pagan animism, we must note] that aid us in living a sacred life on the land. Living this life is one that is reminiscent of the original covenant with human beings in the garden. It can be characterized as a “shalom sense of place.” Because our land was stolen, the nonindigene must find it difficult to feel the same congruity with the land. Yet the apparent sense of loss and incongruity felt by nonindigenes cannot be avoided until the issue of stolen land and missing relationship with America’s host people is worked through.

The solutions will not come easily. There will be more pain and loss to be sure, and it will likely span several generations. Yet God’s shalom kingdom demands that the issue of land be addressed. The issue must be addressed if Native Americans are ever to come back from marginality and into wholeness. It must be addressed if nonindigenous peoples ever hope to recover the missing sense of place that God has always intended for all human beings to experience to gain integrity, congruence, and wholeness in their lives. Seeking out and establishing relationships between the emerging church and indigenous people is paramount to finding shalom and providing a secure future for the next seven generations.

So much for the Biblical faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ to save individuals from sin and eternal condemnation, apart from works. Authentic Christian faith focuses not on fixing up this dying world, but looks forward to “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). Authentic Christians seeks to win souls for that kingdom, not to rearrange the kingdoms of man on earth.

An Incredible Array of Heresies

The Emergent Church movement’s “new Reformation” embodies an incredible array of past heresies. They begin with the denial of the inspiration, infallibility, and sole authority of the Scriptures. From there it is a short journey to the embrace of mystery – not in the Biblical sense of truth once hidden and subsequently revealed, but of inscrutable ambiguities open only to higher intellects; and the embrace of paradox – the god of “yes-and-no” instead of the God of “Yes, and Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:19-20). From there it is but a small step to deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. And from there the headlong plunge into the abyss accelerates with the teaching of the false doctrine of a moral-example “atonement” by Christ on the cross, the social gospel of the mainline liberals, salvation (whatever that may mean) by moral effort, ecumenical inclusivism and syncretism, the lie of universalism, and even pagan animism.

How Can Evangelicals Speak of “Positives”?

How is it, then, that so many Evangelicals are embracing the Emergent Church movement, or expressing their appreciation for its “positives” while perhaps also weakly expressing their “concerns”? There are no positives about a movement that stands against everything the Bible stands for. And “concern” is a woefully insufficient response from people who are supposed to be engaged in spiritual warfare against the forces of darkness that are behind evils like the Emergent Church movement (Ephesians 6:10-12).

There is a reason why so many Evangelicals today are accommodating and even embracing the Emergent Church movement, and we shall discuss it in our next article. That reason is intellectual pride – glorying in man rather than seeking the glory of God.

References:

1. Nanette Sawyer, “What Would Huckleberry Do?” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope: Key Leaders Offer an Inside Look, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, editors (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), page 43-44.

2. Sawyer, 44.

3. Sawyer, 45.

4. Sawyer, 46-47.

5. Sawyer, 47.

6. Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional-Evangelical-Post-Protestant-Liberal/Conservative-Mystical/Poetic-Biblical-Charismatic/Contemplative-Fundamentalist/Calvinist-Anabaptist/Anglican-Methodist-Catholic-Green-Incarnational-Depressed-Yet-Hopeful-Emergent-Unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), page 107.

7. McLaren, 109.

8. McLaren, 108-109.

9. Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), 25.

10. Samir Selmanivoc, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope: Key Leaders Offer an Inside Look, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, editors (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), 195.

11. A Generous Orthodoxy, 139.

12 A Generous Orthodoxy, 140.

13 A Generous Orthodoxy, 49-76.

14 A Generous Orthodoxy, 77-86.

15 A Generous Orthodoxy, 82.

16 A Generous Orthodoxy, 83-84.

17 A Generous Orthodoxy, 99.

18 A Generous Orthodoxy, 101.

19 A Generous Orthodoxy, 104-105.

Copyright 1998-2013

TeachingtheWord Ministries    www.teachingtheword.org

All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in its entirety only,
for non-commercial purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included.

We also suggest that you include a direct hyperlink to this article
for the convenience of your readers.

Read Full Post »

(revised 11/16/13)

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].

Home / Office of Spiritual Formation / Chapel Information / Chapel Schedule

Chapel Schedule

alkfdj 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 here for 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 Heckertsue nicholson

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

terry thomas 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,saleem ghubril “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

Wednesday, February 13, 10:05 a.m.: Ash Wednesday Service (understand Ash Wednesday via www.christianity.about.com/od/holidaytips/qt/whatisashwednes.htm)

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.

diana swoopeTuesday, February 19, 10:30 a.m.: Rev. Diana Swoope, Ph.D., Arlington Church of God, “Faith and Civility in Culture,” Signpost Series www.arlingtonchurch.org/content_about_us/swoope.htm

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.bob book

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 james talbert

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.

celia king 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.

Tuesday, March 26, 10:30 a.m.: Exploring Worship chapels focused on Passion Week. Student may choose from three JC locations (same options will be given today and tomorrow). Watch for more information to come.  (What is Passion Week?
See http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2007/03/FAQ-Christian-Holidays-During-Holy-Week.aspx).

Wednesday, March 27, 10:05 a.m.: Choose a different option from yesterday.

No Friday chapel this week due to Easter Break.eric hehman

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.

jj heller 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 FURTHER RESEARCH (Correspondence, etc.)

Clips of various Spring 2013 chapel sessions

Following is a list of contacts in Malone’s Spiritual Formation Dept.; click here for the original list.

Pastor Randy Heckert

University Chaplain
330.471.8280
eurpxreg+znybar+rqh

Randy

Pastor Randy Heckert

University Chaplain
330.471.8280
eurpxreg+znybar+rqh

linda

Linda Leon

Director of Spiritual Formation
330.471.8442
yyrba2+znybar+rqh

 Celia

Celia King

Director of Service-Learning
330.471.8632
pxvat+znybar+rqh

   Edee

Edee Putnam

Support Person
330.471.8441
rchganz+znybar+rqh

Jessica

Tim Longbrake

Graduate Assistant/Chapel Worship Coordinator                                       330.471.8493
tlongbrake@malone.edu

Jeff

Jeff Leon

Spiritual Formation Volunteer
330.327.5565
woyrba+znybar+rqh

tanya

Tanya Hershberger

Spiritual Formation Volunteer
330.588.8828
oygurefuoretre+znybar+rqh

Read Full Post »

(revised 11/24/12)

I came across this excellent blog exposing the heresies of Quaker founder George Fox and contemplative Evangelical Friend Richard Foster.

Note – I have attempted to comply with the author’s copyright guidelines (listed at the bottom of this repost). I have gone through the repost and trimmed it down to excerpts, rather than reposting the entire blog. I found it  difficult to trim down – so much of the blog verifies what I have been writing about the Quakers, George Fox and Richard Foster in my other blogs. (In this repost I am hoping to add links to my pertinent blogs.) Thank you so much for your blog, Churchmouse Campanologist!

Following is my repost. Click here for the original site of this blog, in its entirety. I am emphasizing certain points in this repost by bolding in orange, and inserting comments [in orange with brackets].

Fuller Theological Seminary alums: Richard Foster

November 30, 2010

  Richard Foster is one of today’s leaders of spiritual formation.  Much has been written about the various forms of ‘Christian’ meditation, which have been sweeping America over the past several years.

From small acorns do mighty oaks grow.  Who would have imagined that a small non-profit started in 1988 and called Renovaré would have shaken so many Protestant denominations to their foundations?

Richard Foster is a Quaker — a member of the Religious Society of Friends [actually Foster was a member of the Evangelical Friends Church International denomination. Yet, he feels very comfortable associating with all nonchristian Quaker groups] — who put Renovaré and spiritual formation into play.  He earned his Bachelor’s degree at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, and his Doctorate of Pastoral Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.

George Fox’s spirituality

First, a word about George Fox and the Quakers.  If Fox were a young man today, he no doubt would have been a follower of Foster’s and an adherent of spiritual formation.  Fox lived between 1624 and 1691 — a tumultuous time in England.  When Fox came of age, Oliver Cromwell had beheaded Charles I,  then the Interregnum took place, the English Civil War followed and Charles II ushered in the Restoration in 1660.  To say that tensions were running high during Fox’s life would be an understatement.

Fox grew up with Puritan preachers.  As such, he was well versed in the King James Bible. But, like many Calvinist renegades throughout the past few centuries (e.g. Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) the absolute doctrines of Calvinism upset him, particularly predestination.

Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries took a closer look at Fox’s mindset.  He read A History of Christianity and discovered (quote below is from the book, emphases are Silva’s):

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).

What this meant was that Fox ended up rejecting sola Scriptura.  Sound familiar?  And so it goes today in the emergent church and in an increasing number of evangelical churches.

Quaker belief

Quakers believe that this Inner Light is present in everyone.  You can even see that reflected in the comments on the forum on QuakerInfo.com.  They don’t quote a lot of Scripture verses but rely on more secular or generically spiritual sayings or poems.  Some meetinghouses are more politically than religiously oriented.  There also appear to be three strands of Quaker practice — including an evangelical one. [Actually there are more “strands” – following are three of the larger ones.] Forum participant John writes:

Some examples:

Liberal Quaker – non-Christ centered … generally politically liberal, theologically liberal. [They “believe” in Christ as Lord and Teacher.]

Evangelical Quaker – Christ centered … generally politically mixed, running from liberal to conservative, theologically conservative. [This has changed since Richard Foster came on the scene in the 1970s. Today I would describe the Evangelical Friends aka EFCI as theologically “progressive evangelical”/Emerging/Emergent, since the leadership refuses to stop promoting Foster and other contemplatives/Emergings/Emergents. Granted, Evangelical Quakers/Evangelical Friends still refer to Christ as Lord and Saviour – although I wonder how many Evangelical Friends today are truly born again.]

Conservative Quaker – Christ centered … politically liberal on some issues (i.e. peace and non-violence), and politically conservative on others (limited government), theologically very conservative. [Theologically conservative perhaps in their manner of dress, but they don’t profess to be born again. They – like the Liberal Quakers above –  “believe” in Christ as Lord and Teacher.]

‘Are Quakers Protestant?’

QuakerInfo.com tells us (emphases mine below):

It is quite clear from reading the works of early Friends that they did not identify with the Protestant movement. They considered the Protestant churches of their day, as well as the Roman Catholics, to be apostate. They felt that Protestants had lopped off some of the false branches of Catholicism, but did not challenge the root of apostasy. Insofar as Catholicism and Protestantism were different, early Friends would often in discourse on a topic point out what they felt were the incorrect views of Catholics and the separate incorrect views of the Protestants on the issue.

The early Friends considered themselves “primitive Christianity revived” – restoring true Christianity from the apostasy which started very early. They were not interested in reforming an existing church, but rather freshly expressing the truth of a Christianity before any institutional church took strong hold.

There were a number of differences early Friends had with Protestants of their day. Some of the key differences were:

    • The Protestants replaced the authority of the church with the authority of the Bible. Friends, while accepting the validity of the scriptures and believing in the importance of the faith community, gave first place to the Spirit of Christ. Pointing to the prologue of the Gospel of John, they viewed Christ, not the Bible, as the Word of God. The scripture was secondary, a declaration of the fountain rather than the fountain itself. (See also Friends (Quakers) and the Bible.)
    • The Protestants replaced liturgy with a sermon as the center of worship. Friends center worship in the divine presence. Even though Friends disdain outward liturgy, in some sense Quaker worship may be closer to Catholic than Protestant in nature. Both Catholics and Quakers believe in the actual presence of Christ in worship, for Catholics centered in the host and for Quakers spiritually. (See also Friends (Quaker) Worship.)
    • The Protestants were continually disturbed by an inner sense of guilt and original sin, and often felt they were choosing between sins. Quakers balanced the concept of original sin with the idea that redemption and regeneration could actually free humans from sin.

Today:

much of Society of Friends has become more mainstream and tends to identify with some of the movements among Protestants. At the same time, some of the key Quaker understandings have become increasingly accepted among many Protestants in the last century. The pentecostal and charismatic movements, which have become a very large part of the Protestantism and have also impacted Catholicism, have some similarities with the early Quaker movement.

Shades of universalism

Ken Silva read more about George Fox’s experience in ‘the well-respected Handbook Of Denominations In The United States (HoD) from Mead and Hill’ (emphases below are Silva’s):

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).

Let’s be honest.  If you were to ask any number of people about a) having a direct personal relationship with Christ or b) if everyone is part divine or can come equally to God, you’d receive a surprisingly positive response to both.  The question then is — are these in accordance with the Bible?  No, they are not.

Silva warns us (emphases mine):

this false idea of an inner light, or a “divine spark,” is a very key issue to grasp before one can come to understand the root of the flawed semi-pelagian “gospel” preached by much of mainstream evangelicalism within which Foster has now become a major player. I cover this spiritually fatal idea of “a spark of the divine” allegedly inside all of mankind further in The Emergent “One” and Understanding the New Spirituality: God Indwells Mankind.

So in closing this for now I tell you in the Lord that this musing is actually classic Gnostic mysticism, which itself has already been condemned within the pages of the New Testament. Particularly in the Book of Colossians as well as in 1 John we find the Apostles dealing with Gnosticism. And again concerning all of this messed mysticism the Lord warns us through His chosen vessel Peter — In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up (2 Peter 2:3).

Foster’s Celebration of Discipline

Foster’s most notable work is his 1978 book, Celebration of Discipline, wherein he explores mystical and Quaker practices. Christianity Today named it as one of the top 10 of the 20th century.  Pastor Gary Gilley of Southern View Chapel observes (emphases mine):

Celebration of Discipline alone, not even referencing Foster’s other writings and teachings and ministries, is a virtual encyclopedia of theological error. We would be hard pressed to find in one so-called evangelical volume such a composite of false teaching. These include faulty views on the subjective leading of God (pp. 10, 16-17, 18, 50, 95, 98, 108-109, 128, 139-140, 149-150, 162, 167, 182); approval of New Age teachers (see Thomas Merton below); occultic use of imagination (pp. 25-26, 40-43, 163, 198); open theism (p. 35); misunderstanding of the will of God in prayer (p. 37); promotion of visions, revelations and charismatic gifts (pp. 108, 165, 168-169, 171, 193); endorsement of rosary and prayer wheel use (p. 64); misunderstanding of the Old Testament Law for today (pp. 82, 87); mystical journaling (p. 108); embracing pop-psychology (pp. 113-120); promoting Roman Catholic practices such as use of “spiritual directors,” confession and penance (pp. 146-150, 156, 185); and affirming of aberrant charismatic practices (pp. 158-174, 198).

Gilley adds:

… the dust jacket of this edition assures us “that it is only by and through these practices that the true path to spiritual growth can be found” … If spiritual growth is dependent upon the spiritual disciplines described in Foster’s book, should not we have expected to find this truth in the Scriptures? Why did God reveal them, not to the apostles but to apostate Roman Catholic mystics, and then to Richard Foster as he studied the mystics and used occultic techniques of meditation? We need to tread very carefully through this spiritual minefield. If this is in fact one of the ten best books of the twentieth century, I am not too anxious to read the other nine.

He concludes:

No one is calling for a purely intellectualized faith devoid of practice and experience. What those who draw their cue from Scripture and not mystics are calling for is a Christian faith, experience and practice that is rational, intellectual, makes sense, and most importantly is solidly grounded on the Word of God. Foster and company have taken many far afield in pursuit of mystical experiences that lead to a pseudo-Christianity that has the appearance of spirituality but not the substance.

Renovaré

The verb is Latin for ‘to renew’.  Since Foster founded this organisation in 1988, it has expanded around the world.

After the success of Celebration of Discipline, Foster received many public speaking invitations.  Audiences, particularly in the evangelical world, were highly receptive to the book’s subject matter and wished to know more.  In 1986, Foster withdrew from active ministry to pursue a means for teaching people how to live the disciplines the book explores.  He launched Renovaré two years later.

The non-profit organisation has taken on an ecumenical membership from a variety of Protestant denominations as well as from the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact, it is now headed by an Anglican Franciscan, Christopher Webb.  Foster remains a member of Renovaré’s board and its ministry team.

Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs and John MacArthur’s Grace to You Ministries shared his own impressions of Foster with Ken Silva (emphases mine):

I met Foster almost 25 years ago when we were both slated to teach seminars at a couple of writers’ conferences. At the time, he was teaching at Friends University in Wichita, which is a small college founded by Quakers and happens to be where my Mom got her degree in the early 1960s. So we had some things in common and spent quite a bit of time talking. He is a capable writer and a very likable person.

But in my opinion, he is not an evangelical. He does not seem to have any clear understanding of the gospel or the atonement. That’s why his emphasis is all about “spirituality” and “spiritual disciplines” and various things the worshiper must do, with virtually no emphasis on what Christ has done for sinners. I’ve read several of Foster’s books and have never even seen him mention the cross as a propitiation for sins.

Moreover, he blends all kinds of works-based approaches to spirituality, which he borrows from diverse “Christian” traditions and even from other religions’ mystical and superstitious practices. In my estimation, all of that puts him far outside the pale of orthodoxy. Although he occasionally makes quotable remarks and valid observations, he is by no means a trustworthy teacher.

Nonetheless, Foster’s disciplines are pervasive.

From Calvinists to the Nazarenes

Silva researched Foster’s effect on various churches and found that a new generation of Calvinists were on board.

In 2009, John Piper interviewed Matt Chandler of The Village Church, who gave Piper his impressions of being ‘a pastor, a Calvinist and a Complementarian’.  Silva found it ‘odd’ that

in a search for Richard Foster in the Recommended Books of The Village Church, “that have challenged and helped us as a staff in our faith and in our ministry work”, we find his books Celebration of Discipline, Streams of Living Water, and The Challenge of the Disciplined Life

And so I have to wonder: Why would a Calvinist pastor and his staff be recommending to anyone these books by a highly ecumenical Quaker mystic whose whole sorry shtick is reintroducing the unsuspecting to the apostate Sola Scriptura-denying and spurious spirituality of the Counter Reformation within the medieval Roman Catholic Church?

Mark Driscoll, controversial pastor of the Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle, also advocates spiritual disciplines and contemplative practices.  Lighthouse Trails Research discovered (emphases mine):

In an article written by Driscoll himself, ironically titled Obedience, Driscoll tells readers to turn to Richard Foster and contemplative Gary Thomas. Driscoll states:

If you would like to study the spiritual disciplines in greater detail … helpful are Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster, and Sacred Pathways, by Gary Thomas.

And:

Presently, on Driscoll’s website, The Resurgence … is an article titled “How to Practice Meditative Prayer.” The article is written by an Acts 29 (Driscoll’s network of churches) pastor, Winfield Bevins. A nearly identical article on Driscoll’s site, also by Bevins, is titled Meditative Prayer: Filling the Mind. Both articles show a drawing of a human brain. In this latter article, Bevins recognizes contemplative mystic pioneer Richard Foster:

What do we mean by meditative prayer? Is there such a thing as Christian meditation? Isn’t meditation non-Christian? According to Richard Foster, “Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind. Christian meditation is an attempt to fill the mind” (Celebration of Discipline). Rather than emptying the mind we fill it with God’s word. [Foster is misleading here – his form of meditation is indeed emptying the mind since it’s derived from Eastern meditation, albeit using “Christian” methods. I’m sure neurological studies would show that Foster’s meditation produces altered states of consciousness with Alpha brain waves – as does occult Eastern meditation.] We must not neglect a vital part of our Judeo-Christian heritage simply because other traditions use a form of meditation.

Meanwhile, Manny Silva at Reformed Nazarene does an excellent job in exposing false teachers to members of the Church of the Nazarene.

On November 14, 2010, he blogged about the possibility of Nazarene youth groups being influenced by Renovaré.  He writes about two Christian youth ministries already working with young adult Nazarene members — Barefoot and YouthFront — which wish to partner with Renovaré (emphases mine)…

… the third part of this alliance is Renovare, an organization founded by Richard Foster, perhaps the most influential person today in leading many evangelicals directly to and over the cliffs, right into the abyss of spiritual formation (certainly a more palatable and innocent-sounding phrase than contemplative spirituality, or “Christianized transcendental meditation”, or maybe “occultic prayer practices.”  I have also documented much of Richard Foster’s unbiblical practices and ideology, and it is maddening that he has such an influence in a denomination that preaches holiness and faithfulness to God’s written word, and long ago ironically moved away from experiential-based spirituality in rejecting the hyper-charismatic movement.

[The last sentence above from my personal friend Manny best describes the denomination (particularly Ohio Yearly Meeting aka EFC-ER) prior to the 1970s. Foster started gaining an Evangelical Friends foothold in the early 1970s in Northwest Yearly Meeting, then got a deathgrip on the entire denomination in 1978 with his bestselling Celebration of Discipline. From 1978 on, the Evangelical Friends have gone downhill into contemplative and Emerging/Emergent teachings. Amazing, and tragic, how times have changed for the Evangelical Friends and other Evangelical denominations.

 Just a comment on Manny’s statement that the EFCI “long ago ironically moved away from experiential-based spirituality in rejecting the hyper-charismatic movement.” I don’t know about the other Regions/Yearly Meetings of the EFCI, but EFC-ER put out a statement in 1970 forbidding the open speaking of tongues during services. Ironically, today EFC-ER’s Malone University is becoming increasingly open to IHOP teachings. Again, a huge change from yesteryear. Interestingly, IHOP and other Third Wave Pentecostal groups incorporate Foster’s contemplative practices – as well as overlap with the Emerging/Emergent movements.]

Why Christians are unhappy

Manny Silva reminds Nazarenes what experimentation in religious practices can do not only to individuals but to a denomination as a whole (same link as above):

… we seem to be continuing down this road, making more and more alliances with organizations that have a veneer of truth. And so I ask again, since there is some truth there, does that make it okay to join with them?  Is there any more doubt as to where our denomination is heading, my friends?  Are we fooling ourselves and thinking that these are just minor aberrations in the whole scheme of things?

What does it say to you, then, that NTS, our main seminary for training pastors for the future, is clearly holding hands with these groups, and promoting them? Remember NTS’s promotion of the Spiritual Formation Retreat just before General Assembly?  Remember the Prayer Room at General Assembly with the Richard Foster book?  Or the Richard Foster/Renovare event at Point Loma Nazarene University? Or Trevecca Nazarene University’s prayer labyrinth? Remember the promotion of contemplative practices on the NTS website, for pre-teens?  …  Either our leadership is totally in the dark about these (and many more that I have not mentioned), or they know of it, and are saying nothing specific to the questions many have put to them.

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine.  In ‘What’s Wrong and Right about the Imitation of Christ’, he offers these observations of contemplative Christianity (emphases mine):

It would be a travesty simply to lump together medieval mysticism, the Anabaptist tradition, Quakers, Pietism, and Protestant liberalism. Nevertheless, there is a common thread running through these diverse movements-a theology of works-righteousness that emphasizes:

    • Christ’s example over his unique and sufficient achievement;
    • The inner experience and piety of believers [and nonbelievers] over the external work and Word of Christ;
    • Our moral transformation over the Spirit’s application of redemption;
    • Private soul formation over the public ministry of the means of grace.

… Let’s leave the final word to Martin Luther, as recorded in Tabletalk (emphases mine):

Yet all these seeming holy actions of devotion, which the wit and wisdom of man holds to be angelical sanctity, are nothing else but works of the flesh… 

Is the same true of our contemplative friends among the laity?  Please exercise caution in your Christian practices.  Is what you are doing in the Bible, particularly the New Testament? If not, avoid it. Rely not on Christian bookstores, errant pastors or sensation-seeking friends.  Instead, be Berean.

End of series

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.

Read Full Post »

Update 11/07/12: Malone University still publicizes itself as a born again Christian school. Yet today I noticed Malone’s library has a display of 13 books by Emergent heretic Tony Campolo. Why? Read on.
————————————————————————————————
On 10/28/12 The Repository ran an article by Denise Sautters entitled “King era begins at Malone.” Towards the end of the article, I was struck by a comment from Dr. David King, being inaugurated 10/28/12 as Malone’s 13th president (1). (The latter part of this press release explains the presidential search process by Malone’s Board of Trustees; the press release does not mention how many of the Trustees were on the search committee.) Dr. King states:

“… [having time at a university before one’s inauguration] gives the president time to … develop a vision for the university.”

With all due respect, how biblically sound is Dr. King’s vision for Malone University? (2) Does it match the original vision of J. Walter Malone, the university’s founder? Based on his first year at Malone (prior to his inauguration), my impression is that Dr. King (along with a number of other presidents, faculty and staff) is taking Malone down a theological path far different from that envisioned by J. Walter Malone. I truly believe that J. Walter Malone’s dream for a born again, separatist Fundamentalist, Wesleyan Holiness, Evangelical Friends theological legacy is very close to being lost. (In addition, various heresies are entering the EFC-ER through routes other than Malone University.) How tragic!

Question: Emergent heretic Tony Campolo spoke at Malone University 09/28/12. Does this provide clues to new president Dr. King’s “vision for the university”? Read on…
——————————————-
Tony Campolo Like many discerning Christians (especially “fundies”/fundamentalists), I was shocked and angered by Charita Goshay’s prominent article favoring Emergent heretic Tony Campolo in The Repository Saturday 09/29/12. Her article summarized Campolo’s speech to Malone University students 09/28/12. (Malone University is an Evangelical Friends/EFCI school; Tony Campolo taught at new Malone president David King’s former school – Eastern University.)

“Church articles” are usually hidden away on the inside pages of The Repository‘s Section B each Saturday, on the so called “Faith and Values” pages. Yet Ms. Goshay’s article was prominently displayed on the front page of Section B (along with a blurb on the newspaper’s front page pointing readers to the article about Campolo). Apparently Ms. Goshay (and/or The Repository) knows that Campolo is a popular speaker. I am very disappointed – and angry – that Goshay did not write a more objective article, pointing out Campolo’s heresies and including statements from opponents.

Another problem – for me Goshay’s article raises more questions than it answers. For starters:

1) Was this event publicized beforehand, or was it an “inside event” only publicized to Malone students and parents? If  Campolo’s speech was not publicized on a wider scale, why wasn’t it?

I did find this description of the event here, in the Schedule for Parents’ Weekend:

2-3 p.m. [Fri. 09/28/12] –  Tony Campolo Speaking, Johnson Center Sanctuary. Dr. Campolo is a speaker, author, sociologist, and pastor. Over his many years of Christian service, Tony has boldly challenged millions of people all over the world to respond to God’s boundless love by combining personal discipleship, evangelism, and social justice. He will speak and then take time for questions from our students.

Note Malone’s positive description of Campolo. They could have said something like “this controversial Emergent leader is coming to Malone to debate his liberal views with Malone’s Professor so-and-so” (ala Brian McLaren’s debate at Malone). Yet Malone did not say this with Campolo.

2) Goshay’s article consists almost entirely of “born again Christianese” quotes from Campolo. Yet Campolo is an extremely heretical Emergent, on par with Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, etc. Did Goshay leave out Campolo’s mainline/liberal/Emergent statements, or was Campolo’s entire speech “born again Christianese”?

4) Is Campolo’s entire speech (or a transcript of it) available online?

5) Did any Malone students protest Campolo’s coming to speak? (If so I’d like to meet them – we have a kindred spirit.)

6) In Campolo’s Q&A session, were opponents allowed to voice their  concerns about his heresies?

7) What individual(s) invited Campolo to come speak at Malone? Did the individual(s) not know that Campolo had a theological stance (heretical Emergent teachings) incompatible with what Malone has claimed to believe at least in the past? (For example, Campolo’s favoring the LGBT movement – an issue Malone has claimed it opposes.) Malone does seem to be changing in various ways – I’m not sure what specific individuals are pushing this change. (Check out their current Mission and Foundational Principles, for example.)

8) David King was recently hired as Malone University President. King was previously an employee of Eastern University, where the heretical Campolo taught for ten years. (In fact, the graduate department at Eastern University is named after Campolo.) Did King’s coming to Malone have anything to do with Campolo coming to speak?  Or was that just a coincidence? (And how about Betsy Morgan, professor emerita of English at EU, coming to speak at Dr. King’s Inaugural Symposium – was that also just a coincidence?)

Campolo Emergent and heretical

Just how Emergent/heretical is Tony Campolo? Here’s a clue: Campolo is an ordained minister in the mainline/liberal American Baptist Churches USA denomination. Note this description of the denomination, found here:

Generally considered more liberal than the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. is a member of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and of the World Council of Churches. It has taken an active part in ecumenical affairs and has worked for closer union among the various Baptist groups.

In 1998 the denomination adopted an “American Baptist Identity Statement” that sought to summarize the Christian faith representative of American Baptists. This was amended in 2005 to include a statement about homosexuality…

“Fundies” have a right to be critical of Campolo. In his book Letters to a Young Evangelical (2006), Campolo devotes Chapter 9 to describing and criticizing Fundamentalists. The chapter is entitled “Being Rescued from Fundamentalism”; the entire chapter is viewable online. Malone University was strongly separatist fundamentalist Wesleyan Holiness between approx. 1892-1942. Any Malone alumnus who loves Evangelical Friends of this time period should be offended by Campolo’s criticisms of fundamentalism.

For those who are still not convinced that Campolo is extremely heretical, consider these quotes from Campolo (click here for another blog of mine dealing with Campolo and other Emergents):

“Going to heaven is like going to Philadelphia… There are many ways…It doesn’t make any difference how we go there. We all end up in the same place.” 1a

“On the other hand, we are hard-pressed to find any biblical basis for condemning deep love commitments between homosexual Christians as long as those commitments are not expressed in sexual intercourse.” 1b

“But the overwhelming population of the gay community that love Jesus, that go to church, that are deeply committed in spiritual things, try to change and can’t change…” 1c

“…we want to see God at work converting society, converting the systems, so that there aren’t the racist overtones, the economic injustices, the polluting of the atmosphere.” 1d

“I learn about Jesus from other religions. They speak to me about Christ, as well.”1e

“I’m not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians.” 1f

1a CarpeDiem: Seize the Day, 1994 page 85;
1b “20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch” page 117;
1c Beliefnet.com/faith/Christianity 08/2004;
1d MSNBC 2008 interview;
1e MSNBC 2008 interview;
1f Charlie Rose show 1/24/97

(Tony Campolo is an author, professor of Sociology at Eastern College, former spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton, and a leader of the movement called “Red Letter Christians”.)

Campolo’s lack of adherence to Eastern University’s Doctrinal Statement

(Click here for the Doctrinal Statement and ending Sections; to me the Doctrinal Statement sounds biblically sound for the most part – even if many Eastern University employees do not truly follow it)

Note the following two sections below. David King and Tony Campolo had to sign Eastern University’s Doctrinal Statement annually. I don’t know much about King, but it is obvious from Campolo’s writings that Campolo (like many employees of the liberal Eastern University I’m sure) does not hold the born again Christian beliefs stated in the Doctrinal Statement. Yet Campolo taught at Eastern University for ten years; they even honored him by naming their graduate college after him.

Apparently signing the Doctrinal Statement is like taking an oath in court (“I promise to tell the truth… so help me God”), or like making a wedding vow (“I promise to love you… till death do us part”). Signing Eastern University’s Doctrinal Statement annually seems to mean nothing to many employees there. I believe signing a Doctrinal Statement such as this, when you do not truly believe it, is a very serious offense against the Lord.

[In the excerpts below, I have emphasized certain points by bolding.]

SECTION II

Every member of the Board of Trustees, every administrative officer of the Institution, professor, teacher, and instructor shall annually subscribe over his or her signature to the Doctrinal Statement, excepting only that a non-Baptist individual occupying any of the foregoing positions shall not be required to subscribe to that part of the Doctrinal Statement regarding the mode of water baptism.

SECTION III

Whenever a member of the Board of Trustees, administrative officer, professor, teacher or instructor is not in complete accord with the foregoing Doctrinal Statement, he or she shall forthwith withdraw from all connections with the University, and his or her failure to do so shall constitute grounds for immediate removal from such positions by the Trustees.

ENDNOTES

(1) Malone’s 13 presidents are:
1) J. Walter Malone (1892-1918)
2) Edgar Wollam (1918-1921)
3) C.W. Butler (1921-1936)
4) Worthy A. Spring (1936-1948)
5) G. Arnold Hodgin (1948-1951)
6) Byron L. Osborne (1951-1960)
7) Everett L. Cattell (1960-1972)
8) Lon Randall (1972-1981)
9) Gordon R. Werkema (1981-1988)
10) Arthur Self (1988-____)
11) Ron Johnson (____-____)
12)  Gary W. Streit (_____-2010)
12a) Provost Will Friesen, Ph.D., Interim (2010-2012)
13) Dr. David King, (2012-     )

Sources: #1-7: Ohio Yearly Meeting Quaker Sesqui-centennial Commemorative publication, 1962, p.  43
#8,9: EFC-ER 175th Anniversary Commemorative publication, 1987, p. 32
#9:  Founded by Friends: The Quaker Heritage of Fifteen American Colleges and Universities, by John William Oliver, Charles L. Cherry, Caroline L. Cherry, 1970. p. 215 (viewable online)
#10,11: personal conversations with Malone associates
#12,12a: Malone University Welcomes 13th President: David King

(2) Another clue concerning Dr. King’s vision for Malone – and Malone’s vision for itself – is given here:

According to Board Chair Steven Steer, “Dr. King’s depth and breadth of experience seem to have converged with Malone’s vision for the future in a divine appointment.” King says it was Malone’s foundational principals that speak to the integration of faith, learning, and experiential activism that ultimately drew him to the University. Those words resonated within him, and it has not taken him long to embrace the University’s mission as his own.

Frankly, this sounds rather ambiguous to me. To get more specific, it seems to me Malone and Dr. King are pushing the envelope of contemplative spirituality (ala Richard Foster) and the Emerging/Emergent movement.

FOR FURTHER READING

I will be compiling a list of discernment articles about Tony Campolo’s heresies and providing the links here. For starters:

Apprising Ministries – various discernment blogs about Campolo

Let Us Reason Ministries – various articles about Campolo

Lighthouse Trails – article about Campolo

Manny Silva – various  discernment blogs about Campolo

A list of Google hits – articles about Campolo’s endorsement of occultish, contemplative centering prayer (click here for a discernment article exposing centering prayer)

Eastern University’s ringing endorsement of their Emergent darling Tony Campolo

2007: Mennonite Emergent Conversation (with representatives mostly from the liberal Mennonite Church USA denomination) held at Eastern University

2008: Campolo’s stint as featured speaker at 2008 Yearly Meeting of NWYM (the most liberal/Emergent Region of the Evangelical Friends denomination)

2012: Eastern University receives a grant to study occultish contemplative labyrinth prayer

The Repository‘s article mentions that Campolo has written 39 books. I am looking for a complete list of his writings (hopefully with content viewable online). (Admittedly, Campolo is a very readable writer; his books explain heretical Emergent teachings in laymen’s terms.)

Read Full Post »

For anyone who doubts the love Spiritual Formation’s heretical Richard Foster has for Northwest Yearly Meeting of the Evangelical Friends (EFCI) and George Fox Universityand vice versa – consider the following excerpt from a web page reposted below:

Richard is a former pastor of  Newberg Friends Church, which is part of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church (NWYM), and, as a graduate of George Fox, he has chosen to house his papers at the combined archives of the University and the NWYM.

Question: I wonder if discernment ministries will be allowed access to Foster’s archives, to write critiques of him. Consider the following procedural guideline, mentioned below:

Use of the Collection: Correspondence is restricted. Materials must be reviewed by the archivist before use.

Click here for the original source of the info reposted below.

Guide to the Richard J. Foster Papers

Sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission

Richard J. Foster is the author of several books, which have appealed to a wide audience since the 1978 publication of Celebration of Discipline. Although he is ecumenical in focus, his works often reflect Quaker precepts that are described as an attempt to “promote a balanced understanding of the Christian faith.”

Foster is the founder of Renovare, an effort working for the renewal of the Church in all her multifaceted expressions. He has written numerous magazine articles, taught spiritual formation classes at several universities, and spoken in venues around the world. Richard is a former pastor of  Newberg Friends Church, which is part of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church (NWYM), and, as a graduate of George Fox, he has chosen to house his papers at the combined archives of the University and the NWYM.

Collection Overview

The collection includes the following materials from Foster’s writing and speaking career:

  • manuscripts
  • writings
  • research materials
  • schedules of speaking engagements
  • interviews
  • invitations
  • calendars
  •  brochures
  • correspondence
  • photographs and media

Collection Quantity:

  • 64.25 cubic feet
  • 28 record boxes, 34 document boxes, 7 file drawers

Language: English

Future Additions: Further accruals are expected.

Use of the Collection: Correspondence is restricted. Materials must be reviewed by the archivist before use.

Subjects

This collection is indexed under the following headings in the online catalog. Researchers desiring materials about related topics, persons, or places should search the catalog using these headings:

  • Foster, Richard J.–Archives
  • Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church
  • Renovare
  • Quaker
  • Spiritual formation


Contact:
Zoie Clark, GFU/NWDA Archives — zclark@georgefox.edu, 503-554-2415

Read Full Post »

(revised 10/13/14)

I’ve thought a great deal about the message every church should be preaching regularly, that relatively few do nowadays: the “bloody” message of salvation through Christ’s atonement on the cross of Calvary.

In the early 1960s we sang gospel hymns like this in Evangelical Friends (EFCI) churches in Ohio, at every service:

“The Old Rugged Cross”
“Power in the Blood”
“There is a Fountain Filled With Blood”

… and so on. No longer – now EFCI churches in Ohio and elsewhere (like churches in many other evangelical denominations) are becoming more and more postmodern (Emerging/ Emergent).

Below is a very revealing article on how Emergents present a message vastly different than the gospel message of “the Blood and the Cross.” Click here for the original source of this article, at the Let Us Reason Ministries website. Note – two of the heretical Emergents quoted below are Brian McLaren and Leonard Sweet. McLaren and Sweet have taught at George Fox University (GFU) and/or George Fox Evangelical Seminary (GFES),  in Northwest Yearly Meeting (NWYM), the most liberal Region in the EFCI. Other Emerging/Emergents who have taught at GFU and GFES are Tony Campolo, Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, etc. (some as adjunct professors.)

Now on to the article. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]…

“Does the Emergent Church movement preach the gospel that saves?”
by Let Us Reason Ministries

An appeal to pursuers of the new church movements

We have a duty to be keepers, protectors and proclaimers of the gospel, it is to be the same message that was given to the apostles nearly 2,000 years ago. What has saved us is to save others.

This gospel can be changed from applying new innovations. Even Brian McLaren admits the way that emerging church presents the message can be changing the gospel:

“It has been fashionable among the innovative [emerging] pastors I know to say, “We’re not changing the message; we’re only changing the medium.” This claim is probably less than honest … in the new church we must realize how medium and message are intertwined. When we change the medium, the message that’s received is changed, however subtly, as well. We might as well get beyond our naivete or denial about this.”

This is one of the rare times I can agree with him. The method of presenting the Gospel can adopt change in its presentation when necessary; but the content of the message cannot, when it does we have another gospel. And if we are not careful the message can be changed by the method. And the message HAS already changed for many inside these progressive type movements, one of them is the emergent church movement. Without the cross as central to our lives and our preaching for salvation, church becomes just another religion with wonderful teachings about a man named Jesus. Salvation does not come from just believing in God, but in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ one is to believe and continue in. We all get saved the same way, by the message of gospel. Yet in the emergent movement they entertain and pursue other religious practices for their spirituality. Why would one do this if they have found what makes peace with God? This proves that they have not personally experienced nor possess the power of the gospel in their personal life. Paul warned about another gospel and preaching a different Jesus in Gal.1:6-9.

What kind of Jesus allows other religions teachings and practices to be taught in his church to those who are to supposed to be following Him as “the way the truth the life.”

“Is our religion the only one that understands the true meaning of life? Or does God place his truth in others too? … The gospel is not our gospel, but the gospel of the kingdom of God, and what belongs to the kingdom of God cannot be hijacked by Christianity” (Brian McLaren, An Emergent Manifesto p. 194)

Actually it was introduced by Jesus who happens to be truth incarnate, so the answer is, NO. God has not placed his truth in other religions that worship false gods. Common sense alone should tell people this fact.

This is not to say that everyone in the Emergent church holds to the new views of the gospel but whether it is done purposely or by indifference there are many of its leaders that do, and influence its adherents that seek a church to be real. Using humanistic concepts, worldly business practices, or other religious ways to adjust the gospel to reach the various cultures, they avoid the real intent; exposing the darkness in the human heart. This can only be done by Christ being preached, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Ephesians 1:7)

The changing of the gospel message and its application come in many forms, Emergent leader Leonard Sweet explains it “Postmodern missions must have a geomantic imagination and geomantic design. What I am calling a geomantic style of evangelization will ensure harmonious habitation patterns as the gospel interconnects and interacts with all life-and landforms” (Quantum Spirituality p.168).

This changing the gospel to be relative to the environment has no basis from Scripture and is the imagination of ones heart that is conducive to the trends of our day. Earth based spirituality has nothing to do with the gospel that was preached by Paul and the apostles whose intent was to deal with sin in humanity (1 Cor.15:1-4).

If one does not understand the gospel and the requirement for our sin then they will mock the crucifixion.

Emergent Church leaders consistently, repeatedly denigrate sin, the savior, and salvation via the cross of Christ. “If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil” (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, pp. 182-183.)

But it was love that brought Jesus to the cross. There was no other way. Christ shows us how God loves his enemies- love is the heart of the gospel. “While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8, 10). The Bible declares that those who bring the gospel are the ones who bring peace (Rom. 10)

Harry Emerson Fosdick was a famous liberal pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City, (1878-1969), who denied the doctrine of the atonement, “Jesus suffered as a substitute for us”

In Fosdick’s book Dear Mr. Brown, he states: Too many theories of the atonement assume that by one single high priestly act of self-sacrifice Christ saved the world.’ Fosdick ends that statement with a pronounced—’No!” He insists, “These legalistic theories of the atonement are in my judgment a theological disgrace.”‘ Fosdick considered the idea that God would actually send His Son to die on a Cross to take our place to be the basis for a violent and bloody religion. He rejected the biblical message of an atonement and substitutionary sacrifice.

‘In an interview, Brian McLaren questioned the idea of God sending His Son to a violent death, calling it “false advertising for God”:

[O]ne of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God. (emphasis added)’ (quoted in Faith Undone by Roger Oakland p.192)

The Emergent movement wants to a re-imaginine [sic] things. the way things are going as they remove words and sayings from books you should not be surprised by a company removing the crucifixion from the Bible because it is offensive. After all the book of Urantia [see this link](which I suspect some may be reading) says it was not God’s plan for Jesus.

Brian McLaren endorsed Alan Jones’ book, “Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind.” McLaren had this to say: “Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply.”

If this is authentic spirituality then the Bible has become obsolete in his view. Jones, an Episcopal priest,  holds a a similar view to the outspoken liberal Fosdick.

 Jones is the Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco that promotes the labyrinth. He is a promoter of inter-spirituality, He is also a member of the Living Spiritual Teachers Project which is a group of about twenty-five that include Zen and Buddhist monks, New Agers and even Marianne Williamson (who promotes a Course in Miracles, a book that denies almost every authentic Bible teaching of Jesus Christ.)

Jones rejects the Gospel message in no uncertain terms. “The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry god. Penal substitution [Christ’s death on the Cross] was the name of this vile doctrine.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005 p. 168)

The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.”(ibid. p. 132)

Jones goes on to say, “Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine.” Alan Jones, p. 168

The apostle Paul said “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified”(1 Corinthians 2:1-2). Paul preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:18,23). The book of Acts tells us that the apostles preached Christ crucified. Jesus even told us to pick our cross to follow him. McLaren is recommending a book that holds this to scorn. The very core of Christianity is Christ crucified by which we have our salvation.

What we are seeing are men without the Spirit of Christ leading people into an pseudo intellectual – philosophical movement that offers a new spiritual openness in the place of the Holy Spirit indwelling us. Without the preaching of the cross it neglects the true spiritual condition and need of mankind. This is not leading people to the truth of their sin by a confrontation of the gospel for salvation but instead offering a substitute without the purpose of God becoming man as Jesus. It is opening the door to thousands to go another way. This new message is integrated in the church to reach the post- modern generation that does not see any one way more valid than another. All this leads to is interfaith – accompanied with universalism.

Brian McLaren, “The Christian faith, I am proposing, should become (in the name of Jesus Christ) a welcome friend to other religions of the world, not a threat” (A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren, p.254)

The concept of syncretism is offered to have us unite with the various different religions. When we combine two belief systems we are committing spiritual adultery. Paul was greatly encouraged of his new converts “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Jesus wants us to worship God in Spirit and in truth. This means we do not mix other religions practices with our worship.

A Generous Orthodoxy is overly generous as it departs from orthodoxy. It sounds more like “As men approach me, so I receive them. All paths, Arjuna, lead to me. Hinduism” (Bhagavad Gita 4.11)

This takes the foundation of Christianity away. As Christians, we are not to present ourselves as having common ground with other religions, we are supposed to avoid this confusion. We are not to give any impression of our acceptance of these foreign concepts, we are to preach the gospel and contend for the faith with others who openly OPPOSE what we believe. We have every right, even an obligation by the commands in Scripture to challenge other belief systems by God’s word.

In an interview with Christianity Today McLaren said “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be ‘saved’? When I read the Bible, I don’t see it meaning, ‘I’m going to heaven after I die.’ Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner’s prayer.” “I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (The Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today Nov.2004)

If McLaren does not have the gospel right, then he lacks the power of God which first and foremost brings salvation which gives us the ability to live the Christian life. The whole Christian message is that mankind is sinful, God came to earth as a man to die for our sins, for you personally – to bring us into a relationship with our maker.

So how is it he is so unsure of this? Its all very clearly written down. 1 Pet 1:25 “But the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.”

McLaren questions nearly everything in the Bible so how can one preach the gospel of salvation if they do not know the gospel as the truth and exercise faith in it. The Bible says if we doubt, we are double-minded and will receive nothing. This attitude is not faith but musing of the carnal nature. Then no one can really know if they are saved or anything the Scripture promises for that matter. This is the very opposite of what John wrote in his first epistle, I Jn. 5:13 “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” Having eternal life means going to heaven – Jesus said “I give them eternal life”, we should have the assurance of what He said “where I am they may be also.”

This is not just out of the box thinking but thinking outside the Bible, McLaren is not no longer theologically based but he has become a philosopher; one who is searching for answers instead of one who has found the answer.

Paul wrote in 1 Thess. 2:4-5: “But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak.”

1 Cor 2:5 “that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Rom. 1:16 tells us the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes”

Rom. 10:16-17: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Faith comes by believing the word found in the Bible, not just any “holy” book.

Yet Rob Bell writes in his book Velvet Elvis, that the Bible is a “human product… rather than the product of divine fiat.” (Quote in Christianity Today, Nov. 2004, p. 38.) So how can He receive faith from the word?

Rom. 16:25-26 Paul says the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, has now has been made manifest, by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.”

Is this true or not? Those who were saved by the word; “to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

(John 12:38) will agree, but not those who lead the emergent movement.

What they do not understand is Salvation does not come from just believing in God, but in Jesus Christ and His work done for us on the cross.

The Gospel is focused on two specific areas: who Jesus is and what He has done. It is centered on the person and work of Christ for us. The person is the who – which the gospel is focused on-God who came in the flesh

He died for you Col 1:14: “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins”

Col 1:23 One day we will stand before the Lord, holy and blameless “if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard

liberalism always leads to inter-spirituality- which is what we are seeing taking place today.

Do not let any man remove you by enticing words and eloquent speech or unusual dictionary words.

Luke 6:43-44: “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. “For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.

How can one bear fruit if you are not in the vine? (Jn.15:1-2).

Acts 4:12 “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

When you do not have a basic understanding of the gospel as it is presented in the emergent church then you are cannot be saved by it.

Copyright (c) 2010 No portion of this site is to be copied or used unless kept in its original format in the way it appears. Articles can be reproduced in portions for ones personal use, any other use is to have the permission of the author first. Thank You.
—————————
Note – In the above repost I underlined titles of books and magazines – DM

Read Full Post »

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

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.

Interfaith Dialogue

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?]

Bios of Interfaith Speakers, George Fox 1/15/12

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.

Read Full Post »

(revised 10/22/11)[blog under construction]

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 the spirit 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 a struggle between these conflicting attitudes is continuing and may well be intensifying, and that its outcome is by no means clear.

Two men in particular, Edward Mott and Everett Cattell, seem to me to epitomize these contrasting attitudes. While both are deceased, their statements and attitudes still sum up best the forces at work among us. Indeed, repeatedly in 1984 it almost seemed as if I were witnessing a clash between these two eminences, which has led me to nominate them as Quakers 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)], Cattell from Ohio YM, now the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region. Mott was prominent in  the 1920s through the 1940s, as clerk of Oregon YM and a well-known preacher; Cattell spent most of 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 came out 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.” The second remark came later, when as conference chair he gravely recommended, “Let the conversation continue.” [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. As he [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 very purpose 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, and not 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 liberal Friends. 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, like Mott, 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 happened to 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: The Great Evangelical Disaster, by the late Francis Schaeffer. It is a clarion call to action by conservative Christians in denominations which are, in Schaeffer’s view, fatally infected with notions 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 all the areas it touches upon,” and the interpretations he draws from it. Most Friends groups would 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 manifesto is 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 who by the grace of God are faithful to the Scriptures.” However, if “a denomination comes to a place where such discipline cannot operate,” then the orthodox members must prepare “to step out.” (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 the 1920s and 1930s here. He insists that “we must recognize that there is a direct parallel between what 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? My answer is yes, repeatedly: in the pages of Quaker Life; at the FUM Triennial; in the flap over Elizabeth Watson and the Friends Ministers Conference (see Issues #35 and #44)[of Chuck Fager’s A Friendly Newsletter]; and in other incidents. [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 optimistic attitude about the overall trend of events: I still thought I heard more of Everett Cattell in 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 are riding the wave of history. And events show that they are determined to press ahead with their vision of a purified Christianity, in Quaker circles as elsewhere. Indeed, they can hardly do otherwise: as Schaeffer and Mott repeatedly pointed out, their basic principles are at stake; this is a matter of conscience for them.

What will be the outcome of such efforts? If the parallels with 50 years ago hold 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 One targets for “discipline” are not liberals–who are considered already lost–as much as other evangelicals, particularly those who are prepared to tolerate liberals in an “unpurified,” pluralistic Quakerism. Schaeffer admits and laments this unhappy record, and urges the church’s “true owners” to exercise their discipline over heretics in a loving spirit, rare as 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 to FUM. There are also several yearly meetings, spanning the continent, whose unity seems to me to be at risk from such drives to establish the “purity of the visible church” against the infiltration 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 possible within a symbiotic relationship qf mutual respect without compromise. He argued this might be 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, faced with the likelihood of a rerun of the upheavals of the 1920s and 1930s, to explore the idea of Cattell’s realignment? And is it time for those Christian Friends who are comfortable with the diversity among Friends today to consider how best to preserve and defend their conviction in the face of this intensifying challenge?

A year ago I would have considered this whole topic a minor matter, and the names of Cattell and Mott would not have occurred to me as possible Quakers of the Year. It does not seem minor anymore; and these two, while not perhaps the happiest nominations, now seem  unquestionably 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.

Read Full Post »

(revised 09/22/12)

I have been repeatedly warning how  liberal/”progressive evangelical” the Evangelical Friends (EFCI) denomination is becoming. More specifically, it is becoming mired in Spiritual Formation and Emerging/Emergent/Emergence teachings.

This is especially true of Northwest Yearly Meeting (NWYM), home of George Fox University (GFU) and George Fox Evangelical Seminary (GFES).

I came across an excellent discernment ministry article questioning George Fox University (GFU) for having Emergent heretic Leonard Sweet on their visiting faculty. The article regards correspondence between James Sundquist (click here and here for bios) and GFU Vice President Dr.  Chuck Conniry. The article exposes the heresies of GFU professors Leonard Sweet and Randy Woodley. But just as important in my mind, is how the comments from Dr. Conniry show the reprobate minds and resistance of GFU faculty to being told there are heretical professors at GFU. (I believe Dr. Conniry’s opinions represent the views of GFU as a whole.)

I am providing excerpts from the article. Click here for the entire original text of the article. I have emphasized certain points by bolding, and inserted comments in [brackets]. I have also occasionally corrected grammatical errors to make the excerpts more readable.

FALSE TEACHINGS AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS
OF
LEONARD SWEET AND RANDY WOODLEY

[this article could more clearly be titled “False Teachings by Leonard Sweet and Randy Woodley, and False Accusations of This Discernment Ministry by Leonard Sweet and Randy Woodley”]

June 4, 2010

Dear Vice President & Dean of George Fox University and Seminary:
Chuck Conniry,

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for your response to my warning letter to George Fox University regarding Leonard Sweet, distinguished visiting professor at your school. I appreciate your measure of kindness and use of Scripture to attempt defend your friend Leonard Sweet. I commend you for that. Having read your response to me, it is almost as though you have obscured if not obliterated the role of watchman on the wall. To to a great extent you quote Scriptures which are certainly true in general for all Christians, but I can’t see how the Scriptures you quote specifically refute any of my charges or any charges against Leonard Sweet by myself, Richard Bennett (Berean Beacon), Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries, Warren Smith, Roger Oakland, Deborah Dombrowski of Lighthouse Trails, or Sandy Simpson of Apologetics Coordination Team. In your response, this is what you should be addressing. All of our charges are simply comparing line by line and precept upon precept Leonard Sweet’s own published teachings directly with Scripture, exactly what Scripture commands us to do.

The following expose on Leonard Sweet should have been written years ago when I first learned of his collaboration with Rick Warren in 1995 Tide of Change project. I am grateful and indebted to those above named good Bereans and Biblical scholars all of whom I know well, and others, who have preceded me in telling the truth about Leonard Sweet. I should also point out that most of these online discernment ministries are not just “online” on the Internet, but have written books exposing these false teachers…many have written two or more books. In any case, ODM is a perfectly noble and biblically legitimate calling and discerner of spirits is a Gift of the Holy Spirit. But the letters ODM could just as easily be invoked to describe Sweet and Emerging Church as Online Deception Ministries. But I could remain silent no longer in the face of iniquity when Leonard Sweet writes his own attack accusing good Bereans of bearing false witness against him. If he is going attack online discernment ministries, that he labels ODM, he should at least have the courage to name names, as the Apostle Paul would require. If it is us that are bearing false witness against Leonard Sweet, then Leonard Sweet needs to prove it and if we don’t repent, he should names names and tell our pastors in order to warn our church. I would be happy tell him who our pastors are and where they are (something he is unwilling to do). But I know who these so called slanderers are, and I am compelled to defend these good brothers and sisters in Christ who have been maligned by Leonard Sweet and his defenders. The Apostle Paul does not warn us about “seducing spirits” in I Timothy 4:1, for nothing, for the reason they are seducing is that they are Leonard Sweet to the taste, but poison in the end for the individual believer as well as the church.

Therefore, I have these things against thee and Leonard Sweet which must stand. I will respond as to why you are clearly in the wrong, as the Apostle Paul would say. I also find it shockingly ironic that Leonard Sweet defender Michael Newnham aka Phoenix Preacher would accuse ODM Christians of Inquisition tactics (see: http://phoenixpreacher.net/?p=1652), when in fact it is Sweet, Warren, and host of Emerging Church leaders who promote mystic Ignatius Loyola, the head of the gestapo of the Jesuit Order who launched The Inquisition that tortured and burned at the stake close to a million true Christian martyrs and defenders of the faith against Roman Catholicism…the real heretics…

[This writer goes on to explain to George Fox University various aspects of Leonard Sweet’s heresies. I am just providing the titles of these sections here.]

LEONARD SWEET/RICK WARREN UNHOLY ALLIANCE

THE LIGHT THAT IS IN MOHAMMED IS DARKNESS

… Leonard Sweet published teaching that “the union of the human with the divine” which is the “center feature of all the world’s religions” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 235). He says it was experienced by Mohammed, Moses, and Krishna. Some of the “New Light leaders” that have led him into this new thinking are Matthew Fox, M. Scott Peck, Willis Harman, and Ken Wilber, all of whom believe in the divinity of man, plus the Catholic-Buddhist monk Thomas Merton. Sweet says humanity needs to learn the truth of Merton’s words, “We are already one” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 13).” SOURCE: [David Cloud], “Friday Church News Notes,” April 2, 2010, http://www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)…

Regarding Matthew Fox possessing this light according to Leonard Sweet, read what Renew America has to say about Matthew Fox:  “Leonard Sweet, a founding father of the emerging church, was deeply influenced by Matthew Fox’s book The Cosmic Christ.” This is Fox’s “gospel”:

• “Mother earth” is being “crucified.”
• The human psyche is being “resurrected” through mystical spirituality.
• The “cosmic christ” is healing “mother earth.”
• The “messianic spirit” has come to transform mankind.
• All religions will become one, as their common roots in the “cosmic christ” are revealed.
• There will a one-world government, a utopia, and a sexual paradise on earth.

Source: http://www.renewamerica.com/analysis/hutchison/090518

So Dr. Conniry, in standing with your friend Leonard Sweet, is this is what you believe?…

LEONARD SWEET CONTRADICTS HIMSELF

Leonard Sweet protests that he says he is not divine, yet promotes and quotes one teacher after another that says we are. Have you publicly stated that Mohammed, Krishna, Matthew Fox (Universalist), Carl Jung, Thomas Merton, Barack Obama (who promotes Planned Parenthood infanticide and defiling the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit), or Rick Warren are false teachers? Or do you stand with Leonard Sweet as does Jeremy Armstrong Managing Editor, Worship Leader Magazine? Whom have you or Leonard Sweet marked as false teachers or heretics?

GEORGE FOX PROFESSOR RANDY WOODLEY SLANDERS GOOD BEREANS

Randy Woodley, your colleague and professor at George Fox was both sarcastic and provided no proof of his own very unkind response to this letter where is he states:

“This would make a great advertisement for unbridled ignorance. May I use it in my classes?”

Here is the next correspondence from Randy Woodley to David Flang:

From: Randy Woodley
To: Warneveryone
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Dear professor Woodley

Dave,

I find it interesting that when fundamentalists make an
argument they often attribute the judgement of un-christlike motives to their opponent but their own motives are always seen by themselves as “pure” and pointing out “truth.” I consider my statement to be one of love in the same way Jesus pointed out the ignorance of the Pharisees, Paul pointed out the ignorance of the Judaizers and the Prophets in the Old Testament pointed out the ignorance of Israel. They were all in the realm of tough love. If you publish my original statement, you’ll need to publish this as well. Now, if you wish to have a healthy debate on theology or history please let me know.

Do’hi (“Peace,” in Cherokee)
Randy Woodley, Ph.D.
Distinguished Associate Professor of Faith and Culture,
George Fox University and Seminary
[Woodley’s personal website follows]
http://www.EaglesWingsMinistry.com

“It is not enough to undertake works of charity to alleviate the suffering of the poor; we must transform the structures that create this suffering.” ~Archbishop Oscar Romero (1917 –1980)

“…a concern arose to spend some time with the Indians, that I might feel and understand their life and the spirit they live in, if haply I might receive some instruction from them, or they might be in any degree helped forward by my following the leadings of truth among them.”-John Woolman (1720-1772)

On the Bible in Cherokee translation: “Well, it seems a good book – strange that the white people are no better, after having had it so long.” -Chief Yonaguska (1759-1839)
*****
Well Mr. Woodley disqualifies himself as a minister of righteousness on five grounds:

1. He promotes Roman Catholicism by citing Archbishop Oscar Romero.
2. Romero promoted Ignatius Loyola and his spiritual exercise which we exposed in the DVD and my written expose on Mystic Plague.
3. The Pharisees were hypocrites and the Judaizers were false teachers so Jesus Christ and Paul had ever reason to expose them and warn the saints. Judaizers tried to put the people back under the law, so Paul thrice cursed them in Galatians. Rick Warren, Sweet’s collaborator puts Christians back under the bondage of the law with his enforced covenants. So it would be Sweet, Warren and Woodley that Jesus Christ would be castigating, not the Bereans who are simply the messengers who sought out Scripture to see if their teachings be true. So Woodley has it quite backwards. Woodley wants to debate, but we have already given him and open door to debate the charges inviting and appealing to him to refute them from Scripture and reason from Scripture. To date he has done neither. So we should no longer be debating Woodley since he won’t repent upon a second warning and refuses correction, by publicly rebuking him and marking him. Woodley is the one displaying his ignorance of Scripture in full bloom. The Prophets of the OT teach exactly what we are teaching. The Israelites perished for lack of knowledge (ignorance) of Scripture, precisely what Woodley continues to exhibit. Woodley has still failed abysmally to refute a single charge any of us have made with Scripture from against Leonard Sweet. But he certainly has made a great case against himself, setting a snare that he himself gets caught in, so we will be happy to comply with his wish to publish his latest retaliation as well and include it in the full report on Leonard Sweet and his defenders and collaborators. Woodley has no problem dishing out “tough love” but can’t take it himself.

4. He promotes Liberation Theology another false gospel which pits rich and against poor, white men against black, red vs. white, male vs. female. Even Leonard Sweet opposes Liberation Theology in his critique of Brian McClaren and other Emergent Leaders in his response to Online Discernment Ministries (see: http://www.leonardsweet.com/response.php). But this is hypocritical of Sweet, in light of the fact that his Drew Seminary brought in Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright, Obama’s former pastor as a speaker in Spring 2010, a major player in Black Liberation Theology. Here is Leonard Sweet’s Drew University Spring 2010 newsletter extolling the virtues of Romero and Rev. Wright: http://www.drew.edu/newspost.aspx?id=77940

And why is Woodley bringing up Oscar Romero? I wondered why in the world Woodley would introduce Liberation Theology into this conversation, given that we hadn’t even been discussing it. Then I discovered that Drew University, where Leonard Sweet is a professor, was promoting both Romero and Rev. Wright in their “god-talk” courses which I read online where they are extolled and not exposed…virtually no disclaimers or warnings about them. Romero was a major ringleader of Liberation Theology (in spite of his denials), as is Rev. Wright (Black Liberation Theology), Obama’s former pastor, and now Obama himself. It is Marxist to the core but clothed in the scarlet garments of Roman Catholicism in the name of Jesus. Woodley has not reasoned from Scripture, but Ron Rhodes has in this demolition of Liberation Theology:

“Christian Revolution in Latin America:
The Changing Face of Liberation Theology”
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Liberation.html

Woodley would uses the term “fundamentalist” derisively,  just like Rick Warren who calls fundamentalist Christian enemies of the 21st Century. So Warren, Sweet and Woodley make great bedfellows. Like Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries, and Richard Bennett, Berean Beacon (Richard knows more than anyone about false religions in Latin America, as that is where he spent most of his years as a Roan Catholic priest). I am not a fundamentalist as in the denomination [I assume Sundquist is referring to Independent Fundamentalist Baptists], but we are fundamentalists in that we believe in fundamentals in the 1920s declaration [actually The Fundamentals were a series of articles written between 1910-1915] :

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).
SOURCE: http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/Five_Fundamentals_of_the_Faith.pdf

Conclusion, Mr. Woodley could not have made a better case to alert true saints throughout the world to sound the alarm on His Holy Hill about Woodley, than Woodley himself. He is indicted by his own testimony. But it is good to know who the wolves in sheep’s clothing are who masquerade as servants of righteousness. Woodley removed his own mask. To date, Randy Woodley still has not provided a shred of evidence that I have borne false witness against Leonard Sweet nor a single Scripture to refute me or any other brother or sister in Christ that has confronted him or his teachings. For that matter Leonard Sweet has never responded to any of my emails to him. Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge for a person who can’t attack the merit of an argument or provide any evidence, so they simply lash out.

Sincerely in Christ,
James Sundquist

[Interesting, and amazing. George Fox University belongs to the Evangelical Friends Church International (EFCI), originally composed of born again, conservative evangelical Gurneyite Quaker Yearly Meetings. And the Gurneyite Quakers in the early 1900s were strongly fundamentalist. Yet professors like Randy Woodley now have the gall to criticize fundamentalists. Perhaps they should study the history of the denomination that sponsors the school that pays their salaries!]

[Following is a response from Chuck Conniry; James Sundquist has inserted his comments.]

On May 18, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Chuck Connirywrote:

Dear James,
I’ve read through this email (and the ones that have followed up to this point).

I wonder if we can engage each other in the spirit of Christ’s love. I pray so…

WHAT IS LOVE? (JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
I pray the same. Is that what your Professor RandyWoodley did? Is that what Leonard Sweet did in his response to ODM ministries or when he contacted Lighthouse Trails, or his complete failure to ever respond to me? …

CHUCK CONNIRY:
L
en Sweet is a close friend of mine, so it troubles me to see him accused of being a heretic. I know him to be a person of deep faith, with a strong commitment to Scripture.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE DEFINITION OF HERETIC IS
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):

What should trouble you is not that someone calls him a heretic, but whether or not he is a heretic. If you are truly his friend then you would stop him from promoting false teachings and teaching at your university. “The wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of the enemy.” Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness and Roman Catholics (whom Sweet and Rick Warren extol) also claim commitment to Scripture. I know many Catholics who are friendly. But are we truly their friend if we do not tell them the truth that their religions are false? I am sure Paul was a friend of Peter’s. But that did not stop him from confronting him and opposing him publicly to his face.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
Our differences, James, are based largely on interpretation. I do not question your love for Jesus Christ…and I hope you do not doubt my love for him.

SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE TRUTH (JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
So weren’t the Judaizers differences with the Apostle Paul simply a matter of interpretation of Scripture? One as good as the next? Any interpretation wise in one own eyes is a valid as the next ? If that is true that subjective interpretation vs. objective interpretation is the standard, then no one could could be called a false teacher. There could be no such thing as sound doctrine to refute anyone. If that is the case, then why did Paul curse them three times in Galatians? After all many of them also would have claimed a religious zeal (as Paul even conceded) and commitment to Scripture. And doesn’t Peter state that Scripture is not open to private interpretation?

2 Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Furthermore, in Sweet’s case, it is not even often a matter of interpretation of Scripture but Sweet completely inventing and vain imagination what Scripture states. Now he plans to launch still another translation of the Bible. God help us if he infuses the ideas we quote into his translation.

As to whether or not I doubt your love for Jesus. I certainly pray that it is so. However, you systematically dismantle my confidence because you of your indefensible statements defending Leonard Sweet. But Sweet is not the only false teacher you promote and finance at your University. Richard Foster and Dan Kimball are two others, to say nothing about the fact that you promote Psychology there. [Others welcomed by George Fox University are Dallas Willard as well as a number of Emerging/Emergent seminar speakers.]

CHUCK CONNIRY:
The Apostle Paul’s words come to mind: “Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice (Phil. 1:15-18a).

LEONARD SWEET PROMOTES ANOTHER JESUS, ANOTHER GOSPEL AND ANOTHER HOLY SPIRIT, EVOLUTIONIST (JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
I am glad you cite Scripture. But first let me say that I never accused Leonard Sweet of preaching out of strife or envy or impure motives. But Sweet is preaching “another Jesus” (Christ) and another gospel. Paul would certainly not have countenanced that. The key in that verse you quote is whether or not Christ is being preached. And even if by some herculean stretch, that Sweet is
preaching Christ crucified and him only, the very term Christ-Consciousness and Cosmic Christ (Matthew Fox) are welcome buzz words used in the New Age which I well remember in my encounter with Theosophy and my discussion with my friend Warren Smith, a former New Ager and author of can attest to in his book: The Light That Was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace. [See] http://www.newagetograce.com/books.htm

Leonard Sweet extols Pierre Teilhard de Chardin [who taught many New Age concepts].  [Sweet writes] “[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin] is twentieth-century Christianity’s major voice.”   – Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality (Dayton, OH, Whaleprints, 1994), p. 106.
Source: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=4332

… for Leonard Sweet to say that Chardin is twentieth-century Christianity’s major voice is untrue, absurd and an abomination. But he certainly would qualify as one of the 20th Century’s greatest heretics! Why doesn’t Sweet select a non-Roman Catholic Evangelical Orthodox Christian as the 20th century’s major voice?

So, do you still stand with Sweet?

The Apostle Paul said:

1 Cr 14:8 “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

The terms that Leonard Sweet uses are confusing at best and you know who the author of confusion is, I pray.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
What I appreciate about Paul’s statement is the clarity with which he embraces his highest priority — the preaching of Christ. Elsewhere he writes, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings” (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

WHOM SWEET PROMOTES VS. THE APOSTLE PAUL’S RESPONSE
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
Once again, I am glad you cite Scripture. But not once did Paul corrupt Christ’s teachings to win the lost. Not once did Paul, or any other Apostle for that matter ever present the demon-possessed, the demonically-inspired, the atheist, the spiritists, the mystics, and the necromancers favorably to the people, as Leonard Sweet and Rick Warren his collaborator and admirer have done. I should also point out that though Paul personally put himself temporarily under the law with a vow, he also eternally damned the Judaizers for compelling the Jews to be put under the law. And he demolishes the righteousness under the law in Romans. Paul did not become a Greek Philosopher in order to win the Greeks. He made it perfectly clear in his writings that Greek Philosophy was also a false religion. So would Paul become an evolutionist in order to save an evolutionist as Roman Catholics and much the liberal church has done?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
For his part, the Apostle Paul recognized the importance of contextualizing the gospel for each audience. He never compromised the essence of the gospel, but he freely nuanced the message in whatever ways he deemed necessary to connect with those who desperately needed the salvation offered through Jesus Christ alone. Paul tolerated (even celebrated) the preaching of Christ from those whose motives were less than pure. How much more would he have appreciated the preaching of Christ from pure hearts…even if those preachers and teachers ended up presenting the gospel in ways that he would have never imagined in his lifetime?

JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE:
I was waiting for the term “contextualizing the gospel”. This sounds like it is straight from Fuller Theological Seminary and fits right into Warren and Robert Schuller and Willowcreek methodology.

I invite you to read: http://apprising.org/2009/09/22/contextualization-or-removingcontext-and-content/

Once again you harp on motives…which I never addressed regarding Sweet. But in any case it is a straw man argument because it presumes the Christ is being preached in the first place.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
The Apostle John writes, “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him” (1 John 2:9-11).

WHAT’S IN STORE FOR RICK WARREN AND LEONARD SWEET OPPONENTS
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
I certainly agree with this Scripture. But what did I write for you to suggest or imply that I hate my brother, particularly in light of the fact that you are confident that I love the Lord Jesus Christ? As Paul would say, “I am now therefore the enemy because I tell you the truth?” I am glad you quote John’s Epistle, for one of them contain both the warning about antichrists as well as marking Diotrephes who did to Christians exactly what Rick Warren (Leonard Sweet collaborator) does and prescribes in his Purpose Driven Blueprints for resisters and Fundamentalist Christians he calls enemies of the 21st Century. Where is the love of the brethren there? Was Paul unloving for marking Philetus and Hymenaus? Was John unloving to mark and expose Diotrephes?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
It is easy to love those we deem loveable, either because we agree on every point of interpretation we see as fundamental to the faith or because we find the person generally likeable.

MARGINAL POINTS ARE CENTRAL PILLARS OF DOCTRINE?
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
I am not opposing Leonard Sweet for marginal points of interpretation, but for corrupting central pillars of the faith.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
One can live in the flesh and manage to do that. One can also live in the flesh and hate and anathematize those he or she finds unloveable for the same corresponding reasons. Those who claim to be followers of Christ sometimes do this — with a sense of self absolution — by categorizing such people as heretics, even though the love of Christ is manifest in their lives, and the fruit of the Spirit is evident in abundant measure. None of that matters to those walking in this darkness. “Doctrinal purity is what matters,” they claim. “We must defend the Truth!” They forget that Jesus did not die for principles; he did not die for “truth.” Jesus died for lost people, which includes all of us (Rom. 3:23) — lost sheep upon

JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE:
Doctrinal purity or sound doctrine is not my subjective opinion, it is what Scripture commands. If truth is that disposable then why did Paul say “I am now therefore the enemy because I tell you the truth”? And why did the Apostle John say:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

“My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” I John 3:18

I exhort you to read Dr. John MacArthur’s book: The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in the Age of Uncertainty. I don’t know of any of the writers making charges against Leonard Sweet who are doing it for “self-absolution”. They are doing it because they are commanded to do so biblically, irrespective of how they personally feel about it. What part of Paul, Peter, Jude and John’s words did you apparently miss in making that statement suggesting that we are not required to contend for the faith, expose the deeds of darkness, mark and expel false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing from our midst? Were Paul, Peter, Jude and John doing so for self-absolution? You say that Leonard Sweet manifests the fruit of the spirit. But Jesus Christ says that it is what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him. What comes of out the mouth of Leonard Sweet is his published teaching. False teaching can hardly qualify as fruit of the spirit. But it certainly would qualify as fruit of another spirit. A thorn bush can not produce figs. And if you are that concerned about the lost, then why would you stand by Leonard Sweet who promotes the lost? Why would you or Leonard Sweet want to introduce the lost to another Jesus? Mohammed and Krishna are lost for Eternity, so what possible light could they have to offer has Mr. Sweet postulates?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
We demonstrate the truthfulness of the gospel by our love for one another (John 13:35; 17:22-23). When we show hatred and contempt toward one another…

JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE:
Again you begin with a false or presumed premise that Leonard Sweet is even a brother in the first place. Why wouldn’t you say these same things to Paul, Jude, Peter, and John, who named names?? I am simply agreeing with them and obeying what they commanded us to do with people like Leonard Sweet who is masquerading as a servant of righteousness. Jesus Christ himself even described many coming in his name but he responded with “depart from me you wicked and accursed, I never knew you.” So who was he talking about?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
… each of whom claims faith in the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who together trust in Jesus’ death on the cross as the atoning sacrifice for sin…and who share in the Blessed Hope of Christ’s return and the dawn of everlasting glory — we deny by those very actions the truth we claim to defend.

LEONARD SWEET DISCIPLE OF CARL JUNG DISCIPLE
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
The Apostle Peter agreed with all of these tenets of the faith too. Yet Paul still publicly confronted him. The Roman Catholic Church would agree with those tenets, though redefining them, but it remains a false apostate religion of works and necromancy. If Leonard Sweet whom you stand with believes this, then why does he admire and promote Joseph Campbell and others who do NOT believe in the physical resurrection and ascension of Christ instead of marking them as false teachers? Here [is] what Joseph Campbell has to say about Christ’s physical ascension:

[On] The Power of Myth, an outgrowth of the PBS series, he responds to Moyers with the following statements:

“We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heavenbecause there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe.

SOURCE: Campbell, J., with Moyers, B., The Power of Myth, Doubleday, New York, p. 56, 1988.

Joseph Campbell celebrates myth, the Apostle Paul demolishes the strongholds of myth. So why aren’t you?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
Paul states that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Then in the next two verses he adds, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (vv. 9-10).

GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY, MULTNOMAH UNIVERSITY AND LEONARD SWEET NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR REFUTE CHARGES
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
You keep bringing out more Scripture which I heartily agree with. But how is this relevant to any of our charges against Leonard Sweet? I am still waiting for a single Scripture that refutes our charges. We all used Scripture as good Bereans to test the spirits and search them to find where in the world Leonard Sweet came up with his philosophy. Had you done so, you should agree. If you don’t, then sadly you too become his accomplice.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
No matter how strenuously we try this side of eternity to get everything “right,” we won’t. But “walking in the light” is not sinless perfection, it speaks of the general tenor of one’s life — a life forever imperfect through its own efforts…but perfected by Jesus’ atonement (cf. Rom. 8:1-4; 1 John 1:5-10). If God loved us when we weren’t even trying, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Jesus’ atonement now!

To imitate God’s love is to give one another the benefit of the doubt and extend to each other the hospitality of open hearts and listening ears.

BE SURE TO BE HOSPITABLE TO DOCTRINES OF DEMONS THAT ENTER YOUR HOUSE? (JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
NO IT DOESN’T. Paul warned us about heaping upon ourselves teachers with itching ears. We are not to even let them into our house, let alone our house of God, or pulpit or stumble the least of these my little children.

2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Shouldn’t we let them in…be more hospitable? After all none of us gets everything right. Paul should have left Peter alone, after all, look at all the good Peter had done. To imitate God’s love, Paul should have given Peter the benefit of the doubt…cut him some slack, right? Of course not. If Paul spared not Peter, and God is not a respecter of persons, how much more should the benefit of the doubt not be given to a clearly false teacher that he might lead away that many more unsuspecting disciples.

CHUCK CONNIRY:
It also means erring on the side of mercy, as a matter of course, rather than judgment. As Scripture attests, “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13b).

JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE:
But mercy is NEVER at the price of judgment. Jesus Christ certainly taught against hypocritical judging. But most of the New Testament is a blueprint for how to judge false teaching and what to do with false teachers. Without judging there would be no such thing as church discipline. Please cite one Scripture in which any Prophet of the Old Testament or Apostle in the New Testament in which they were merciful to a false teacher? Now certainly were
they to have repented publicly, mercy would have been shown them. But we are never to remain silent in the face of iniquity. Where in Scripture do you find this advice as to how we are to imitate God’s love? What manual of church discipline are you following?

CHUCK CONNIRY:
As Job sat amid his judgmental friends, who called into the question the veracity of his faith, he proclaimed, “But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last. And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!” (Job 19:25-26).

JOB’S FRIENDS OR GOOD BEREANS?
(JAMES SUNDQUIST RESPONSE):
I am staggered that you would compare Leonard Sweet to Job. First of all, it assumes that Sweet is a Christian vs. a Christ-Consciousness or Cosmic Christ New Ager that promotes a trainload of false teachers. Secondly, it compares Job’s friends to Good Bereans who are simply obeying Scripture…fatally flawed analogy. All of the Bereans who confronted Leonard Sweet in the articles I sent you and myself agree with Job’s words and all sing “I know that my redeemer lives” and I recorded a classical guitar instrument of that very hymn. We all side with Job. None of us would take Job’s friends side. But Job would not side with Leonard Sweet, based on his teachings.

CHUCK CONNIRY:I stand alongside my friend, Len Sweet, and sing, “I know that my Redeemer lives….”

Faithfully,
Chuck Conniry
Charles J. Conniry, Jr., PhD
Vice President and Dean
George Fox Evangelical Seminary

*******

HIPPIE THEOLOGY AND BOB DYLAN’S THEME SONG FOR LEONARD SWEET’S NEW REFORMATION, [by] JAMES SUNDQUIST

[Dr. Conniry], if you stand with Leonard Sweet, then you are self-indicted and deceived and render yourself an accomplice. As Vice President and Dean of  George Fox University and Seminary, you should be the chief of watchmen. When the watchmen are derelict on duty, who remains to guard the city? “When the foundations be destroyed what do the righteous do?” Worse your unholy alliance with him will continue to hurt him as well as students you subject to him.

You can not serve two masters. You seem so alarmed that I would call Leonard Sweet a “heretic”. I am only surprised that you are surprised. You should be disturbed that Sweet is a heretic not the messengers who rightfully point it out. “Heretic” means to cause division (from sound doctrine) which is precisely what Leonard Sweet has done and by changing the incorruptible Word into corruptible and warning us that we need to change according to Bob Dylan’s song? Bob Dylan had a supposed temporary conversion to Christianity but was never a member of a local church let alone an elder in the faith… So Bob Dylan, is now the leader and poster child of a new Reformation in Christianity and Leonard Sweet’s billboard for change?! What an example! …

BOB DYLAN & LEONARD SWEET’S “TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN” & THE VINEYARD
… would Mr. Sweet like us to attend his church, if indeed there is one near Madison, New Jersey, for you certainly can’t easily locate it on any search on the Internet. He has written 30 books and 1200 sermons, many of which address the topic on how to do church and he taught seminars on the subject, yet where is his own local church? …

What changes does Sweet have in mind in order to launch his New Reformation with Dylan’s “Times They Are a Changin” theme song? Here are those lyrics:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-times-they-are-achangin-lyrics-bobdylan.
html

And Christ crucified would be where in those lyrics? The gospel would be where in those lyrics? Where in the church would Leonard Sweet have us put those lyrics? In the prayer book? Add it to the rubric liturgy in the Methodist Church? All Purpose-Driven Churches? And what is there in Dylan’s song that Sweet would have us change into, as there is certainly nothing evident in Dylan’s song? Sweet and Rick Warren say this change will be enforced. But how do you enforce the change when we are not even told what change is written in Dylan’s decree? … 

Christians and non-Christians should be concerned about the “change”  described in the Bible not change described in Dylan’s lyrics. The change being born again! The change that counts is becoming a New Creation. Once saved they should concern themselves with the “change” described in this Scripture when Christ physically returns in Glory:

1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Sweet’s role models who possess the New Light such as Mohammad, Krishna, Thomas Merton and a host of others will not be changed into incorruptible bodies but will perish eternally in the Lake of Fire who are deceased. And those who are alive will suffer the same fate if they do not repent.

WHO IS LEONARD SWEET’S PASTOR AND WHERE IS HIS LOCAL CHURCH?

As if it is not enough of a problem to track down Bob Dylan’s church, I found it virtually impossible to find Leonard Sweet’s local Church or pastor, upon an exhaustive search on the Internet and dialogue with his close friends and colleagues. Leonard Sweet offers no help. How bizarre is it that The Church Report states: “he was voted “One of the 50 Most Influential Christians in America” (www.thechurchreport.com)”, yet not report which local church he is in? Remember this is a “church report”. I even wrote a gentleman who is doing his doctoral dissertation under Leonard Sweet. He was very kind, but didn’t know either. I asked the VP and Dean of George Fox where Sweet also teaches if he knew. He either doesn’t know, or won’t tell. I twice asked the bishops and UMC Church leaders of Northern New Jersey district and West Virginia Districts (Bishops Sudarshana Devadhar, Bishop Lyght, and Rev Paul Mathew Maliel, Rev Robert E Costello, Rev Renee L Mccleary and Rev Sung Hoon Ah) of the United Methodist Church who ordained him as well as his own booking agent. No response…totally stonewalled. This doesn’t surprise me because the United Methodist Church promotes Yoga at its churches. They have become so apostate that you have to wonder if there is even such a thing as a false teacher to mark in this denomination. Is there any such thing a “unsound doctrine” with this organization? Leonard Sweet, who supposedly upholds church standards has made it almost impossible to carry out Matthew 18 should anyone have an offense against him. You could try to exercise Titus 3:15 to warn him and his local church, if indeed it even exists, or could find it, but his UMC denomination [apparently] is in cahoots with him as are Drew University and George Fox University...

SHIRLEY MACLAINE OR LEONARD SWEET?
MORE RESOURCES…THE BEST ONES ARE LEONARD SWEET HIMSELF

If you still don’t have enough published quotes by Leonard Sweet in his QUANTUM SPIRITUALITY book, to biblically mark him and separate from him, here is more evidence:

1. Unitary thinking, the highest level of understanding reality, opens us up to a wider sensory realm and mystical dimension of the divine; it also heals the divisions that separate us from one another and life’s highest values. 2. Wholeness unites, not eliminates, opposites, bringing them into dynamic balance—the coming together of earth and water, air and fire, through the merger of the Antaean sensibility (Antaeus the hugger of the ground, from which came his strength) with the Herculean sensibility (Hercules the master of air and fire, who defeated Antaeus by lifting him off the ground.) 3. The discovery of the euphoric state of wholeness will prove to be the highest form of ecstasis.” (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 250)

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

“As a cosmion incarnating the cells of a new body, New Lights will function as transitional vessels through which transforming energy can renew the divine image in the world, moving postmoderns from one state of embodiment to another.” (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 38)

“Postmodern culture is hungry for the intimacy of psychospiritual transformations. It wants a “reenchantment of nature.” It’s aware of its ecstasy deprivation. It wants to know God “by heart.” It wants to light an inner fire, the circulating force of divine energies flowing in and flowing out. The primal scream of postmodern spirituality is for primal experiences of God.”(Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pg. 56)

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

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

Leonard Sweet exposed by Brannon Howse : Rick Warren’s Church is Teaching The Same Thing As Oprah?
From Brannon Howse at Christian Worldview Network:

Best Selling Christian/New Age Author Leonard Sweet will be speaking for Rick Warren’s church this April of 2008. For those of you who did not think  Rick Warren was part of the Emergent Church movement, time to think again. Leonard Sweet is as Emergent Church, New Age, New Spirituality as you can get. In his book, Quantum Spirituality, Sweet states:

“The power of small groups is in their ability to develop the discipline to get people “in-phase” with the Christ consciousness and connected with one another.”

Here are some more quotes from Leonard Sweet’s book Quantum Spirituality:

“Austrian/American physicist Wolfgang Pauli perceived, are the traceable connections that exist between ourselves and others or objects, and the underlying holism of the universe. Transcendent state of consciousness” (Quantum Spirituality, p.234)

“New Light embodiment means to be “in connection” and “information” with other Christians…The church is fundamentally one being, one person, a communion whose cells are connected to one another within the information network called the Christ consciousness.” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 122).

“Postmodern missions must have a geomantic imagination and geomantic design. What I am calling a geomantic style of evangelization will ensure harmonious habitation patterns as the gospel interconnects and interacts with all life-and landforms.” (Quantum Spirituality, p.168)

LEONARD SWEET exposed by Sue Winter:

Leonard praised and endorsed Rick’s [Warren’s] PDC [Purpose Driven Church] book on the inside cover. (E p. 2 and O p.6-7) And Rick praised and endorsed Sweet’s book Soul Tsunami on the front and back cover encouraging the reader to use Sweet’s methods to communicate with God. Sweet uses such things as labyrinths and meditation centers. (*6 p.158) Sweet and Warren, it’s like “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

Sweet favorably references Carl Jung. (Jung practiced astrology and channeled two spirit guides [demons] called Philemon and Ka. More on this further on. O p.10)

Sweet’s books and writings are found in Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox as well. (O p.7)

Sweet thanks Matthew Fox and other mystics for helping him find the “New Light” and he further states that the “old teachings” of Christianity must be replaced with the “New Light” which comes from the ancient teachings of the Desert Fathers which include “a channeling of Christ energies through mind-body experience.” (*6 pps. 158-159) By telling us to follow Sweet just where is Rick Warren taking us? God’s Word does not tell us that Jesus is an “energy” to be channeled through us, but the New Age embraces this “cosmic” force of “Christ” instead of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sweet teaches that humans and creation are one. By accepting the “New Light” earthlings will then know the truth that Thomas Merton revealed, “We are already one…And what we have to recover is our original unity.” Why would Rick
promote such unbiblical garbage on his website for pastors? (*6 pps. 159-160)

Rick Warren and Sweet did an audio tape series together called “Tides of Change”. (O p.7)

Leonard teaches interconnection as a world view in that “The church is fundamentally one being, one person, a communion whose cells are connected to one another within the information network called the Christ
consciousness.” And that “…the gospel interconnects and interacts with all life-and-landforms.” (O p.6) “Google” Christ consciousness and see that this is NOT Biblical Christianity!

Sweet writes that “the church…must be first Christianized… with alterity of rituals by which they (postmoderns) can turn and tune to one another and feel connected to the cosmos. (Quantum Spirituality p. 137 and O p.7) Seriously, “connected to the cosmos”??? “Google”  interconnection to the cosmos to find out where Sweet, and evidently rick, want to take us. You don’t want to go there if you know the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior.

Sweet praises Jesuit philosopher Karl Rahner and quotes him
favorably in his book Quantum Spirituality (p.76), where he says, “The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something or he will be a nothing….We need a new feeling of what it is to be ‘I’ “(O p.8-9) Dear reader, are we supposed to base our relationship to the Lord on feelings…on experiences in place of knowledge of God through His Word? Is this the
teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God’s Holy Word? NO!

Sweet, like Schuller and Rick Warren, employs many favorable quotes in his writings from people hostile to or at odds with Biblical Christianity like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who writes, “I can be saved only by becoming one with the universe.” (O p.9)

Remember that Warren and Sweet promote each other’s books. Birds of a feather… SOURCE: By Sue Winter B.S., M.Ed. (another good friend
of mine)

Roger Oakland has written a book entitled Faith Undone which is a comprehensive proof of Leonard Sweet and other Emergent Leaders false teaching: Leonard Sweet names Ken Wilbur as one of his role
models as one of his “New Light” teachers. “Here a just a few of these spiritual activities that Wilbur promotes: yoga, Zen, centering prayer, Kabbalah, TM, tantra (Hindu-based sexuality), and kundalini yoga” SOURCE Faith Undone, Roger Oakland, pp 30-33, 110, Lighthouse Trails Pub., 2007.

CONCLUSION

I tried to warn you. Leonard Sweet and his Emerging Church colleagues have put an axe to the root of the tenets of Orthodox Christianity. But one day the Lord Himself will put an axe to the root of the entire Emerging church and those promoting the mystic plague. In the meantime, since the watchmen who should be warning and protecting the church won’t do it, I warn as many as I can in our media and broadcast alerts about Leonard Sweet, as many
pastors and Bible-believing brothers and sisters in Christ are already doing. But I had hoped that I would not have to include you and George Fox University as a collaborators. Emergent Church leaders like Leonard Sweet are destroying the foundation of Christianity, so what will the righteous do? It is no wonder then that Scripture prophesied about people like Leonard Sweet in describing a Great Falling Away in the Last Days as described in these passages:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;”
I Timothy 4:1

“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit
you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” 2 Peter 1:21-2:3

So I must stand by my statement that Leonard Sweet is a heretic, in accordance with this (and many other) Scriptures:

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” Titus 3:10

Leonard Sweet is touted as one of the leading futurists in this generation. But remind him of his future and anyone who follows him, unless he repents of his teachings!

I have had many people tell me that I am wasting my time confronting these false brethren and that I won’t change them. Well it is probably true that they won’t change and repent. But I am compelled to expose their deeds of darkness for three critical reasons:

1) I am commanded to do so from Scripture whether they listen or fail to listen.
2) I do so to alert those that have ears to hear.
3) To equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.
4) To bring the Balm of Gilead to wounds of the saints of churches who have been destroyed by Purpose Driven, Emerging Church and Mystic Plague

END OF COMMENTARY

Original Letter to George Fox University regarding Leonard Sweet

On 5/18/10 9:24 AM, “James Sundquist” < rock.salt@verizon.net>
wrote:

Dear President Robin Baker, Dean, Faculty and Administration of George Fox University and fellow defenders of The Faith,

Please be alerted to the following news release concerning Leonard Sweet vs. Scripture: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/leonardsweetquotes.html
&
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Church/post- modern/leonard-sweet.htm

Also, I invite you to hear former Roman Catholic priest (22 years)
Richard Bennett, President and Founder of Berean Beacon video exposing Leonard Sweet and Emerging Church:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/audio/Hazards_unfolded_by_Emerging_Church_leaders.mp3

Richard Bennett, who also taught at Multnomah Bible College (now also becoming increasingly mystical) will be sounding the alarm on His Holy Hill later this month when he releases his DVD on the Mystic Plague in the Church. Having been a Roman Catholic priest for 22 years, he knows as much as anyone about the false teachings of the very Roman Catholic mystics that Leonard Sweet so admirably quotes. Richard Bennett is shocked that Christians leaders would promote the very heretics he just escaped from. I also invite you to consider Pastor Bob DeWaay’s new book comparing Emerging Church to Scripture at: http://cicministry.org/

In Leonard Sweet’s response (http://www.leonardsweet.com/response.php) to online discernment ministries who are simply good Bereans searching the Scriptures to see if “these things (Sweet’s teachings) “be true”, Leonard Sweet attacks these defenders of the faith, but gives absolutely no Scriptural refutation, as the Apostle Paul requires, and ODMs have done, as I document in the websites enclosed in this letter. I remind Mr. Sweet that slanderers and those who bear false witness against a brother will not enter the Kingdom of God.

In this response Leonard Sweet uses Colossians Chapter 3 to defend his own teaching and philosophy. But Colossians refutes the very Colossian Heresy that Sweet espouses:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) In other words mixing Eastern and Western philosophy, exactly what Sweet’s Cosmic Christ (and Rick Warren) and many Emerging Leaders promote. Many scholars confirm that gnosticism, mysticism and a higher spiritual formation experience and its variations is what the Colossian heresy was referring.
See: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue69.htm

Sweet further states in his response to defenders of the Faith: “Jesus did not come to make us divine. Jesus came to show us how to be authentically what God made us to be–human. Because of the culture in which we live, I have encouraged the daily ritual of starting the day by standing in front of a mirror and saying: “God is God and I am not.””  It is true that God did not come to make us divine, but which Scripture (that Sweet can’t cite) teaches that Jesus came to teach us how to be authentically more human? This is completely heretical! Jesus did not come to teach use how to be more human but appease
his Father’s wrath through the substitutionary atonement, and to crucify the old human (man) and become a New Creation, that many of Sweet’s friends and colleagues renounce in the Emerging Church Movement.

Leonard Sweet may very well be friends with his fellow Emergent Church leaders such as Brian McLaren and others like Rick Warren and Richard Foster (another Carl Jung promoter), but Scripture states:

“know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” James 4:4

So Sweet should not be simply critiquing Brian McLaren, rather exposing his deeds of darkness and publicly marking him and other mystics as a false teachers not quoting them and promoting them and repenting of the promoting them himself and stumbling countless children of the Most High God!

Finally, Leonard Sweet gives thanks for being introduced to Joseph Campbell (“Power of Myth”) disciple of occultist Carl Jung [whom Rick Warren — a collaborator with Leonard Sweet] promotes in his SHAPE Personality Temperament Divination Profiling that I documented in my own book Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church (published by Southwest Radio Church swrc.com <http://swrc.com&gt; ), also published in The Conservative Theological Journal at Tyndale Theological Seminary and the Journal of Biblical Apologetics, and now posted on Youtube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qW6aroPRx8

I find it ironic that Leonard Sweet and his colleague Rick Warren would BOTH threaten whom Rick Warren call “resisters” and “enemies of the 21st Century” and Sweet himself says “change of be changed…Reinvent yourself for the 21st Century or die.” (Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami: Sink or Swim in the New Millennium Culture (Zondervan, 1999), p. 74-75). If you want to find out what happens to saints in churches who do resist these change agents? Read the case studies in my second book Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan vs. Scriptural Teachings on Peace at theperfectpeaceplan.com
<http://theperfectpeaceplan.com&gt; .

Both Rick Warren and Rick Warren are bitter/sweet as Scripture records sweet to the taste but bitter to the victims:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20

Sincerely in Christ,
James Sundquist
Director
Rock Salt Publishing
http://www.voiceoftruthradio.com/james.htm

FOR FURTHER READING

Randy Woodley’s blogsite

Read Full Post »

[blog under construction]

I stumbled across the following Internet article, that describes various Quaker denominations:

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ear_01/ear_01_00091.html

Here is the info on my birthright denomination (now called EFCI), copied verbatim. [Click here for the official EFCI website.] I am not saying I currently approve of the goings-on in EFCI. I am not even saying I agree with all of the info provided here. (For example, I know many churches in EFCI are no longer as biblically sound (“fundamentalist evangelical”) as they are described here. I am just providing this info as a “baseline” for my various blogs about EFCI.

Also, I am making a few changes to the original info. For example, correcting EFI to EFCI. Also, I hope to add links for the Regions, schools, etc. as I locate them.

Note – For some reason, my source did not include all the Regions of the EFCI-NA. Click here for direct links to all six Regions.

Following is the info available from novelguide.com:

962
Evangelical Friends Church International (EFCI)
5350 Broadmoor Cir. NW
Canton, OH 44709

The Evangelical Friends International came into being in 1990 when it superseded the former Evangelical Friends Alliance. The alliance had existed as an association of four autonomous Quaker groups, the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Region, the Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting of Friends, the Evangelical Friends Church-Mid-America Yearly Meeting, and the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends. These groups represented the most theologically conservative element in the Friends movement, much of it having been influenced by the holiness movement of the nineteenth century. The Evangelical Friends Alliance had been founded in 1965 but was restricted at the end of the 1980s in recognition that the four affiliated groups in fact had come to exist as a single denomination. The members of Evangelical Friends International attribute their change to the general evangelical renewal within Christianity, the new scholarly recognition of the evangelical nature of early Quakerism, and the cooperative work of the Evangelical Friends Alliance.

The Evangelical Friends Church, Eastern Region, which existed for many years as the Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends, was formed in 1813. As the work developed, members became attracted to the preaching of Joseph John Gurney, who had been deeply affected by Methodist holiness doctrines. Most active in promoting the holiness movement in Ohio were David Updegraff, Dougan Clark, Walter Malone, and Emma Malone. The Malones founded Cleveland Bible Institute (now Malone College) in 1892.

A generation after their movement into Ohio, Friends moved into Kansas and from there into Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, and Colorado. A Kansas Yearly Meeting now the Evangelical Friends Church-Mid-America Yearly Meeting was formed in 1872. In 1900 it affiliated with the Five Years Meeting but withdrew in 1937 as more conservative elements came to dominate the Meeting. In 1934 the Kansas Meeting established a mission in the Congo (now Burundi) and later founded Camp Quaker Haven at Arkansas, Kansas, for its youth.

The Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church dates to the movement of Friends into the Willamette Valley of Oregon in the late-nineteenth century. The first settlers had been from Iowa and they continued their affiliation with the Iowa Yearly Meeting, but by 1893 they had grown sufficiently so that an independent Oregon Yearly Meeting could be set apart. As work expanded into Washington and Idaho, the present name was assumed. From 1902 to 1936, the Oregon Yearly Meeting was affiliated with the Five Years Meeting but withdrew because of the growing conservative theological stance of Friends in the Northwest.

The Northwest Meeting sponsors four campground facilities, Friendship Manor (a retirement home), Barclay Press (a printing company), George Fox University, and several elementary and high schools.

The Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting was established in 1957 from congregations formerly affiliated with the Nebraska Yearly Meeting. The Nebraska Meeting was affiliated with the Friends United Meeting, and the Rocky Mountain Meeting did not continue that relationship. It sponsors a campground near Woodland Park, Colorado.

Now, the Evangelical Church-Southwest (formerly California Yearly Meeting) and Alaska Yearly Meeting have joined EFL, as well as with mission ministries in twenty-five countries, the worldwide attendance is 140,000 up from 105,000 just five years ago.

Membership: Not reported. In 1999 there were 300 congregations with 35,000 attendees.

Educational Facilities: Malone College, Canton, Ohio; Barclay College and Academy, Haviland, Kansas; Friends University, Wichita, Kansas; Houston Graduate School of Theology, Houston, Texas; George Fox University, Newberg, Oregon.

Periodicals: The Friends Voice, 5350 Broadmoor Cir. NW, Canton, OH 44709.

Sources:

Barrett, Paul W. Educating for Peace. Board of Publication, Kansas Yearly Meeting of Friends, n.d.

Choate, Ralph E. Dust of His Feet. The Author, 1965.

DeVol, Charles E. Focus on Friends. Canton, OH: Missionary Board of the Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Division, 1982.

Discipline. Kansas Yearly Meeting of Friends, 1966.

Faith and Practice of the Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting of Friends Church. Pueblo, CO: Riverside Printing Co., 1978.

Faith and Practice, the Book of Discipline. Canton, OH: Evangelical Friends Church-Eastern Division, 1981.

The Story of Friends in the Northwest. Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, n.d.

25th Anniversary Committee. Friends Ministering Together. Pueblo, CO: Riverside Printing Co., 1982.

961
Evangelical Friends Church, Eastern Region (EFC-ER)
5350 Broadmoor Circle NW
Canton, OH 44709

Prior to 1971 known as the Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends, the Evangelical Friends Church is that branch of the Friends most influenced by the holiness movement. The Evangelical Friends have a programmed worship service with a minister who preaches. Formed in 1813, the Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends supported the Gurneyites, followers of Joseph John Gurney, a promoter of beliefs in the final authority of the Bible, atonement, justification, and sanctification. After the Civil War, the Ohio Yearly Meeting became open to the holiness movement through the activities of such workers as David Updegraff, Dougan Clark, Walter Malone and Emma Malone. The latter founded the Cleveland Bible Insititute (now the Malone College) in 1892, and it now serves an interdenominational holiness constituency.

The Evangelical Friends Church, never a member of the Five Years Meeting, has become a haven of conservative congregations who have withdrawn from the Friends United Meeting in both the United States and Canada. Mission work is sustained in Taiwan and India. The church participates in the Evangelical Friends Alliance.

Membership: In 1990 there were 8,610 members in 93 churches.

Educational Facilities: Malone College, Canton, Ohio.

Periodicals: The Facing Bench.

Sources:

DeVol, Charles E. Focus on Friends. Canton, OH: Missionary Board of the Evangelical Friends Church–Eastern Division, 1982.

Faith and Practice, the Book of Discipline. Canton, OH: Evangelical Friends Church–Eastern Region, 1981.

970
Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church
200 N. Maridian St.
Newberg, OR 97132-2714

Quaker settlers in the northwest first gathered in the fertile Willamette Valley in Oregon in the late nineteenth century. These early settlers were from Iowa and associated with the Iowa Yearly Meeting. In 1893 they were officially established as an independent yearly meeting by the Iowa Yearly Meeting with the name Oregon Yearly Meeting of Friends. Because some churches were located in Washington and Idaho, the name was changed to Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends. From 1902 to 1936, the Oregon Yearly Meeting was a part of the Five Years Meeting, but has in more recent years affiliated with the Evangelical Friends International.

The doctrine of the Northwest Yearly Meeting (NWYM) is biblically based with a central message of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The emphasis of salvation through the Lord coupled with a strong sense of social commitment have been the two dominant themes of the meeting.

NWYM maintains a relationship with four camping facilities, Friendsview Manor (a retirement home), Barclay Press (a publishing company), George Fox University, and several elementary and high schools. Missionary work is carried out in cooperation with the Evangelical Friends International. A joint mission program is supported in Mexico, Rwanda, Burundi, Taiwan, Peru, and Bolivia.

Membership: In 2001, NWYM reported 7,017 members, 51 churches, including six extension churches. Ten mission points/ church plants are under the care of the Board of Evangelism.

Educational Facilities: George Fox University, Newberg, Oregon.

Periodicals: The Friends Voice. Send orders to 2748 E. Pikes Peak Ave., Colorado Springs, CO 80909.

Sources:

This Story of the Friends in the Northwest. Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, n.d.

973
Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting
Beaver Park Friends Church
140 Illinois Ave.
Penrose, CO 81240

The Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting was established in 1957 by separation from the Nebraska Yearly Meeting and did not continue the latter’s affiliation with the Friends United Meeting. Worship is programmed. Mission work is carried out by the Navajo Indians at the Rough Rock Friends Mission near Chinle, Arizona and by other individuals through cooperation with Evangelical Friends Mission. Quaker Ridge Camp is maintained north of Woodland Park, Colorado.

Membership: Not reported. In 1997 the meeting reported 1,162 members in 20 congregations located in Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Arizona. These include four Navajo in the Rough Rock area.

Educational Facilities: Barclay College, Haviland, Kansas.

Friends University, Wichita, Kansas.
George Fox College, Newberg, Oregon.

Periodicals: The Traveling Minute. • Friends Voice. Send orders to 600 E. 3rd St., Newberg, OR 97132.

Sources:

Faith and Practice of the Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting of Friends Church. Pueblo, CO: Riverside Printing Co., 1978.

25th Anniversary Committee. Friends Ministering Together. Pueblo, CO: Riverside Printing Co., 1982.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: