The CBE Scroll

Comment by Gwen

December 14, 2007 @ 11:46 pm

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves…

Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Oh! This is painful. I have been thinking much on this topic of defending the rights of those without voices, especially those whose voices have been taken by leadership. (Church leadership is what I am implying but I am too much of a coward to say it outside of the parenthesis.) The poverty tearing at my heart is inside the walls, dressed warmly, eating fellowship doughnuts and drinking branded coffee. How can I not speak up for my siblings in Christ when they have been stripped of voice by leadership? I am told, ‘don’t,’ take up another’s offense when in actuality I am being warned to turn a blind eye to the wounds inflicted by the ‘pruning’ of (church) authority. The pruned are denied voices and I am left behind failing to step up and give voices for them. When I dare give voice, I am also ‘pruned’ and no one speaks for me. Is that really what loving one another looks like? I don’t want to love or to be loved that way any more.

Because I am made in his image, the passion for justice burns within me. I want to defend the rights of others that they may have all that God dreamed up for them.

I know this passion but I no longer know how to manage it inside of traditional church. The older I get the harder it is for me to not see. I don’t know what to do with what I see. ‘Oh, I am not going to listen to you, you are angry.’ Well, yes, yes I am angry. Injustice makes me angry. When did it become wrong to feel the sting of injustice?

Each day Habakkuk’s cry to God was ‘Why do you show me iniquity and wrong and yourself cause me to see perverseness and trouble? For destruction and violence are before me; and there strife and contention arises.’ I also relate closely to Habakkuk’s wail in the next chapter, ‘Oh, I know, I have been rash to talk out plainly this way to God! I will stand upon my post of observation and station myself on the tower and will watch and see what God will say within me and what answer I will make as God’s mouthpiece to the perplexities of my complaint against God.’ (In case you did not notice, I changed all the capitalized pronouns to read ‘God.’ I just needed to do that. It is a justice thing with me.)

Watch and see what God says inside of me and how I will answer.

I am an artist. The only answer I know is with a brush. A battle rages as I seek God as how to answer injustice inside and outside the church. As I struggle to give voice to the voiceless, I fear further pruning will be involved.

I read this and I ache. How will I ever stand up to the injustice against who I don’t know when I have failed to take a stand for those who I not only know but who I love!

I am reminded of a quote my old boss used to toss about. ‘There you sit all spic and span, where were you when it hit the fan?’ Ho ho ho! I think it is about to hit the fan.

Merry Christmas and a just New Year!

Comment by Liz

December 15, 2007 @ 7:24 am

A word of encouragement, Gwen, because you are already involved and obviously on the brink of further involvement. God will give you courage and open doors to stand up for those who cannot defend themselves. Sometimes we fear it will make things worse for people if we ‘meddle’ or ‘intervene’ but at the end of the day, we want to be counted among those who stood for truth and justice. As I write this, I’m speaking to myself as well and sometimes wishing I had spoken out more and left the result to God. We probably will not get to see the fruit of much of our speaking out against injustice, but God hears and hopefully so do those who are being unfairly treated.

Comment by fjs

December 15, 2007 @ 10:54 am

Gwen, Get out quick. Some extreme authority-driven models such as you are describing in your church are spiritually abusive. (God is the vine-dresser who prunes, not the leadership – are they claiming equality with God?) Something about your e-mail triggered a response in me… it could be a spiritually abusive system… learn the signs.

Two books are Toxic Faith (Stephen Aterburn?) and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse (Dave Johnson and Jeff VanVondern). These books highlight the way Scripture, authority, etc. is used to control, manipulate, and abuse.

If you choose to take on this battle, be armed. And be aware; the one who chooses to speak up is often branded the problem.

Comment by Liz

December 15, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

Yes… even though I encourage you to speak up, Gwen, I wouldn’t encourage you to stay in an abusive system if that is what it is. You can ask God to show you.

Comment by Paula

December 15, 2007 @ 10:16 pm

Perhaps it is time for a ‘new Reformation,’ but not the kind the Dominionists are staging, whether it’s Rick Warren’s ‘get with the program or get out’ or the subtle mysticism of contemplative prayer. The first Reformation had to be done outside the walls and iron bars of established hierarchy. Is not the releasing from prison of half the body of Christ an even bigger turning from a system that denied the true faith?

Welcome to the revolution!

Comment by Donna

December 16, 2007 @ 6:02 am

Gwen, God has already shown you that it is an abusive system. I wholeheartedly agree with FJS. The time to get out is now. The book mentioned above – The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse – is excellent.

Comment by Watcher

December 16, 2007 @ 2:40 pm

What’s a Dominionist?

And further, what’s the problem with Rick Warren? I know that I couldn’t get past the first chapter of his Purpose Driven Life book for reasons I may or may not get into later. I wouldn’t read it for a long time before that because I didn’t even like the name. The word ‘driven’ bothered me, especially since I felt the Lord leading me into his rest at the time. But, I figured if the book helped other people I best let it alone.

I read The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse over ten years ago. It was good. I probably need to read it again, now that I have a bit more perspective being out of an abusive system for many years. And now I’m intrigued by Toxic Faith. Does it run along the lines of Subtle?

And dare I ask about the subtle mysticism of contemplative prayer?

I guess these terms are new to me and I’d like a little more understanding on them. Thanks.

Comment by Paula

December 16, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

Dominionists believe that they must set up an earthly ‘Christian’ kingdom before Jesus can return. Rick Warren is working hard to assemble this kingdom, mostly through following the corporate success strategies of a guy named Peter Drucker.

Someone has said, ‘Cattle are driven, but sheep are led,’ and it’s very true. Christians know their Master’s voice and follow him, and being led is the opposite of being driven or pushed. What the Purpose Driven Life books do for people is make them feel part of a larger movement and community, but the plain Gospel is hard to find in any of Warren’s materials. The heavy emphasis is on compromise in the name of peace, and strong ‘hints’ are being made to abandon the ‘old ways’ of the written Word and move instead to mystical experiences.

Contemplative Prayer or ‘centering prayer’ is simply the old Hindu ‘cloud of unknowing’ or ‘the silence.’ It involves emptying the mind by repeating a word or phrase until one enters an altered state of consciousness. It is being appealed to as something practiced by ‘the Desert Fathers,’ Catholic monks of many centuries ago who taught Hindu-type meditation.

But, the best resource for learning about all this is Lighthouse Trails Research, here.

Comment by fjs

December 16, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

Watcher, Toxic Faith is a book with similar content to The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. It outlines the signs of spiritually abusive systems. There are very discernable signs that help folks identify their system to determine its overall health. Control, labeling, heavy-handed authority and submission, triangling (when one persons speaks to another about someone else instead of going directly to the person involved), lots of blaming are all signs of dysfunctional. If conflict is resolved by assigning blame to a scapegoat or dismissing the problem person the system is probably pretty unhealthy.

Comment by Will

December 17, 2007 @ 11:48 am

Sorry Mary Ann and others to get off subject, but I felt inclined to comment here…

It is being appealed to as something practiced by ‘the Desert Fathers,’ Catholic monks of many centuries ago who taught Hindu-type meditation.

Regarding contemplative prayer, I think that Lighthouse Trails Research and others like them who are concerned with trends towards the contemplative in the writings of Nouwen, Manning, Foster, etc. and their recent resurgence among Emergent folk may be confusing a couple of legitimate and longstanding practices historically practiced by Christians both Eastern and Western.

Eastern meditative prayer, or hesychasm (‘stillness’) is the practice of sensual ascesis (denial of the senses) in order to attain to an experiential knowledge of God. Pre-dating the Desrt Fathers, cultivated within the ascestic culture of the Eastern Church, and most ardently practiced by the monastic community, hesychasm has been, and still is, a strong Christian tradition. Figures and works that exemplify this form of prayer include St. Gregory Palamas, St. John of Sinai’s The Ladder of Divine Ascent, and the collected texts of the Philokalia.

Western meditative prayer, especially Medieval, centers upon the practices of meditatio and contemplatio, states of focused thought and meditation upon a singular subject, usually the love of Christ. Such practices developed from the monastic tradition of lectio divina (‘divine reading’), or the slow and meditative reading of Scripture, and developed into a strong and long-held Christian tradition. Figures and works that exemplify this form of prayer include St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila, and the anonymous The Cloud of Unknowing.

Both traditions of contemplative prayer, while externally bearing likeness to Hindu forms of meditation, most notably Bhakti or Raja Yoga, are still just disciplines like fasting or prayer (or in fact are forms of prayer), and not manifestations of physiological or spiritual mastery. (That is, contemplative prayer is not an end in and of itself – Christ is.)

While I agree that simply attaching vaguely ‘spiritual’ forms of contemplation and meditation to one’s Christianity for who-knows-what-reason can be superficial and empty if not dangerous, what are we to do with ages-old traditions of prayer and discipline such as these? Lighthouse Trails Research and others seem eager to toss them, yet fail to recognize the strong foundation of prayer, asceticism, and Christian tradition they sit upon.

Comment by Will

December 17, 2007 @ 12:14 pm

And on subject, thank you Mary Ann for posting this.

I took a quick look at Proverbs 31, and found it notable that these verses fall under the Sayings of King Lemuel, a collection of sayings that his mother taught him (verses 1-2). Telling him how to rule and how to rule fairly and with justice, the sayings take a turn for the forlorn in verse 4, finally encouraging the impoverished to drink themselves beyond misery, but then lay responsibility squarely upon the king to rectify the situation as speaker, judge, and defender.

I think that you are on to something, Gwen, with this whole leadership thing and what it means to be in leadership. How the king rules says a lot about the king, and how the most impoverished under his reign are treated is good evidence of his rule. It does me well to remember that our model for this is the one to whom the shadow of King Lemuel points, the king who announced his rule with the announcement ‘…he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ (Luke 4:18-19)

Comment by Paula

December 17, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

Will, what are we to do with these traditions, you ask? Compare them to the New Testament Epistles.

Tradition can be a very dangerous thing, especially when it is in conflict with the revealed Word of God. Nowhere in any of its pages do we see a need to ‘experience’ God, nor any mention or recommendation of any kind of meditation besides that which thinks about God, his nature, and acts and laws. Instead, we see many warnings against copying the practices of other religions. To empty one’s mind is the opposite of Biblical meditation.

Regardless of the use of Christian terms, any path to God besides that of faith in the risen Jesus is a path in the wrong direction. There is only One Way, One Truth, One Life, and contemplative prayer is not it. Many of the traditions that have become ingrained in Christianity are very far removed from anything Jesus or the apostles taught.

I’ve spent many hours at Lighthouse Trails, read their books, and checked out their research. One thing they cannot be accused of is failing to recognize what is so clearly unbiblical. They know full well the history and teachings of the ‘Desert Fathers,’ and have much material on the dangers of such teachings and practices. Please don’t brush them aside, but instead take a careful look at their material. Some of the authors there are former New Age practitioners who know exactly what Eastern meditation is all about, so when they sound a warning it is wise to take heed.

I say all this simply to warn against that which I have come to understand is dangerous spiritual practice. Please compare contemplative spirituality with the New Testament Epistles especially, and you will see that everything points to the filling of our minds with the knowledge – not the experience – of God, with no mention at all of any added rituals, practices, or techniques. Experience must follow, not lead. The study of the Bible is not dry and boring as many claim today, but ‘living and active.’ Through such study we can ‘be transformed by the renewing of your mind;’ we can come to know God and walk with him simply by listening to his words.

Contemplative spirituality is something any religion can practice, and it can lead to any god. But again, there is only one Way to the true God, through faith in the risen Jesus, a way which cannot be found in something that works for unbelievers. Please consider this fact. Merely changing the words does not change the practice.

Comment by Watcher

December 17, 2007 @ 2:59 pm

Paula, when you and Lighthouse speak of the Desert Fathers, who are you refering to? Abraham and Moses, or others I’m unaware of?

I’m with you on the don’t do the empty-your-mind meditation, but you lose me on using only the New Testament Epistles as a measuring rod for this.

All of the Scripture is God-breathed and to me, the Psalms and other places are full of teaching that are foundational for prayer and meditation. And, the Epistles build on the foundation of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets.

My fear with too much of Americanized Christianity is a sweeping away of rock solid foundation God so painstakingly built over thousands of years because they do not ‘line up’ with an American interpretation of the Epistles. (I love the Epistles, by the way. I spend a great deal of time in them. But I also spend a lot of time on the Old Testament Prophets and poetic books and in so doing, the Epistles have taken on even more meaning to me.)

I may very well be misunderstanding what you are saying. So if you don’t mind, I’d like clarity on the term ‘Desert Fathers’ and how far you take the authority of the Epistles past Moses and the Prophets. Thanks.

Comment by Paula

December 17, 2007 @ 3:48 pm

Watcher, sorry, the Desert Fathers I’m talking about were a group of monks during the Middle Ages living in the wilderness of the Middle East who promoted various Hindu techniques as Christian meditation. (See here or here.) Many of them are revered in the Catholic Church.

In emphasizing the New Testament Epistles, I’m not downplaying the rest of the Bible, but only being specific as to what areas directly affect our understanding of Christian living. Of course, I also believe that Christians are not under the old Law in any way, so that the words of Moses and the Prophets are no longer over us (see Galatians 3). This is not to say we can just throw out the Old Testament but that it is not binding on us. There is much to learn from every page of the Bible, but we are now under grace.

I’m not aware of a distinctly ‘Americanized’ interpretation of the Epistles. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Comment by Will

December 17, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

I do believe that traditions and Scripture ought to be comparable to one another, and tradition ought to be informed by Scripture. I also don’t see them as being contrary to one another, but rather to operate hand in hand; especially in the time that the New Testament Epistles were being composed (as we ought to remember that the church was convening long before any canon of Scripture was established).

‘I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.’ (I Corinthians 11:2)

‘So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings/traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.’ (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching/tradition that you received from us.’ (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

It doesn’t seem to me that either hesychastic practice or meditatio/contemplatio involve an emptying of the mind, but instead are deeply rooted in either ascesis (the fasting of the mind from anything that may distract its attention from Christ) or that very meditation upon (especially in the case of meditatio/contemplatio) Scripture and the one whom Scripture serves to reveal. That is, meditation is placed fully and exclusively upon Christ. Like I said in my last comment, while they may externally bear a resemblance to certain other practices, they are in no way the same thing, as they are never an end in and of themselves, rather Christ is that end.

Our ancient Eastern and Western brothers and sisters would have agreed with you that Christ alone was the only way unto God. They would also have agreed that contemplative prayer does not save, just as reading Scripture, fasting, and almsgiving also do not save. I would have to argue, then, that these ancient practices had/have at their core the desire to be ‘transformed’ and ‘renew the mind.’

What I am a bit puzzled by is how we are to extract Scripture from tradition and why the propositional, or knowledge-based, relationship with God is often emphasized over any other relational aspect, especially the existential. Even in the example given, to ‘be transformed by the renewing of your mind,’ it is not encouraged that one do this through reading Scripture, but rather through the very active offering of one’s body.

Contemplative spirituality is something any religion can practice, and it can lead to any god. But again, there is only one Way to the true God, through faith in the risen Jesus, a way which cannot be found in something that works for unbelievers. Please consider this fact. Merely changing the words does not change the practice.

How does one find faith in Jesus Christ? How does one express that faith in Jesus Christ? If that is only to be found in Scripture and its exposition, how do we explain actual, historical cases where Scripture in its final, canonized form was wholly absent (the Old Testament, the disciples, the first several hundred years of Christianity)?

I’m not attempting to make the case that contemplative prayer alone is enough to sustain Christian faith, or that it even has any authority over Scripture. What I do think, however, is that properly understood and informed by Scripture, as an aspect of tradition, it ought to be treated as a valid form of spiritual discipline along with the likes of fasting and almsgiving.

Comment by Will

December 17, 2007 @ 5:05 pm

Regarding the Desert Fathers (and Mothers), I feel the need to add that they were Christians who were not only deeply couched in Scripture and a disciplined life of prayer and service, but that in departing to the wilderness they sought to most fully emulate the lives of Old Testament prophets the greatest and last of which was John the Baptist, and Christ himself, who was ‘led by the Spirit into the wilderness.’ (Matthew 4:1).

The Desert Fathers and Mothers would have had little to no knowledge of Hindu spiritual practice, and they instead sought, if anything, to shed the things of the world and discipline themselves to follow more closely the teachings of Christ.

Through the writings and the practices of the Desert Fathers and Mothers, much of the monastic tradition found its formation. They are deeply revered and many of them are canonized/glorified in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

It would seem, furthermore, that the church universal (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or otherwise) has much to owe to them, as monastics or those living in the wilderness, have at many points historically (see the Dark Ages) been what would seem to be the sole keepers of Christianity.

Comment by Liz

December 17, 2007 @ 5:58 pm

Thanks Will. We need such clarification as the tendency is always to polarize and make assumptions on half-baked truths. There is so much to be learned from our grandparents in the faith, and surely whatever honors Christ sould be considered. Maybe some who practice certain aspects of Christian worship are less than ideal role models, but lets not throw it all out without a good look.

On Rick Warren, I wonder if people are aware that when the proceeds from his books started rolling in, he returned twenty years worth of salary to the church and since then has used the proceeds to fund a mission to underprivileged people (I can’t recall the name offhand). Also, when I first heard ‘driven’ I was alarmed until I read his reasoning, which was… ‘we are all driven by something, so let it be the purposes of God.’ Sometimes words can get it in the way.

Comment by Paula

December 17, 2007 @ 8:07 pm

How does one find faith in Jesus Christ? How does one express that faith in Jesus Christ? If that is only to be found in Scripture and its exposition, how do we explain actual, historical cases where Scripture in its final, canonized form was wholly absent (the Old Testament, the disciples, the first several hundred years of Christianity)?

Faith is found in understanding and accepting that Jesus is God in the flesh who died and rose again. That is an action of the mind: ‘faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ What the earliest Christians knew, they knew by the testimony of eyewitnesses. They did not come to Christ by meditation, even without any of the New Testament canon in writing. We can still hear that same eyewitness testimony only by reading the New Testament. Feelings and experiences are nice, but they can easily lead astray. We can stay on track by continuing to sit at the feet of Jesus and the apostles, hearing their words again by reading.

Both sides of this issue can be accused of making ‘assumptions on half-baked truths;’ it’s a two-way street. All I’m asking is for everyone to at least try and listen to the other side, and Lighthouse Trails is a good resource for that. They have done the research and at least deserve to be heard without prior condemnation. Many of the objections raised in this thread are covered there, so rather than just hearing my quick summaries, why not check it out for yourself?

I am called to warn, regardless of reactions. Please consider all this, that’s all I ask.

Comment by Watcher

December 17, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

I probably should have said Western Chrisitianity, rather than Americanized, but we had such a reaction to the term Western on another thread I made a wide circle around the term.

There are many examples like the roots of ancient Greek teaching of the hatred of womanhood that this site addresses. There is also the obsession with end-times teaching that, from where I stand after studying European myth and history, seems to resemble Norse mythology attitudes and trying to make what the Bible say about end-times satisfy this obsession concerning the end. The end of the world has been coming for a long time. Many thought that Hitler had to be the anti-Christ and even back in the Middle Ages when a third of the European population was wiped out by the black death, they just knew it was one of the horses of the apocolypse mentioned in Revelation.

But the most pervasive thing that concerns me is the Western view which also comes from those lovely woman-hating Greeks. This is the view that man is not a part of nature/creation. They placed man more in the logical/reasoning realm, a scientist rather than a participant and catagorize animal and plant life separate. Think Mr. Spock from Star Trek (as opposed to Dr. Spock the child psychologist). This is the basic difference between Oriental and Western thinking.

And before you jump all over this and declare that Oriental is bad, you need to know that the Hebrew people and the Old Testement are Oriental, not Western. God chose an Oriental people to be his people and he worked through their culture. When we westernize things, we often take the heart out of it, the emotion out of it, the spiritual out of it.

My Christianity is supposed to be spiritual. But I use the Bible as my reference, my measuring rod because I know that there are lying spirits in this world that would try to deceive me and lead me astray. But I also know that God is a very passionate being and we westerners, because of our fear of the passionate, fear of those things we cannot define by our reasoning minds, have a tendency to separate ourselves from the emotional, intuitive, spiritual side of things, things Oriental cultures have no problem embracing.

I apologize. The above is quite a jumble and probably makes no sense. It is from years of observation and refering back to the Bible to try to make sense of these observations in the world, in the church, in human nature, etc. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. My faith helps me make sense of a world that often doesn’t. Logic and reason need to balance the emotional and spritiual, not lord over it.

So I have probably confused you more than clarified what I mean by Western/Americanized.

Long and short of it… I want to read the Bible and understand the depth of its truths with as little coloring from my limited cultural perspecitive as I can. It is my prayer to know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings as clearly as possible in this world. Some days I do better than other. Blessings.

Comment by Paula

December 18, 2007 @ 6:38 am

Watcher, I don’t see any difference between ‘men must be this and women must be that,’ and ‘Eastern is this while Western is that.’ Speaking in generalities seems to put people in boxes, and then arguments are drawn from these artificial restraints.

As I’m sure you know, hatred of women predates the Greeks; they simply honed it to a fine art. But should we say that since the Greeks hated women, their views on other things must be wrong, too, and Western thought comes from the Greeks alone? I really don’t see any connection between how women have been viewed in the West and how prophecy is understood. During the time of the black death, how many people had a good grasp of biblical teaching on even a surface level, let alone prophecy? Is their misjudgment to be taken as a fault of Western thinking, or just poor education?

It seems you’re jumping to many conclusions and making sweeping generalizations. (Should I assume you’d object to that statement as ‘Western thought?’) Regarding how man is viewed, is it not true that only man is ‘made in the image of God?’ Physically, Adam was made from dust just like the animals, but that doesn’t make man no different from them in other ways. Anyway, what has that to do with Western thinking (aside from being Christian thinking)?

When you say ‘And before you jump all over this and declare that Oriental is bad, you need to know that the Hebrew people and the Old Testement are Oriental, not Western,’ you’re assuming I’m going to ‘jump all over this’ in a way you wouldn’t do, and assuming I don’t know that the Hebrews are Oriental. Is that not a case of looking down on all Westerners as being ignorant? Is that not insulting? Why do you go on burning down the straw man that I don’t know the Hebrews are Oriental?

‘When we westernize things, we often take the heart out of it, the emotion out of it, the spiritual out of it.’ Another sweeping generalization that blames the cold heart of man on a convenient scapegoat. You obviously think ‘Western equals bad’ and see everything through this lens. Why do you think I don’t see anything spiritual in Christianity? Because I’m Western?

Yes, the Bible is the measuring rod; that’s why I put it first and emotions second. Notice I said ‘second,’ not ‘in the trash’ or something like that. My arguments for the primacy of the Bible are not to be taken as arguments for the elimination of spirituality. Yes, it is the way we can ‘test the spirits,’ and it is that very ‘test’ I see as being ignored in the case of contemplative spirituality.

‘We Westerners’ do not ‘fear the passionate;’ I don’t know why you think that.

Yes, logic and reason must balance emotion and the rather vague term ‘spirituality,’ but this balance is not being used in the case of contemplative spirituality. I see people blindly following it without discernment. That is my concern, and my motivation for warning.

To summarize, I believe you’ve ‘jumped out of the frying pan (Western thought) and into the fire (contemplative spirituality).’ Don’t blame all differences of opinion on culture, or think that if ‘Western equals bad then Eastern equals good.’ There is nothing superior about either culture. Only truth matters, and we all know from our battles with male supremecists how hard it can be to think outside the ‘sinner’ box – not just the ‘culture’ box.

I really didn’t want to get into this here, but just wanted to post a warning.

Comment by Will

December 18, 2007 @ 9:18 am

Faith is found in understanding and accepting that Jesus is God in the flesh who died and rose again. That is an action of the mind: ‘faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.’ What the earliest Christians knew, they knew by the testimony of eyewitnesses. They did not come to Christ by meditation, even without any of the New Testament canon in writing.

I agree with you that the earliest Christians did not come to know Christ by meditation (and that all those forms of prayer were later developments), and that it was through the word about Christ. I would just argue that that message was mediated in its earliest years primarily by the church and its traditions, especially Eucharist.

It seems that the major point of contention comes down to the question of whether the church and its traditions, inclusive of Scripture, mediate that word about Christ, or Scripture alone. And, if the question is one of what role, or what importance traditions (everything from contemplative prayer to the treatment of Eucharist) are to assume, then we are getting into some pretty deep and long-standing arguments, because Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant are all going to answer differently.

Comment by Christy

December 18, 2007 @ 9:21 am

I tend to agree with Paula, though I have never heard of Lighthouse Trails Research. It seems that in this ‘side discussion,’ definitions are not clearly defined. Will seems to be saying that all the historical monks – Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. – are brethren of the same universal church. I am not saying that individuals of these organizations might be (because of God’s grace) saved, but are the teachings of these organizations faithful to the Gospel and to the Scriptures? We can ask that of Protestant churches as well and any church that claims the title of being Christian.

This was the main issue of the Reformation – sola Scriptura. By definition, Protestants believe Scripture is the final authority by which everything else (teachings and traditions) are tested and measured. Catholics give tradition equal authority to Scripture, and believe that only the leaders of the Catholic Church have the authority to rightly interpret Scripture. These two views are very different systems in how one is to define truth.

However, according to Job 28, truth comes from God alone – it does not originate from this earth. The Gospel message is divine, it originated with God (Galatians 1), was set in motion before the world was created (Ephesians 1:4), and revealed by God Himself through the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2). The Word also came through the Holy Spirit and testifies of Christ and his Gospel (John 5:39). The Gospel is the power of God – it is the only vehicle that he has chosen for salvation and entrance into his Kingdom. Anything that contradicts this very specific message does not come from him and is accursed (Galatians 1:9-12). Redefining a practice in ‘Christian terms’ does not make it acceptable. We must always ask ourselves if that practice contradicts the truths of the Gospel. I remember when certain churches were teaching their people to imagine Jesus in their minds and then just write down anything they heard this ‘imagined Jesus’ to say. This was suppose to be a valid way to receive direct and personal communication from God. I believe it was a dangerous because it opened one up to receive any deceiving imagination and spirit – as though Satan can not appear as an angel of light… or that false teachers do not come out from among true believers… We are commanded to test the spirits with the Word and also doctrines.

Christianity is divine intervention and revelation from first to last. The truth and the Spirit are one. One can not have the Spirit without the truth, nor the truth without the Spirit. Godly truth is not mere head-knowledge, but a conviction that transforms the believer. We may be able to parrot truths with our mouths, but we don’t believe them until they become convictions (a work of the Holy Spirit.) That is faith.

We are to ‘throw out’ everything that contradicts the Gospel – especially our preconceived notions and traditions. The Gospel operates among differing peoples with great variety (customs and music, etc.), but the message itself will remain consistent. God does not contradict or war against himself. God has called us to be his faithful witnesses of this very specific message, ‘Jesus saves sinners.’ Our experiential communion with him is the result of believing more deeply his message. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says that the Gospel is of first importance and by it we are saved and stand if we hold tight to its message.

Comment by Christy

December 18, 2007 @ 9:28 am

I’m sorry for not double-checking my writing better. When I said, ‘We are commanded to test the spirits with the Word and also doctrines,’ I meant that we are to test the spirits and doctrines by searching the Word to see if they agree – following the practice of the Bereans.

Comment by Will

December 18, 2007 @ 10:11 am

So I ended up doing a bit of reading over at Lighthouse Trails. I was impressed by Ray Yungen’s (their first and most prominent published author) desire to see the church undefiled by any sort of vaguely ‘spiritual’ or New Age influence, and I have to agree with him that recent attempts on the part of contemporary Christianity to introduce such elements to their faith have been sketchy at best (somewhere along the lines of ‘yes, we use candles and incense during worship, but we don’t know why… guess they’re just cool’). I also agree with him that this can become dangerous, especially when such things are most visibly associated within our culture with Hinduism, New Age practice, or what-have-you are then absorbed into the faith without meaning or understanding.

Beyond that, however, I have to say that Yungen often makes the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. That is, Yungen points out similarities between silence as used in Christian prayer and silence as used in forms of Hindu meditation (that is correlation, or even just similarity), and he then assumes that silence in Christian prayer, especially of the contemplative sort, will lead (causation) to altered states and eventuate in a panentheistic (that is, God is in everything) way of seeing things that ultimately detracts from Christ. Here is a quote:

The silence [of prayer, meditation, etc.] is all really the same. It transcends context. Whatever the format in which it is placed, from stress reduction to contemplative prayer, it inevitably leads to a certain spiritual perception, but one [panentheism] that contradicts the Gospel and nullifies the Cross as essential to salvation.

I’m not sure that I can make that leap with him. I see him do it again and again, as he decries many modern spiritual leaders and writers (many of who are endorsers of CBE!). It just seems to be the same argument of correlation, of ‘Rick Warren was influenced by Thomas Merton who was influenced by Medieval Catholic mystics, whose prayer bore similarity to Hindu meditation.’ I have trouble seeing how all of the dots connect, I guess.

I think that the question of spirituality for the sake of spirituality in the church today is a question we need to consider, but I think that there might be better ways of going about it than this. Simply throwing things out because of their similarity to other practices seems to me a dangerous enterprise. We would never consider ceasing to read Scripture simply because Muslims read Scripture and the reading of Scriptures generally leads to the acquisition of propositional knowledge which eventuates in a reasoned and logical structuring of reality. I think that there is room to understand why we engage in spiritual discipline of any sort.

Thank you Paula, for entering into this conversation with me. I have found myself challenged regarding why I engage in the spiritual disciplines that I do and my convictions regarding as much strengthened. Is there any chance that we could move this conversation elsewhere, perhaps to Lighthouse Trail’s blog? (I just want to be sure that the conversation on this post can happen undistracted by the tangent.)

Comment by Will

December 18, 2007 @ 10:31 am

It seems that in this ’side discussion,’ definitions are not clearly defined.

The Gospel message is divine, it originated with God (Galatians 1), was set in motion before the world was created (Ephesians 1:4), and revealed by God Himself through the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2). The Word also came through the Holy Spirit and testifies of Christ and his Gospel (John 5:39). The Gospel is the power of God – it is the only vehicle that he has chosen for salvation and entrance into his Kingdom.

I agree that definitions have been all over the place. Perhaps we can tighten them down a bit. How do you distinguish, if at all, between the terms ‘Word,’ ‘Gospel,’ and then ‘Scripture’ (by which I assume you mean the written account of the Bible)?

Comment by Christy

December 18, 2007 @ 12:13 pm

Will, you already defined Scripture when you assumed I meant ‘the written account of the Bible.’ Jesus calls it the ‘Law and the Prophets.’ Peter also referred to Paul’s writings as ‘Scripture.’ I also mean the Scriptures as originally given. Maybe you may not agree, but I am defining it as the present day Bible, both Old and New Testaments – not including the Apocryphal writings.

As far as the word ‘Gospel’ is concerned, I define it as literally the ‘good news’ that ‘Jesus saves sinners’ (1 Timothy 1:15). This Gospel also includes all the implications and truths surrounding this good news, including the nature of God, the nature of humans, why we need to be saved and how we are saved. I also accept what Jesus said when he claimed that the Law and the Prophets testify of him and his Gospel (which is also the promise of the New Covenant).

I was using the word ‘Word’ interchangeably in meaning the Scriptures. I also know that Jesus is called the Word. But the Word (as Jesus defines it) and Jesus the person are one in the message they impart.

I don’t think we need to nick pick like our ex-President did in questioning what the word ‘it’ means. However, to unquestioningly embrace everyone, both now and historically, who uses the words Jesus, Gospel, church, Christians, God, etc. as genuine brothers and sisters without knowing what they actually mean by these words is naive at best.

Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine define what salvation is very differently. Both definitions may be wrong but both cannot be right. Truth, by its nature, excludes untruth.

Comment by Will

December 18, 2007 @ 12:48 pm

However, to unquestioningly embrace everyone, both now and historically, who uses the words Jesus, Gospel, church, Christians, God, etc. as genuine brothers and sisters without knowing what they actually mean by these words is naive at best.

Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine define what salvation is very differently. Both definitions may be wrong but both cannot be right. Truth, by its nature, excludes untruth.

I agree with you that unquestioningly embracing everyone, both now and historically might not be the best way of going about things, but I do think that understanding traditions within their contexts has a certain value. Why do Roman Catholics pray the rosary? Why do Protestants place such an emphasis upon Scripture alone? Why do Orthodox bury their dead facing east? All traditions, as varied as they are, developed for a reason, and we would do well to understand those reasons.

I am not unquestioningly embracing all of these traditions, just trying to prod us into understanding why they came about and what thoughts and beliefs they overlay. In so doing, we might understand other traditions and the context within which they arose. Roman Catholic and Protestant soteriological doctrine may be strikingly different, but I would be willing to bet that is because Roman Catholics and Protestants think about salvation in very different ways.

As far as the word ‘Gospel’ is concerned, I define it as literally the ‘good news’ that ‘Jesus saves sinners’ (1 Timothy 1:15). This Gospel also includes all the implications and truths surrounding this good news, including the nature of God, the nature of humans, why we need to be saved and how we are saved.

I was using the word ‘Word’ interchangeably in meaning the Scriptures. I also know that Jesus is called the Word. But the Word (as Jesus defines it) and Jesus the person are one in the message they impart.

These definitions go back to the written account of the Scriptures as the final authority, and yet for a Christian outside of the Protestant tradition (or even some within), they may not. They may instead go back to a model of authority that lends much more to the use of reason, the church and her dogmas, or even tradition itself. And, there is a reason for each of these models, having developed sometime between Pentecost and now.

This is not to say that truth is relative, or to make a definitive statement as to which way is right. Rather, it is just to show how certain traditions may have developed, and to recognize that traditions play a role, to a greater or lesser degree, in all of our churches.

Comment by Watcher

December 18, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

Paula, I see that I’ve hit a hot button and that was not my intention.

I was tired last night when I typed what I did and even admitted that it was a jumble. I should have known better than to type and send when I’m not hitting on all cylinders.

I don’t know about this contemplative stuff.

I gave Lighthouse a brief once over, especially the parts about Rick Warren, because I did wonder what the heck their problem was with him. I had also heard that he gave large amounts of money toward the promotion of the Gospel and since I couldn’t get through his book myself, I wondered if Lighthouse had the same problem that I had. They didn’t. My reasons had more to do with what I was going through at the time than any known doctrinal differences.

No, I do not think one culture is better than another. I’m sorry if I implied it or implied that you thought so. I repect both cultures while still holding both in suspect of having error. Rather, let God be true and every man a liar. But I recognize in myself a greater danger of being overtaken by the faulty traditions and thought processes of my own culture because I was born into it and shaped by it.

Sorry for confusing you and not making sense. I know what I meant, I didn’t relate it well. I still hold that our histories, legends, myths, and even fairy tales hold great sway over the way we think every day and we are often not aware of how deeply we are affected by them. Different cultures are moved by their different histories and values. It is difficult to transcend for anyone of any culture.

Back to the contemplative stuff for another question. This has to do with what Will brought up.

Is contemplative prayer being silent in prayer, or is it more than that?

I agree with not emptying the mind in meditation. But does it mean that the mouth cannot be empty of words when one is in prayer? While the mind is focused on the Lord in worship, must the lips be moving or can they be still? I’m just not getting exactly what the problem is and cannot discuss this any further until I understand better what I’m being warned about.

Comment by Christy

December 18, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

Will, I know some find it very fascinating to learn why people perform various traditions, but it is not necessary for every Christian to know why others do what they do. Life is short. We need to keep our priorities straight and to put most of our energy towards embracing what God says is of first importance. We need to have a reason for why we do and believe what we do and be ready to give an account to those who ask. Paul purposed to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

That does not mean we shouldn’t study what others think. But our studies of other belief systems should not compete with the time and energy required to obtain a sound grasp of the Gospel. Frankly, I don’t care why the Orthodox bury their dead facing east. I am grieved that menstruating women are considered too unclean to attend their church services. My Orthodox woman friend thinks this is just a ‘normal’ part of practicing Christianity. Through my studies on women issues, I know how this tradition developed – but it still makes it dead wrong and contrary to the Gospel message.

Comment by Paula

December 18, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

Will, It isn’t easy to discuss this topic without without a flame war erupting, and I think it has gone well here. But I agree, another venue would be better. But Lighthouse doesn’t have any kind of interactive blog or board. I have a message board here, but of course you may not feel comfortable discussing this in a board owned by your opponent and populated by refugees from various false teachings. You’d be welcome though, and the others there are very nice people.

Not to judge Yungen’s motives, but if I were to venture a guess I’d say his ‘leaps’ are born from experience. He has ‘been there’ and knows where the path leads, no matter how harmless it may seem at its beginning. What he’s comparing Warren to, for example, is not merely his line of mentors but his current and past teachings as compared to both Scripture and Hinduism. Here in this thread we’ve been talking about how powerful tradition and influence can be, so we can’t lightly dismiss it in such influential people as Warren. This is much more than similarity of practice with Hinduism; Yungen and others are telling us it is identical in every way but terminology. Surely this warrants extreme caution at the least.

In the end, knowing how we came to certain practices is valuable in understanding them, but the bottom line is always Scripture, for any given question: Is it commanded? Forbidden? Implied as either? Shown by example in either a good or evil light? Does it build up the church or only ourselves? Does it conflict with clear teachings? When I apply that to contemplative prayer, not only does it fail some of the tests of written Scripture, but in my Spirit I ‘smell a dragon.’ Yes, even us ‘people of the Book’ as the Muslims call us, have spiritual gifts. Scripture and the Spirit together tell me this is a very bad thing.

Watcher, thank you for the explanation. It is of course commendable to want to recognize our own assumptions, and that’s something I try to do as well.

Let me try to explain what I see as the differrence between ‘praying without words’ (something I do) and contemplative prayer (I’ll abbreviate it to c.p.). I think the first criterion is that in Hinduism or c.p., the practitioner must assume a posture, repeat a word or phrase for an extended period of time, and may also use smells or lights to enhance or expidite entering into an altered state of consciousness. In contrast, the Christian can enter into the very presence of God simply by turning our attention to him or his words. When I think of what Jesus did for me, there are no words to express my gratitude. This feeling is not something I have to do certain things to attain, but comes instantly and effortlessly as I think about what the Gospel encompasses.

Another criterion would be that in c.p. and Hinduism, the ‘message’ practitioners almost always come away with is that there are many paths to God. Obviously the Bible strongly and clearly opposes such an idea. Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be very devout and sincere, but they are lost nonetheless without the Jesus of the Bible, without acknowledging him as the only Way, Truth, and Life. So if one’s meditation blurs the line, it is a spiritual danger. While some who practice c.p. may still hold to the essentials of the Gospel at first, the teachers of c.p. all seem to be compromising the Gospel and accepting other ways to God, and these teachers have been c.p. practitioners for some time. I view it as playing with fire.

As a last thought on this, I keep wondering what the allure of c.p. is, when I can have Jesus and spirituality without any effort on my part? Why add rules and practices to my freedom in Christ Jesus? Why would I need more? C.P. simply isn’t necessary, even if it were not dangerous.

Comment by Will

December 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm

Christy, beyond mere fascination, I do think that it is very important that every Christian know why they do what they do. And, I do think that it is very important that every Christian know why those they would attempt to understand or critique do what they do.

Life is short, and we need to be doing, and living for, things of significance. I agree with you, and yet am wary of simply counting other Christian’s beliefs regarding such things as the manner in which one comes to God as mere distraction from this aim, or somehow something peripheral.

For example, you write that chief among these is the knowledge of ‘Christ and him crucified.’ I assume by this you mean a saving knowledge of Christ brought about by faith in him and his death and resurrection. What then, of Roman Catholics who would come to Eucharist and the actual partaking of ‘Christ and him crucified’ in the body and blood present there? While I’m not endorsing the truth of one or another here, I do want to illustrate how while traditions may appear strange and peripheral, it many cases, they most certainly are not.

To bring this away from the question of traditions in general and back to the question of contemplative prayer, I mean simply to say that while contemplative prayer may be of little to no significance for some Christians, to others, it is but one expression of an entire way of coming to God.

This is why I would ask anyone considering all of this about traditions and especially contemplative prayer to read, firsthand, the Desert Fathers (Waddell’s translation is quite good), or to read Palamas. Read Merton, pray along with St. Teresa of Avila’s journals. Understand the contexts, and engage them unafraid, knowing that Christ himself is truth. See the danger of engaging these traditions without understanding (as I think happens far too much today), and yet do try to understand.

Also, Paula, I agree that this conversation has been mutually edifying and charitable.

However, to be fair to Mary Ann and the other commenters, I would feel more comfortable moving this tangent to your discussion board. How do I go about bringing up the topic there? Could you just paste our conversation there, so that you and I, Christy, and anyone else that may wish to join the conversation may do so?

Comment by Liz

December 18, 2007 @ 6:15 pm

May I say a couple of things. Firstly that when the word ‘Scripture’ is used in the New Testament, it refers to the Old Testament only.

Secondly that we all choose our own experts – those whose opinion and research we value and trust. Very few of us know everything about everything and must choose other more knowledgable people to inform us about many things.

Comment by Paula

December 18, 2007 @ 6:34 pm

Actually, Liz, Peter called Paul’s writings ‘Scripture’ in 2 Peter 3:16 (in saying ‘the other Scriptures’ Peter equates Paul’s writing with them).

Will, I’ll try and move the text to the message board. In the meantime anyone who wants to can go to the link I listed earlier and register.

Comment by Christy

December 18, 2007 @ 8:17 pm

Desiring to end my part in this discussion, I feel compelled nevertheless to clarify my position in light of Will’s last remarks in comment 76359.

1. Salvation is hardly a peripheral subject. My point was that Will groups us all together as the universal church despite the fact that some of us differ greatly over such essentials as salvation. Obviously, Will and I have different standards in what we define as essential to Christianity.

2. Of course I agree with Will that it is important to study the views of those to whom we are reaching out. That was never the issue being discussed. Will had been explaining how good it is to know the reasons for the traditions of others (it helps in our mutual understanding). My point was, where does such studying end? The world is full of people groups. How many do we have to know before it is enough? With too many Christians so unable to explain their own faith clearly, wouldn’t it be a better use of our time to focus on the truth itself?

3. My point in quoting Paul was that he purposed to keep himself focused on the essentials. As far as Will suggesting that Catholics, by partaking of their Eucharist, are also being like Paul in knowing nothing but Christ and him crucified, I must strongly disagree. However, this is not the place to get into it.

4. Finding a point of consensus is important in any discussion. What I have liked about CBE is their position that Scripture is their final authority. Too many patriarchalists accuse those holding an egalitarian view as being liberal and rejecting biblical authority. Maybe some do, but I do not. It has been by studying the Scriptures with even greater care that I have come to my present egalitarian position. Without this standard, all we are left with is relative truth – which to me is no truth at all.

Comment by Liz

December 19, 2007 @ 6:31 am

Scripture… to my understanding is a translation of a word which means literally ‘writings’ and could refer to a whole host of written accounts which were around before the canon of ‘Scripture’ was decided. There was also a comment regarding Jesus talking about the Law and the Prophets… surely he was referring to what we call the Old Testament as the Gospels and Letters had not been written down at that stage.

All that being said, there is plenty in the writings we call the ‘Bible’ regarding equality and God’s desire for how we as humans should get on with each other.

This was the context of Mary Ann’s original post – that justice is one of the characteristics of God, something he is passionate about and so should we be as his followers. I would echo Mary Ann’s thoughts and welcome suggestions as to how we can best practice this ourselves and attempt to communicate this to those around us every day.

Comment by Paula

December 19, 2007 @ 7:28 am

Christy, well put (see comment 76368). It’s a shame that the most simple and basic essential of Christianity, salvation, is probably the least understood and poorly defined. Jesus said that whoever has him has the Father, so it’s absolutely crucial to identify the right Jesus and to believe his resurrection from the dead. We are not to add to this nor subtract from it; both ‘Jesus Lite’ and ‘Jesus Plus’ (see here) are errors that can have dire consequences.

Liz, yes, the word is ‘graphe’ but what ‘other writings’ could Peter be referring to, which people were distorting? Any writings at all, or specific writings? The only writings that Peter would be concerned about were the existing ‘writings,’ the Old Testament Scriptures. At any rate, the thing that makes Scripture ‘Scripture’ is that it comes directly from God. Paul was given direct revelation (Galatians 1:12), and of course the original disciples were taught directly by Jesus, too. So unless we throw out divine inspiration of the Bible, we are right to call the New Testament ‘Scripture.’

Comment by Trevor

December 19, 2007 @ 8:26 am

In Mary Ann’s original post she used the expression, ‘We must speak up for others – be a voice for the voiceless.’ She went on to say, ‘I want to defend the rights of others that they may have all that God dreamed up for them,’ which gave this post its title. For me, it’s interesting in the light of that desire of Mary Ann’s, that the comments and threads have taken the course that they have.

Very early in Liz and my life together in Christian service we heard Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand speak of the suffering of believers under communism. This was relatively new information at that time and for us it was an incredible eye opener. So much so that we became friends of the Mission which is currently known as ‘Voice of the Martyrs.’ The catch cry then was, ‘being a voice for the voiceless.’ Our suffering brethren were ‘voiceless’ because they were silenced by the totalitarian regimes that unjustly incarcerated them.

Back then little was known about the extent of the suffering and it was only with the release of people like the Wurmbrands that the free world gained an insight into the injustices that were being perpetrated. In our own times this is now common knowledge, as is the awareness that torture and death is being experienced by many of different faiths, but mostly christians, at the hands of inumerable political despots, militants, terrorists and extremists.

The one thing that has stood out for us in our long association with this mission is the extent to which ‘differences’ between Christian brethren disappeared when they shared a prison cell. It was then that it got down to living out the reality of their Christian faith. I well remember Richard Wurmbrand, who experienced fourteen years imprisonment himself, sharing that an Adventist, Pentecostal, or Catholic believer while still subscribing to their particular Christian tradition, would behave as Christ to one another and to the other prisoners. Often giving to another unfortunate their last piece of bread.

This helped us to see that God was on the side of justice for all and that he sometimes preserved alive brethren who, in faith, defended a ‘tradition’ that we (Liz and I) considered unnecessary, misinformed, or even bordering on the idolatrous. For example, Catholic nuns who refused to exchange their habits for prison clothes were forced to spend nights in the freezing ice of Siberia. God saw to it that they experienced no hardship but were rather strengthened in their resolve. This was seen as a testimony to both their fellow prisoners and torturers alike of the faithfulness of God.

If we are going to truly stand for those against whom injustices are committed, even if only in the Christian arena, we are going to have to discover what value God places on beliefs and practices that others have that may differ from our own. It may well be that how we respond to that which is different will either give us or deny us an opportunity to share why we believe and behave (justly) as we do.

Yes, there may well be dangers in subscribing to contemplative prayer practices, or being taken in by the exponents of dominion theologies, etc. but for me, if I’m aware that even these people are being treated unjustly, I, as a Jesus follower must stand up for them and be a voice for them.

While I might agree with most of the concerns expressed in the various comments and threads related to this post I am equally concerned about the possibility of ‘straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.’ It is commendable to be doctrinally correct but it can also be heartless. I’ve been a victim of and have witnessed far more misunderstanding, cruelty and abuse at the hands of the practitioners of theological correctness (read legalists) than ever I’ve experienced from those, who, for love of Christ, are exploring the existential.

Comment by Paula

December 19, 2007 @ 11:21 am

Yes, Trevor, we’re looking for balance here. But there is no love in allowing people to have a false sense of security if they’re lost, no matter how pious they may be. It should go without saying that a real Christian would never persecute other people for any reason, but neither should we shy away from ‘theological correctness’ for fear of offending the lost or backslidden.

This makes the need to thoroughly study what God has written all the more vital, so we can know where the lines are to be drawn. When Jesus ‘pardoned’ the woman caught in adultery, he also said ‘Go and sin no more;’ similar answer to the crippled man he healed ‘so that nothing worse will happen to you.’ Jesus’ harsh condemnation of the Pharisees was not because they were theologians, but because they were cold-hearted and made up their own rules.

So doctrine is important to keep us from error, and our spiritual walk must be evident in how we treat others. Love and holiness are two sides of the same coin, not conflicting or competing ideas. There is extreme legalism that is cold, but there is also the abandonment of doctrine to the point where one fails to ‘test the spirits.’

We cannot judge people’s motives. Some may issue warnings out of a need to control others or feel important, but others do so out of love for fellow believers who may be starting down a dangerous road. While it’s true that suffering as you described can clarify our priorities, it can also lead us to accept beliefs that are gray or clearly wrong. I know of several people who have had near-death experiences who now are completely apostate, thinking Jesus’ sacrifice was not needed since everyone will go to heaven. Their suffering actually led them away from the truth.

So, as I’ve been saying all along, be careful. Physical suffering is bad, but so is false belief. Our emotions may lead us astray, but the written Word never changes. Let’s ‘practice the former without neglecting the latter;’ let’s not discard doctrine in the name of love, or love in the name of doctrine.

That’s all I have to say.

Comment by Will

December 19, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

Just so all here know, the conversation on contemplative prayer, tradition, and Scripture has been moved here. Please feel free to join us!

Comment by Trevor

December 19, 2007 @ 6:03 pm

Another issue is how we treat or understand believers or unbelievers. Once people have been born of the Spirit of God and have the love of God in their hearts, then what and how they practice their faith is not affecting their salvation but rather expresses that fact and may or may not draw them close to God.

On the other hand… when talking with unbelievers we would want to be very clear about the essential need of forgiveness of sin which is why Jesus died, and I would agree with you, Paula, and many others, that many times lately this is ignored or ‘played down’ in favor of the benefits of living a ‘Christian’ lifestyle.

As someone said earlier, the apostle Paul said he was determined to know nothing among them but Jesus Christ and him crucified and I think we would all agree that is the best starting point. Sometimes the road to there is different from how we could have imagined. There are some wonderful accounts of people coming to faith through some very circuitous routes as God revealed himself to them.

I’ll share one story from the persecuted church in Romania.

At one time, the authorities were burning Bibles in the city square. Some pages blew away and one was found by a young man named Stefan. It was the first page of chapter one of Isaiah and the words he read were ‘And God spoke to Jeremiah.’ Stefan hadn’t any training in the ways of God or the Bible, as he had grown up in an atheistic state, but he simply said… ‘God, my name is Stefan. In this book you spoke to a man named Jeremiah. Could you speak to me?’ And God did! Outside of a church building, without the presence of other believers and without any knowledge of the written Word of God, Stefan came to know Jesus. Like all believers in those situations, he surely would have been able to read at least a page of the Bible at some time later in his life, but here is just one incident where God reached into a person’s life and Stefan was born into the kingdom of God.

Comment by Liz

December 20, 2007 @ 5:39 am

Oops! That last post was me and not Trevor…

Comment by Melodie

December 25, 2007 @ 12:05 am

Moving thoughts that were beautifully written… I appreciate you!

Comment by Liz

December 26, 2007 @ 4:01 am

Thank you, Melodie. I just had a quick look, not expecting any new posts. Thanks for the encouragement.

Comment by Watcher

December 26, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

Oh, this board is so quiet.

I know, I know, everyone is celebrating Christmas, visiting family, and such.

Well, I’m back at work this day after Christmas and wish I could look here for intellectual stimulation and spiritually inspiring words on seeking out justice for everyone, no matter their race, age, or gender.

So, I guess since it is so quiet, I’ll relate a dream I had years ago that has meant different things to me as I passed through different stages of my life. And now as I have been visiting this board, it means even more still, especially on this topic of seeking justice for those who can’t speak or fight for themselves.

I dreamt of an apple tree in a yard. The apples were ripe and falling in the yard and on the street next to the yard, and no one gathered them. As they sat on the ground they began to rot. And many that had fallen in the street had been smashed by cars.

I thought, ‘What a waste. These apples could be gathered and used. Even the half rotten ones could be cut, cooked and turned into apple sauce.’

But when I looked at the house in the yard, I realized who lived there. It was a former pastor, the one of the abusive church I used to go to, the reason I read the book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.

I walked away sad, knowing that this man would never let me come into the yard and gather the apples and would be angry if I bothered him by knocking on the door and asking him.

The dream was so depressing, I brought it before the Lord. And as I meditated on it, it dawned on me that it was my reponse that was wrong. At the time I worked in children’s ministry and supported a missionary organization that focused on children in the United States and abroad. I saw and heard of children in abusive and neglectful situations. And those apples came to represent those children, some neglected and others thrown out on the street for their destruction. And, the former pastor in the house came to represent the authority structure that ignored, neglected, and/or abused them.

I felt in my heart that statement in Acts where the disciples declared that it was better to obey God rather than man, and the I had nothing to fear when I moved in God’s authority no matter the anger of those ‘in charge.’

Later on, as I was going through a re-evaluation period of my own life I read an article that contained an apple tree analogy in it and was reminded of the dream. Only this time, the apples represented my talents and the pastor represented everything that compelled me to suppress and bury those talents. And, I made changes in my life to pursue what God created me to be.

Now, reading Mary Ann’s words above, I again think of the apple dream. And I recognize that there are those who set themselves up as the authorities, not to be questioned, who use the Bible as their weapon against freedom. They are false authorities and are far more concerned with their own order and authority as defined by their own prejudices than with what God has dreamed up…

I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas and come back refreshed to talk about the issues that face us in this fallen world and how we, as believers, can overcome these injustices by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of our testimonies.

Comment by Julie

December 28, 2007 @ 9:02 am

Thanks, Watcher.

I came here for inspiration too, before heading off to my ‘complementarian, but making progress’ fellowship group tomorrow!

Comment by Trevor

December 29, 2007 @ 6:22 pm

Yes, thanks Watcher for sharing your ‘dream’ story (comment 76850). It so fits in with Mary Ann’s original post of ‘all that God dreams’ for his people. It is such a tragedy that some folks are locked in to hard line interpretations and can’t touch God’s heart in this matter of justice for all. As I’m writing I’m thinking of Martin Luther King who also had a ‘dream’ that inspired him, and countless others, to continue to the fight for freedom and dignity for African-Americans.

Thank God for dreams. It must be his way of taking that which troubles us in our daytime life and sorting it out in the night hours. I just love the way that you interpreted and applied it in your ministry opportunities and how it empowered you to press on despite the obstacles presented by resistant authority structures. Your dream is such a rich analogy and it has powerful meaning and application that continues to speak to our times.

Yes, the posts have been quiet over this Christmas period. Liz and I have been looking in on the site often to see if anything new had been posted. While we don’t get into the usual commercial rush tear of Christmas we have had our interstate family staying with us and have been occupied with our children and grandchildren. It’s great but doesn’t leave much uninterrupted computer time.

Comment by Watcher

December 31, 2007 @ 11:22 am

Thanks Trevor and Julie. Julie, I hope all went well with your fellowhip group and may it continue to make progress. I am blessed in that even though my church is not totally egalitarian, neither is it totally complementarian.

I am blessed that my pastor, even though he is unaware of this board as of yet, and the fiercely complementarian boards online, he has, by his own sincere Bible study, come to a couple conclusions shared by CBE.

One, he preaches that husbands are also to submit to their wives because of his open-minded, truth-seeking attitude in reading Ephesians 5:21-22. He recognizes that when you cut verse 21 off from verse 22, you completely gut the meaning of verse 22 because you remove the verb from it.

And Two, he is concerned with all the members of the church operating in their giftedness, not just a select few. He has asked me to teach the adult Sunday school more than once but I have had to decline because of the crazy-making behavior of a certain family member of mine that makes taking on extra responsibility difficult.

I’m a firm believer that all Christians, men and women, need to balance family life with ministry.

Too many women are expected to put family way ahead of their calling in ministry to the hurt of that calling. And too many men are expected to put the ministry way ahead of family life to its hurt. Neither is healthy.

I heard the story told by a preacher of a great male evangelist who felt so compelled to win the world that he neglected his family. So much so that when he died his own, very bitter children vandalized his grave site. Sad story, but hopefully a lesson to all of us on balance.

Comment by Julie

December 31, 2007 @ 9:27 pm

It appears I spoke too soon when I said that my group was making progress (sigh).

I’m going to put a short summary here, because I could use some input. Our rather informal group (which grew out of a house church) has always done our study by first reading the Scripture around the circle – men, women, or children taking turns with a few verses each.

About a month ago, the leaders announced a change in format – instead of all sharing in the reading before the discussion, they would ask seven men, or boys thirteen and older to come up front and each read a portion. This was something they wanted to do in order to ‘affirm the men’ as ‘heads of their households’ and the boys as ‘future heads of households.’

Our family stayed away for about two weeks while we deliberated what to do, then last week we went back and challenged (politely) their new way of doing things and the assumptions behind it. To their credit (which was my reason for thinking we were making progress) they heard us out and we had a very good discussion.

This week, the leadership announced that in order to avoid causing anyone to stumble, and also because they had realized that their sisters missed reading the Word, they would go back to the previous practice of reading around the group. However, they were careful to affirm that they ‘believed in male leadership in the home, it was indisputably supported in the Bible, and they would always stand for that.’

So, things look better on the outside, but I don’t really think we got anywhere – I’m rather discouraged. Sometimes I think this board is the only place I can find any sanity.

Comment by Watcher

January 1, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

Julie, I’m sorry. No, this doesn’t sound good.

And I have no real advice for you but would rather defer to the participants here who have been here much longer and understand better complementarianism and egalitarianism.

Personally, I think I’d find a different fellowship because at this point in my life I need a little more encouragement and affirmation than that. When a person has been discouraged and overlooked rather than affirmed, more of being overlooked doesn’t help the matter. But I’d also have to seek God’s heart in this before making any drastic changes.

Hopefully there are people who can pull themselves away from the more heated ‘Early Evangelical Movement’ thread who can offer more than this meager post.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 2, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Thanks, Watcher, for your thoughts. I really appreciated your sharing your dream about the apples and the trees and your last statement:

Now, reading Mary Ann’s words above, I again think of the apple dream. And I recognize that there are those who set themselves up as the authorities, not to be questioned, who use the Bible as their weapon against freedom. They are false authorities and are far more concerned with their own order and authority as defined by their own prejudices than with what God has dreamed up…

It gives me something more to think about. In cases such as those, do we just gather the apples while the owner’s not looking – or knock on the door anyway and try to reason with him?

Comment by Watcher

January 2, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

Oh, Mary Ann, what a loaded question, and I probably have way too much to say about it.

But first, we all must get one thing straight. The owner of the house is God. Even though Pharoah declared himself the god of Egypt, it didn’t make him so. Even though the Pharisees thought they made the rules, Jesus pointed out to them in the parable of the vineyard that, again, the owner of the vineyard is God, not man. And God will call them into acount.

No man truly owns any other even though slavery exists. Ultimately, God is the master. Parents do not own their children. Husbands do not own their wives or wives their husbands. Pastors don’t own their churches or any of the people in them.

Though some denominations are very organized in the way they control people and money and exercise great authority, it would be best if they remember that they are but stewards and will be called into acount on how they manage. If they have the attitude of ownership, that they are not held in acount, they will not manage well. Rulers are set up and thrown down, but God owns it all.

As far as talking to the self-declared owner…

I suppose you could look at what Moses did. He first went to Pharoah to tell him to let God’s people go. You could also look at Jesus. One of the early things He did was read Isaiah 61 in the presence of the religious rulers and declared liberty to the captives.

So what do we do?

When you read about defending the rights of the poor and needy and to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, you are given authority right there to take action. I suppose this means different things to different people. What does it mean to you? What is your calling?

I know I didn’t answer the question about knocking on the door or sneaking the apples. But I tell ya. I’m wondering if the missionaries who snuck Bibles into the Soviet Union could be compared to people who snuck apples out of a yard.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 2, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

Great insight, Watcher. I do believe you answered my question – in the way that needed to be answered.

Funny, on the eve of the New Year, I was meditating on some Scripture, and God brought me to a similar realization – that those who exercise (abuse) ‘authority’ and lord it over others in a way that Jesus put down (Mark 10:41-44) will be held accountable to him. In the last day, they will have to give account as to why they have misinterpreted and misapplied Scripture – and abused any ‘authority’ that he may (or may not) have given them. In reading the verse, ‘whoever wants to be first must be slave of all,’ I realized that those husbands who treat their wives like their servants will be last in the kingdom of God, and their wives will be first before them – because it is those wives who have truly been the ‘slaves of all.’

Yes, God owns the house and all the apples and all the people passing by..! What an encouraging truth to remember! In the midst of that truth, though, I do believe that I need to sneak some apples and knock on that door… However, the deep conviction to do so and imagining the reality of coming face to face with the ‘grump’ at the door leaves me weak-kneed and hesitant more often than not.

Comment by Liz

January 2, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

Thanks for the reference to those who smuggle literature into oppressed countries. This has been going on for decades with great blessing and success as God protects and honors his servants both within and without these countries.

In these situations there is always a ‘greater law’ which needs to be obeyed and we must not let worldly (or church) authorities cause us to disobey God or limit the spread of the gospel.

Comment by Watcher

January 3, 2008 @ 10:18 am

Thanks Liz. And thanks, Mary Ann, for bringing up that verse. I so agree with you on this about these poor, surprised men who will find themselves in heaven having to learn how to serve and submit because they refused to learn it down here. And I’d also like to take it a step further because of some things I had seen and experienced.

Years ago, when my husband still pastored a friend of mine who went to our church came to me upset, asking for prayer. It wasn’t for her but for her cousin, a woman I knew who lived one town over from us. This woman and her husband used to go to another church, but after dealing with poor leadership issues they quit going.

Now this gets gross and is something that polite people don’t want to talk about and keep hush-hush. But by not talking about it, things like this can continue in the dark. If you are one of those polite people who doesn’t want to be exposed to this sort of thing, please stop reading now. This is your only warning.

My friend’s cousin had to go to the doctor because of a tear in her rectum because her husband demanded anal sex. My heart broke, and I immediately went to my knees with this attitude toward the husband – What a selfish self-centered man… Dear God please make him see the damage he’s doing.

But something happened while we were on our knees. And understanding came upon me about the judgement of God and along with that a realization that this husband did not fear God. I started praying that he would gain that fear and escape the judgement he was heaping upon himself.

And when I stood, I told my friend that her cousin’s husband did not fear God. She said that was true that she actually heard him say so himself.

Now the Bible says that in court, a matter is established by two or three witnesses. And I hid this experience in my heart, not relating it because the thought was so new. But while reading Corrie Ten Boom’s Hiding Place through again I came across the scene where Corrie and Betsy were watching a prison guard beating a prisoner. Corrie said, ‘Oh, that poor woman,’ to which Betsy responded, ‘Oh, yes, may God forgive her.’ Betsy, who would die in the prison camp, had an understanding of the judgement of God. She recognized the one to pity was the one under God’s judgement.

It’s kind of like the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had everything in this life. Lazarus had nothing. The rich man, in his position of luxury, showed no pity on the less fortunate and therefore placed himself under judgement. If it is so for a man who simply didn’t help his fellow man, how much more is it for one who actually abuses and oppresses his fellow man?

I know this site is for the sake of justice for all and to help women come into the place God has for them. But the truth is, I really fear for the oppressors and the judgements they place themselves under – whether it is an oppressive religous system, government, or home. The oppressor has only one way of escape -repentence. But so many feel that their position of elevation entitles them. They think that God thinks like they do.

The church has not only done a diservice to women in abusive situations. Because of this sacred cow of the man being the sovereign in his home and other men not wanting to do anything to undermine their own perceived authority in the home, the church has unwittingly place a whole lot of men under judgement, a judgement I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

You’ve heard the term, ‘I pity the fool.’ It’s used as a joke, but the judgement of God is no joke, And I truly pity the fool who feels entitled to abuse or oppress another, who looks at the Bible as proof-positive that he is superior and acts on it, fearing no judgement.

You see, folks, we need to stand for justice, not just for the sake of the oppressed but also for the sake of the oppressor who does not fear God, who does not comprehend the huge judgement to come.

When you work toward liberating the captive, don’t forget to pray for the oppressor that he can escape being in the position of a sinner ‘in the hands of an angry God.’

Comment by Mary Ann

January 3, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

Thanks for the insight, Watcher. That brings us back to the couple that Trevor mentioned in an earlier comment – Richard and Sabina Wurmbrand, of the Voice of the Martyrs. One thing I learned from them a few years back is the need to pray for the oppressors and the persecutors. It’s not something natural for us – but it is exactly what Jesus called us to – ‘Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.’ When I pray to ask God to help me forgive those (hierarchicalists) who have wounded me, I need also to pray that God will forgive them and help them move closer to the truth.

Comment by fjs

January 4, 2008 @ 12:13 am

Has anyone heard of a new church leadership movement that is heavily top-down in authority? I think it is billed as a return to the apostolic leadership of the New Testament. It’s pretty authority based and heirarchically structured. The governing form is not congregational. Leaders and elders set all of he vision and make all of the decisions. There is no membership. The only voice a congregation has is to vote with their feet.

Comment by Julie

January 4, 2008 @ 11:17 am

Regarding comment 77439, it sounds a little like my group. Our leadership is very much into doing things in a ‘first century’ pattern. By the way, one of the men leading us recently got married in a first century type of ceremony (complete with a symbolic bride price paid to his fiance’s father) Tell me more about this movement… does it have a name?

Comment by fjs

January 11, 2008 @ 8:53 pm

I don’t know if the movement you speak of is the same. I only know that there is thinking within some church groups that consider the Ephesians 4:11 text to be offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher. In this interpretation the five offices are ranked in order of authority (above) beginning first with the apostle, who is in authority over the others.

They form networks of churches covered by the apostle and prophets. As I understand it, there can be some overlap… such as one being an apostle and pastor.

Women fit in and are able to use their giftedness under the authority of their husbands. Single women are less comfortable in this system.

While it may seem biblical, it depends on ones interpretation… I think that the ranking and the offices is imposed on the text that does not necessarily mean a rank of officials with governing authority because the text is in the context of growth, equipping, and maturity. People with such gifts are to equip and help the church grow to maturity. And while they would say that this is the task of the five-fold ministry, the text does not necessiarily say that such ministries are offices of authority. Authority is brought to the text.

Comment by fjs

January 11, 2008 @ 9:03 pm

One more thing. Sometimes these systems are healthy. It depends on the accountability system that is in place. While a different expression of faith practice, it is not entirely outside of orthodoxy.

The health of the system depends on the health of the leaders and the health of the entire network of church within apostolic authority. Churches join by choice and choose to submit to the authority of such leadership networks.

Some systems also embrace women more fully than others. Some even place women in the the ranks of apostle. I think each system should be evaluated on its overall health.

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

The name of the five-fold ministry movement is this: The New Apostolic Reformation… Sounds very authoritarian, for your information.