What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Windwalker]

If you are telling me that I'm a paranoid, then all different faiths here in the RF can be called a paranoid. Did you know what I mean? Could a Buddhist embraced Christianity as his faith? how about Muslims? Do they fear the same as they will not adhere to Christianity?

What sort of twisted mangling of what I said brought forth this response? It makes no logical connection to anything I said. As far as MacArthur and company, I'll dismantle his anal form of Christianity after I've had a pleasant evening not thinking of those rigid evangelicals like him. Not to worry, I know him. But from a preliminary read, I see who you are parroting now. I don't parrot people myself. I speak from actual experience, not conjecture and theories.

 

[Yoshua]

No, I'm saying that none of us is big enough to know the whole truth. We may know part of it -- and that part lies deep inside us.

Hi Sojourner,
Is the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ, a truth for you?

It's summer on the other side of the world... that's what I'm saying.

This is not what I’m saying, I did not say summer on the other side. Ok. I’ll try to insert the summer.
If there is a winter in your place, and it is summer on the other side, could you say that it is not a winter in your place (that you are standing) and summer in the other side?

Here's your fallacy. I do believe it's winter. But I do not know it's summer somewhere else. Further, I don't know the truth of the cold when I'm sitting in a warm house. the cold doesn't impact me until I experience it by standing naked in my front yard. This is what meditation does -- causes us to stand naked before God and be impacted by that truth.

Yes, I’m just pointing out the truth that it is winter, and that is the reality of truth that it is objective. I think it is obedience, trust, repentance, submission and commitment to God causes us to stand naked before God as the truth.

Of course you can! The Mormons do it all the time. So did the reformers. Did you know that? Did you know that the reformers changed what was scripture? Did you know that there are several authorized canons of scripture? Did you know that several lists were suggested by different people before there even was a canon? And, reading any canon will yield several valid interpretations. Sorry: the scripture is not absolute.

Did the original text are still preserved? The Scriptures is still the absolute Word of God. I know that there are a lot of Bible translations. Why focus to the translations if there are interlinear and Bibles that is sound?

The reality is that the atheists and Hindus don't think so.

Yes, I know that but there are atheist who become a follower of Christ and believe in His word. That’s the work of God through the Scriptures.

God is reality and truth. The scriptures aren't God. They only reflect God -- and then only inasmuch as the perspective of the writers and readers will allow, and, as such, are not, themselves, whole truth.

It does not come to your mind on how the power of the Word of God strikes the heart of man. You really have no idea about this.

There are no enemies. There are only fellow human beings. To live in Christ is to live in that reality.

Then why Jesus Christ stated to love your enemies, if we did not have enemies? Logical

That power is gained by the spiritual work of embracing the whole human condition -- stepping outside oneself, so to speak, in order to perceive the truth of unity and the truth of disunity within humanity. Meditation helps to achieve that.

What is the role now of the Holy Spirit if you are meditating?

God is bigger than just Christianity. Just as the world is bigger than just this hemisphere, where it is winter. In another hemisphere, let's call it "Hindu Land," it's summer, and the world (God) is bigger than either, even though each one points to the larger world.

How come that God is bigger than Christianity, do you mean to say that there is higher than God? Do you mean that God is a minor Christianity?

Perhaps we should spend more time letting them share their word, and listening to them, instead of trying to "save" them.
The Great Commission commands us to go to the nations and make disciples of them. The Greek terms ethne ("nations" = "them") and laos ("disciples" = "us") are the determining factors in coming to a reasonable interpretation. The biblical truth is that division isn't the way its supposed to be. We are to make "us" out of "them." IOW: all people need to be one -- not under the specific system of religious belief, but under the unifying love principle that Jesus displayed for us when he 1) included the Samaritan and 2) spoke to the woman at the well.

If you perspective that the love of Jesus displayed serves as the unifying love for all beliefs, what is now their commitment? How do the repentance, trust, and obedience with the Word of Christ will come in to their lives?

And the One they consider to be their deity is the same One we believe is our deity. Deity is Deity. We only see partially. It's when we are enable to see wholly (as in meditation) that we come to know that differences are more smoke and mirrors than reality.

How can it be? If that will be the case, you are not looking it in the deeper level. They may have their deity, but other’s deity is not their deity. This is the absolute truth, the reality. They may know Jesus in their mind who is he, but not on the level of surrendering their life to Jesus.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I'm not jumping on your case. You're jumping on Windtalker's case, remember?

Yes, Brick.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Fundie claptrap. It starts out with John McArthur (who's bad enough) and just goes downhill from there.

Sojourner,

Of course, he is not only John Mcarthur who disagree with the Contemplative yet you criticized him. I believe it is much better if you can comment on the message itself that I posted than the person.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

What sort of twisted mangling of what I said brought forth this response? It makes no logical connection to anything I said. As far as MacArthur and company, I'll dismantle his anal form of Christianity after I've had a pleasant evening not thinking of those rigid evangelicals like him. Not to worry, I know him. But from a preliminary read, I see who you are parroting now. I don't parrot people myself. I speak from actual experience, not conjecture and theories.

Windwalker,

Oh my, you have no Scriptures to validate your experience, how could billion of people will say that his/her spiritual experiences was greater than the other without any point of reference or evidence, even in the Scriptures. If somebody will try to investigate your experience without any sufficient proof and just by feeling great, this is going nowhere. As you have made an example of an Elephant, and the blind people having their own perspective of what they feel by touching the Elephant, they both have mistaken that it is an Elephant. The Elephant is still the Elephant, the truth that it is an Elephant--the truth exist; the Absolute truth and objectivity is very clear.

How could we parroting what the pastors have to say about Contemplative, is it because we have a basis to tell, or the truth or the fact has a basis?

Here is one of additional informative message excerpt from a book time of Departing by Ray Yungen:

"For many years during my research, I would come across the term contemplative prayer. Immediately I would dismiss any thought that it had a New Age connotation because I thought it meant to ponder while praying—which would be the logical association with that term. But in the New Age disciplines, things are not always what they seem to be to untrained ears. What contemplative prayer actually entails is described very clearly by the following writer:

When one enters the deeper layers of contemplative prayer one sooner or later experiences the void, the emptiness, the nothingness … the profound mystical silence … an absence of thought.

To my dismay, I discovered this 'mystical silence' is accomplished by the same methods used by New Agers to achieve their silence—the mantra and the breath! Contemplative prayer is the repetition of what is referred to as a prayer word or sacred word until one reaches a state where the soul, rather than the mind, contemplates God. Contemplative prayer teacher and Zen master Willigis Jager brought this out when he postulated:

Do not reflect on the meaning of the word; thinking and reflecting must cease, as all mystical writers insist. Simply 'sound' the word silently, letting go of all feelings and thoughts.

Those with some theological training may recognize this teaching as the historical stream going back centuries to such figures as Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Julian of Norwich. From A Time of Departing, p. 32, 33, 2nd Edition

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Here is another message taken from the standupforthetruth.com :

Here is what GotQuestions.Org says about Spiritual Formation:

The spiritual formation movement is very popular today. It is, however, in many ways a move away from the truth of God’s Word to a mystical form of Christianity, and it has infiltrated, to some degree, nearly all evangelical denominations. This idea of spiritual formation is based on the premise that if we do certain practices, we can be more like Jesus. Proponents of spiritual formation erroneously teach that anyone can practice these mystical rituals and find God within themselves.

Too often, adherents of the current spiritual formation movement believe the spiritual disciplines transform the seeker by his or her entering an altered realm of consciousness. The spiritual formation movement is characterized by such things as contemplative prayer, contemplative spirituality, and Christian mysticism.

True biblical spiritual formation, or spiritual transformation, begins with the understanding that we are sinners living apart from God. Our faculties have been corrupted by sin so that we cannot please God. True spiritual transformation occurs as we yield ourselves to God so that He may transform us by the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. At least half of every New Testament epistle is geared toward how to live a life well pleasing to God—by obedience and submission to the Holy Spirit in all things. Scripture does not only call us the redeemed, saved, saints, sheep, soldiers, and servants, but teaches us that only through the power of the Spirit we can live up to what the names mean.

The following passages address various aspects of spiritual formation, the work of God in the life of the believer.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). Here is the aim of transformation: that we may be like Christ.


“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18). This is part of a passage that teaches that we are changed into the image of Christ not by following rules and laws, but by following the leading of the Spirit by faith.

“At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:3-7).

Here, Paul reminds us of our before-and-after life. We have responded to the “kindness and love of God” shown to us by the death of Christ for our sins, repented of our sins, and now respond to the Spirit’s continual prompting and empowerment to live differently as God’s children. As a result, we have been transformed by the “rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (v. 5). This, then, is true spiritual formation—the reforming of our spirits by His Spirit into the image of Christ.

http://standupforthetruth.com/2011/11/spiritual-formation-a-deceptive-path/

 

[Windwalker]

Oh my, you have no Scriptures to validate your experience, how could billion of people will say that his/her spiritual experiences was greater than the other without any point of reference or evidence, even in the Scriptures.

If you want to know if one experience is "better" than another, than experience them both yourself and then tell me what you find. Until then, it is you who has no point of reference. To love is better than to hate. But unless you've had both experiences, it doesn't matter if anyone else tells you their reality through their own eyes. You're still blind to it, even if you read it in some "authoritative book", or whatever. The interior witness of the experience itself validates it as good, and then you see and hear others with the same experience, and they validate you from outside yourself. That's it's written in some book is pretty worthless unless you start with the experience yourself. Reading about love, does not impart the experience of love.

Love can not be defined in a set of teachings, taught to the mind of another, and then be claimed to say they know what love is because they read it from the authoritative book that talks all about from people who know about it. Phooey. That's a flat, lifeless substitute that is not actual realized love. Go have an experience of it, then tell me about it. They you have something to actually say, as opposed to just hollow arguments.

As you have made an example of an Elephant, and the blind people having their own perspective of what they feel by touching the Elephant, they both have mistaken that it is an Elephant. The Elephant is still the Elephant, the truth that it is an Elephant--the truth exist; the Absolute truth and objectivity is very clear.

To whom??? They're all blind! You miss the point of the story. They, all being blind, having limited experience, They are all partly right, and partly wrong. This speaks of the relative nature of reality we all live in. None knows what the elephant actually is. There is no "elephant' that any human has ever seen.

How could we parroting what the pastors have to say about Contemplative, is it because we have a basis to tell, or the truth or the fact has a basis?

You're parrotting those who themselves have no experience with it, and themselves do not know what they are talking about. To put a Biblical term to this, it is the "blind leading the blind".

I read through all the material you presented and I want to thank you for bringing them forth for us to examine. I spent a bit of time with it, and I do have a lot I wish to remark on. I plan to do a more formal post for those who are reading and care to hear where these folks who teach this stuff, of which they themselves have no personal experience, nor have done any actual legitimate studies into these areas (unlike us who have lots and lots of actual research and objective data supporting what meditation practitioners claim about the own experiences), are coming from in their criticism. Again, from reading the source material directly, the previous criticisms of it stand, criticisms with actual support through scientific research, as well as formidable practitioners of the various practices. Many of the arguments from them are merely repeated in rote as supposedly substantive, so much of the critique has already been done in response to the arguments being parrotted. Results speak, where speculations fail.

But there was much good in reading that material that taught me things I did not know, such as this more recent movement within Christianity loosely called the "Spiritual Formation" movement within Evangelical circles. It was very encouraging to hear this happening! It says there is hope for what is otherwise a dying husk of conservative religion which is incapable of bringing true Spirit into the world. I'll spend time on a more detailed response later. I think I may post that instead in the parallel thread Eastern Meditation is different from 'Christian Contemplation'. A genuine reasoned critique of this whole anti-meditation school of thought seems to fit in better than, than rehashing many of the points in here. It'll have more a focus on the history of things, as well as the characters behind this stuff. Interesting stuff. Thanks for putting it on the table for us to all see.

The rest of a response to your points is just rehashing the same ground again we've covered many times. I repeat myself, you don't comprehend it, I repeat myself, you don't comprehend it, and so forth. The fuller response will pretty much summarize and encapsulate all of this.

 

[sojourner]

Is the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ, a truth for you?

Yes, but not the entire truth, because part of my truth includes the realization that the gospel isn't a truth for everyone.

This is not what I’m saying, I did not say summer on the other side. Ok. I’ll try to insert the summer.
If there is a winter in your place, and it is summer on the other side, could you say that it is not a winter in your place (that you are standing) and summer in the other side?

Yeah, but "my place" isn't the only place. That's what I'm getting at -- my truth is not the truth. Your truth is not the truth.

Yes, I’m just pointing out the truth that it is winter, and that is the reality of truth that it is objective.

But it's not objective, because it's my experience -- not everyone's experience.

I think it is obedience, trust, repentance, submission and commitment to God causes us to stand naked before God as the truth.

How can you be naked, when you're already wrapped up in your truth?

Did the original text are still preserved?

There is no "original text."

The Scriptures is still the absolute Word of God.

No, it's not. It's still words of people.

Why focus to the translations if there are interlinear and Bibles that is sound?

Those are still translations.

Yes, I know that but there are atheist who become a follower of Christ and believe in His word. That’s the work of God through the Scriptures.

Or is it the work of God coming through relationships with people?

It does not come to your mind on how the power of the Word of God strikes the heart of man. You really have no idea about this.

You have no idea about me, so don't pretend to know what I do and don't understand.

Then why Jesus Christ stated to love your enemies, if we did not have enemies? Logical

Because Jesus knew that there really are no enemies. That's why we're taught to love everyone equally -- because we're all one human family.

What is the role now of the Holy Spirit if you are meditating?

Meditation helps us to hear the H.S.

How come that God is bigger than Christianity, do you mean to say that there is higher than God? Do you mean that God is a m

Read. The. Post.

If you perspective that the love of Jesus displayed serves as the unifying love for all beliefs, what is now their commitment?

If they're committed to love, they're committed to what Jesus taught.

How can it be? If that will be the case, you are not looking it in the deeper level. They may have their deity, but other’s deity is not their deity. This is the absolute truth, the reality. They may know Jesus in their mind who is he, but not on the level of surrendering their life to Jesus.

"Jesus" as an entity doesn't matter. "Jesus" as an idea, expressed by many different personalities, is what matters.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

Of course, he is not only John Mcarthur who disagree with the Contemplative yet you criticized him. I believe it is much better if you can comment on the message itself that I posted than the person.

Thanks

Gee, isn't that what I was saying in my last post about Jesus? John McArthur isn't worth listening to -- I've heard him many times before. He's full of worthless balloon juice.

 

[Windwalker]

Hi Windwalker,
John Mcarthur of Grace to you website; www.qty.org
Spiritual Formation & Biblical Santification/video, this is a short message from him. I don't know how to paste it here.

Here's the link to MacArthur's criticism of meditation;

http://www.gty.org/blog/B120912/john-macarthur-on-spiritual-formation-and-biblical-sanctification

I'll enjoy dissecting the many flaws of his "reasoning", but I want you for the moment to pay attention to what he says at 28 seconds in. "A false paradigm of sanctification cannot restrain the flesh." He goes on to say that there are those that purport to do that, but don't deliver. I will say this, that meditation practice actually does in fact deliver on that promise, more than just trying to shoehorn your behaviors in a theology, such as he purports to teach as "true". The fact that it delivers on that promise makes it true. That fact that being religious and believing the Bible and yet not delivering, says that that approach is false.

What he does not do is show how it does not deliver. The ONLY thing where he could point to is that those who practice it end up no longer thinking like him! I'll swing back around to this later on.

 

[Windwalker]

Continuing my analysis of Mr. MacArthur's criticism of meditation practices.....

at 1:08 in the video he refers to the Spiritual Formation movement (who apparently utilize meditation), that they are "Imposing forms of mysticism and self-help, and spiritual intuition imposed upon the Bible". And then he cites those going back into the Middle Ages who were mystics who taught that there is some mystical intuitive capability within the person that if they manipulate it 'correctly", as he puts it, that it will rise up from within them in spiritual formation.

There are many problems with this information he has. Firstly, mysticism or spiritual intuition is not a theology that you impose upon the Bible. It's nothing more mysterious than the fact that having any sort of life experiences will be brought into how you understand things from the place of that experience. It will change how you think about things, yes. But it's not a set of doctrines you "impose" upon the Bible. Experience is in fact a teacher. So his characterization of it as "imposing" a set of teachings or something, is false. Secondly, there are no mystics in the middle ages who taught "spiritual formation". That's a modern term, one that I only just learned about from your links a few nights ago! Thirdly, what is spoken of within the person that arises is simply nothing other than the very divine nature we are all created with, as we are created in God's image! It's not some 'spooky' thing that you "manipulate correctly", as he falsely states.

He adds the Bible idea is that the work of the Holy Spirit is "UPON" us, as he stressed, and "does not rise from within our human nature". Well, aside from the fact that the Bible does speak of the Holy Spirit "WITHIN" you on countless occasions, consistently throughout the NT, no mystic is claiming that this rises from within our fallen human nature, the nature of the flesh. None do. Yet MacArthur says we claim it comes from within our "human nature". What we do claim is that the Divine Nature resides within us, as well as our human nature, and that by opening to the Divine Nature, then our human nature is transformed. This is ALL entirely Biblical, and MacArthur is working of misinformation, which others as yourself simply mimic and parrot, not questioning their so-called sources of authority. He is not an authority on the subject. He doesn't even understand what it is or teaches.

 

[sojourner]

Here's the link to MacArthur's criticism of meditation;

http://www.gty.org/blog/B120912/john-macarthur-on-spiritual-formation-and-biblical-sanctification

I'll enjoy dissecting the many flaws of his "reasoning", but I want you for the moment to pay attention to what he says at 28 seconds in. "A false paradigm of sanctification cannot restrain the flesh." He goes on to say that there are those that purport to do that, but don't deliver. I will say this, that meditation practice actually does in fact deliver on that promise, more than just trying to shoehorn your behaviors in a theology, such as he purports to teach as "true". The fact that it delivers on that promise makes it true. That fact that being religious and believing the Bible and yet not delivering, says that that approach is false.

What he does not do is show how it does not deliver. The ONLY thing where he could point to is that those who practice it end up no longer thinking like him! I'll swing back around to this later on.

You're right. The video is full of holes. Right off the bat, he sets up "sanctification" as an "event" -- as something that "happens," that you "get." You either are "holy," or you're not. He sets this up by stating that sanctification is either "right" or it's "wrong." He doesn't conceptualize "sanctification" for what it is -- a journey toward transformation and wholeness, and that journey can take any number of paths, depending upon what's right for the context of the person undertaking the journey.

Second, he states that there's only one "true" biblical paradigm for sanctification. Yet, he never states what that paradigm is. I think his statement is a red herring, and that he either doesn't know what that "true biblical paradigm" is, or that there really is no "true biblical paradigm" in the way he imagines (which I suspect is the case).

Third, I agree with you. The path of spiritual formation he dismisses as false, because it doesn't "restrain the flesh," actually does "restrain the flesh." This leads me to believe that either he doesn't understand the nature of what he's dismissing, or he's so threatened by it that he has to malign it.

Fourth, he identifies "spiritual formation" as something that it's not. He creates a straw man around a misidentification of what spiritual formation is. Spiritual formation "imposes" nothing upon the bible -- nor upon the person who is so engaged. That's simply not what spiritual formation is. Of itself, it has nothing to do with mysticism, or self-help, or spiritual intuition. Spiritual formation seeks to help a person notice the Divine, and invites the practitioner to participate with God in the ongoing journey of transformation from brokenness to wholeness. Spiritual formation seeks to ground the whole human being within the paradigm of being created as the imago dei, containing the breath of God that we call Spirit. Which is fundamentally biblical. It only concerns itself with mysticism, self-help, and intuition to the extent that those things are included in one's faith-paradigm.

Fifth, he asserts that "spiritual formation" declares that there is some spiritual intuition within us which, if "manipulated correctly," causes us to "rise in spiritual formation." But, if one understands spiritual formation (or, indeed, the process of transformation in the Lord), one knows that spirit can't be "manipulated." So, again, either he doesn't really understand the spiritual processes, or he's intentionally misrepresenting and maligning the process of spiritual formation. Either way, he's incredibly disingenuous here.

Sixth, "'rising' in spiritual formation" isn't biblical?? Is he nuts?? What does he think the whole ascension scenario was about? The bible has Jesus physically rising into heaven, for Pete's sake! What does he think the transfiguration is all about? rising up onto a mountaintop, where Jesus becomes changed into some holy being, along with the two (now dead, BTW) great prophets? This man is such a weasel.

Seventh, he states that sanctification is "entirely the work of the Holy Spirit on us." Which is precisely what spiritual formation invites us to notice -- the work of the Holy Spirit (although that work is carried out within us, not "upon" us).

Eighth, he states that sanctification doesn't "rise from within our human natures." Yet, Jesus says that we are the light of the world. Jesus says that we are salt. These concepts seem to be within our human nature of what it means for us to be (as human beings) the very image of God. This concept is biblical. What the Spirit doesn't do is "impose" itself from without, as he says here. The Spirit was breathed into us in creation -- it is that Spirit that is the breath of God within us, and it is that Spirit that is efficacious in setting us apart as the imago dei, according to the bible. That's what spiritual formation invites us to realize.

Ninth, he states unequivocally that "spiritual formation is dangerous." It's a term that reflects "a non-biblical approach to sanctification." Yet, we've seen here that that's simply not the case. IMO, what's "dangerous" is listening to dishonest and misguided "experts" like this, who can't even understand or deal honestly with the issues they seek to defame.

Tenth, he says that it comes mostly from "mysticism," and that it has been embraced by the mystical side of Roman Catholicism. Like Roman Catholicism and mysticism aren't legitimate and highly-regarded. Some of our preserved biblical texts were preserved by the Essenes, who were a mystical sect of Judaism, with whom Jesus may have been involved. But, as we've seen, it doesn't "come from mysticism." Although, if mysticism is one's path, spiritual formation can be used to help one along that path.

This is nothing more than either willful ignorance or willful misrepresentation, either of which mean that macArthur is making money from dishonest means. Which means that this is, again, nothing more than fundie claptrap.

 

[Windwalker]

That was a great analysis. I don't know if you realized while you were working on this above response, I had posted a 2nd reply. It's funny how that what I said it that is unintentionally mirrored in your own in most of the points, with our own takes on the fallacies of his argument. I like your post better than mine, as you really nailed the character of this disingenuousness going on in what he is doing here. And you are right, what he is doing is simply misleading people for who knows what reason.

He is doing a grave disservice to those who are actually interested advancing their relationship with God in their lives, telling them to stick with his ideas. This sounds like an administrator who doesn't want people to step outside the bounds of his own teaching! A true teacher, seeks for the student to surpass himself. Jesus expected us to surpass him, "Greater works than these will you do!", he says. There is something deeply flawed and "dangerous" about this man's religion. I used the word anal the other night. Yes, anal. Anal religion.

In either case, he fails completely as an authority on this subject. I plan to analyze the other links, but can tell you from what I read over the weekend, it too is simply misrepresenting and incorrectly challenging what it fails to understand. If they cannot be accurate in what they critique, then are not authorities. I, on the other hand, do have authorities.

 

[Windwalker]

Here's an example. I am an authority on whether or not Protestant Christians are Biblical or not. They teach that believers must read the Bible 15 times a day, preach loudly on street corner 6 times a week, not have any animals as pets, only have male children and turn the female children away from their homes at the age of 12 to live on the street as homeless children. Since clearly, none of these things are supported by the Bible, they are 'dangerous' in teaching others these things, superimposing their ideas on scripture to support themselves.

Am I an authority on Protestant beliefs and practices, or just a blowhard idiot grandstanding misinformation about something I clearly am gravely misinformed about? But, if you have a radio program and say this stuff, then that makes it "authoritative", to some who for whatever reason find it appealing to them. So the debate then is not about the facts, but about the blowhards who teach misinformation.

 

[Windwalker]

Ok, so let's analyze the 2nd source of authority for teaching against meditation in Christianity. http://christianresearchnetwork.org/topic/contemplative-prayer/

First again, this is not actual research into actual meditators, testing the results, comparing study groups, mapping out models, or anything at all that qualifies as actual research. Instead it's just again mined and repeated misinformation, and no actual study data whatsoever, and is defined by nothing more than a bunch of biblical interpretations to fit one group's ideas of what the Bible against another whom they don't agree with. This is not research, and thus is disqualified as a source of authority on the subject of meditation. That said however, let's analyze the talking points and refute their claims about it.

• It states that the objectives of meditation is, "Seeks to experience God in an inexplicable way, often describing the believer’s relationship with God in erotic or romantic terms." It then cites the Bible to refute this "lover" metaphor which meditators may describe the intimacy of their experience as.

First, that is not the objective or the goal, to have an experience. That is a mischaracterization of what it is. The goal is to know God, not have good time in bed with the Holy One. That the experience is described commonly as that of a lover, or a "beloved", that is of course true, and it is of course true it is consistent with biblical descriptions themselves! Goodness, read the entire book of the Song of Songs for a goodly dose of that! But more than that, it is strewn throughout the NT in metaphors such as "bride and bridegroom", the "bridal chambers", and the intimacy of the relationship between the believer and God, "Abba, Father" is one of emotion and affection and intimacy. It sounds to me that those who deny this, probably have some hangup with intimacy?

Perhaps that is the source of their discomfort with meditation practice? "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you". "No, no, no! No intimacy God! No, means no! Now let me get back to reading my bible!"

I'm going to skip around a bit here, as I was looking for what basis they claim that you open to the devil, or are at risk, etc. Firstly, the claim is purely speculative and they dash off to scripture and superimpose their thinking upon its pages to support their own thoughts here. Badly, I'll add, and point out. Again, no actual research data objectively exists, so again, this does not qualify as an authoritative source of knowledge on the subject.

In their descriptions of the history of contemplative prayer, they have a section called POSSIBILITY OF REAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES NOT FROM GOD It describes Richard Foster trying to warn practitioners of the possibility of encountering "various orders of spiritual beings... some not in cooperation with God and his ways". But he then advises that one can learn to discern these as the darker voices "pushes and condemns", while "God draws and encourages". The apologists (not researchers), then go on to a logic argument that says God talks negatively in the Bible and then cites that the serpent in the garden spoke positive things. He then concludes from this in his strain of logic, "The point is that when engaging meditative spirituality, the contemplator can never be certain who will speak".

I'll start with the obvious point first. Adam and Eve in the Garden did not mistake who was speaking! Ooops! Down goes that argument flat onto its face. Splat. They knew it was the serpent speaking, and were not confused it was actually God speaking! But according to this apologist's argument, "the contemplator can never be certain who will speak". His citation doesn't actually support what he says. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say Adam and Eve mistook who the speaker was. (And this is the best he can offer as 'proof'??)

But lets take a step back for a moment from all this view of demons and Satan and "various orders of spiritual beings". Again, this is simply language to describe the dark parts of our own subconscious minds, externalizing them and mythologizing them as characters, symbols of darkness. YES, you in fact MAY encounter these "demons", these dark scary parts of our own subconscious minds, but make no mistake you NEVER mistake them for the voice of God! Ever. Even though I don't relate to the whole mythological framework that Richard Foster uses, he does have some things correctly stated, allowing for differences in language. The darkness is the "accuser", and it is the heaping of shame and fear, critical and condemning. It stands to prevent, to block, to distract, to discourage, and so forth. I know this from personal experience, and descriptions of this are clear in the Bible of the accuser.

On the other hand, when you are in the Presence of God, it is overwhelming, abundantly clear what it is. It is not merely some apparition that appears before you telling you stuff. That's not it at all, yet that is what I think these "apologists" imagine, conjecture in their minds as they speculate about something they have no experience of. On the contrary, this presence, does in fact draw you to itself with the overwhelming love and grace that of a child to the arms of his parents. It is the response of the heart to Love that tells the difference. It is the heart that knows its own Source. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me". Lacking such an experience, the apologist resorts to his own fears and speculations, clawing to find scripture to support his phobias. There is NO QUESTION who is speaking. But to be clear, this "speaking" is to the heart, and it says, "come".

So, I'll leave it here for the moment. But a picture is abundantly clear to me of these people who criticize this. They have no experience with it, they misconstrue what they hear others says, superimposing their own fears upon it, and they make poor biblical interpretations to support their own rejection of that call to "come", as that requires "selling all you have and follow me". All of it, is excuses, and irrational justifications.

 

[Windwalker]

YES, you in fact MAY encounter these "demons", these dark scary parts of our own subconscious minds, but make no mistake you NEVER mistake them for the voice of God! Ever.
....

On the other hand, when you are in the Presence of God, it is overwhelming, abundantly clear what it is.

I actually am going to respond to myself on something I just caught as I re-read this post. What I said is not entirely correct for everyone. Some people who have mental illnesses, could in fact mistake what is being presented to them, and the wiring of their brains may misinterpret these things. It could send wrong signals to them and they might interpret the dark voices as God speaking to them, telling them to do terrible things, and so forth. It is in fact their dark shadows, their repressed minds that in the face of such open communication between the subconscious and the conscious may lead to dysfunctional interpretations.

I have always said that someone should not practice meditation if they do not have a relatively stable psyche. You are in fact entering into the "secret places" of the mind, and unless you are prepared in the mind, soul, and spirit for such an encounter, you should probably not go there, at least not without those who are experienced teachers or guides who could help you navigate the many interior landscapes of the psyche.

I honestly at the moment am considering why the fundamentalist is so frightened of the prospect of entering within, and I believe on an intuitive level it is a form of self-protection, knowing that they will not be able to handle it, that what they might see they are not prepared for. And so they built a wall of defense against it, "demonizing it", as it more than abundantly evident in all these criticisms of it, as irrational as they are, smashing bad logic into scripture to support a defense against it.

Those in fundamentalist thought generally are looking outside themselves for answers to believe in, for structures, for security. So suggestions of "inner truth" are the opposite of such things. "God's word", rather than being the living word of the heart, writing Truth in every moment, in choices of the heart, in action from itself in relationship with the Divine itself, is rather understood as a great External Code, upon which they lean and trust that if they "obey" they will be saved from darkness. One is the seeking of a Parent Authority to give peace to the troubled mind through promises of being there for them always, as a Parent who will never leave nor abandon you. The other is that of a Marriage, one of Lovers, one where the Spirit of the Lord provokes and evokes that which lives within to both know itself, and the One with which it Unites in Holy Love. One is seeking, the other is Realizing.

And so the voices I hear, are expressive of these places of where we are at on our respective paths. The voices of those in these apologist sites speak from the place of needing to trust in the external authority, which is in fact their own projection of their own hopes of knowing God beyond themselves. The other is the voice of those who have come to realize in themselves that the Word is written on the tablets of their very own hearts, quickened, made alive through a living relationship with the Source itself, as Creator, and as the very Ground of Being in which they live, move, breath and have their being.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, so let's analyze the 2nd source of authority for teaching against meditation in Christianity. http://christianresearchnetwork.org/topic/contemplative-prayer/

First again, this is not actual research into actual meditators, testing the results, comparing study groups, mapping out models, or anything at all that qualifies as actual research. Instead it's just again mined and repeated misinformation, and no actual study data whatsoever, and is defined by nothing more than a bunch of biblical interpretations to fit one group's ideas of what the Bible against another whom they don't agree with. This is not research, and thus is disqualified as a source of authority on the subject of meditation. That said however, let's analyze the talking points and refute their claims about it.

• It states that the objectives of meditation is, "Seeks to experience God in an inexplicable way, often describing the believer’s relationship with God in erotic or romantic terms." It then cites the Bible to refute this "lover" metaphor which meditators may describe the intimacy of their experience as.

First, that is not the objective or the goal, to have an experience. That is a mischaracterization of what it is. The goal is to know God, not have good time in bed with the Holy One. That the experience is described commonly as that of a lover, or a "beloved", that is of course true, and it is of course true it is consistent with biblical descriptions themselves! Goodness, read the entire book of the Song of Songs for a goodly dose of that! But more than that, it is strewn throughout the NT in metaphors such as "bride and bridegroom", the "bridal chambers", and the intimacy of the relationship between the believer and God, "Abba, Father" is one of emotion and affection and intimacy. It sounds to me that those who deny this, probably have some hangup with intimacy?

Perhaps that is the source of their discomfort with meditation practice? "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you". "No, no, no! No intimacy God! No, means no! Now let me get back to reading my bible!"

I'm going to skip around a bit here, as I was looking for what basis they claim that you open to the devil, or are at risk, etc. Firstly, the claim is purely speculative and they dash off to scripture and superimpose their thinking upon its pages to support their own thoughts here. Badly, I'll add, and point out. Again, no actual research data objectively exists, so again, this does not qualify as an authoritative source of knowledge on the subject.

In their descriptions of the history of contemplative prayer, they have a section called POSSIBILITY OF REAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES NOT FROM GOD It describes Richard Foster trying to warn practitioners of the possibility of encountering "various orders of spiritual beings... some not in cooperation with God and his ways". But he then advises that one can learn to discern these as the darker voices "pushes and condemns", while "God draws and encourages". The apologists (not researchers), then go on to a logic argument that says God talks negatively in the Bible and then cites that the serpent in the garden spoke positive things. He then concludes from this in his strain of logic, "The point is that when engaging meditative spirituality, the contemplator can never be certain who will speak".

I'll start with the obvious point first. Adam and Eve in the Garden did not mistake who was speaking! Ooops! Down goes that argument flat onto its face. Splat. They knew it was the serpent speaking, and were not confused it was actually God speaking! But according to this apologist's argument, "the contemplator can never be certain who will speak". His citation doesn't actually support what he says. Nowhere in scripture does it ever say Adam and Eve mistook who the speaker was. (And this is the best he can offer as 'proof'??)

But lets take a step back for a moment from all this view of demons and Satan and "various orders of spiritual beings". Again, this is simply language to describe the dark parts of our own subconscious minds, externalizing them and mythologizing them as characters, symbols of darkness. YES, you in fact MAY encounter these "demons", these dark scary parts of our own subconscious minds, but make no mistake you NEVER mistake them for the voice of God! Ever. Even though I don't relate to the whole mythological framework that Richard Foster uses, he does have some things correctly stated, allowing for differences in language. The darkness is the "accuser", and it is the heaping of shame and fear, critical and condemning. It stands to prevent, to block, to distract, to discourage, and so forth. I know this from personal experience, and descriptions of this are clear in the Bible of the accuser.

On the other hand, when you are in the Presence of God, it is overwhelming, abundantly clear what it is. It is not merely some apparition that appears before you telling you stuff. That's not it at all, yet that is what I think these "apologists" imagine, conjecture in their minds as they speculate about something they have no experience of. On the contrary, this presence, does in fact draw you to itself with the overwhelming love and grace that of a child to the arms of his parents. It is the response of the heart to Love that tells the difference. It is the heart that knows its own Source. "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me". Lacking such an experience, the apologist resorts to his own fears and speculations, clawing to find scripture to support his phobias. There is NO QUESTION who is speaking. But to be clear, this "speaking" is to the heart, and it says, "come".

So, I'll leave it here for the moment. But a picture is abundantly clear to me of these people who criticize this. They have no experience with it, they misconstrue what they hear others says, superimposing their own fears upon it, and they make poor biblical interpretations to support their own rejection of that call to "come", as that requires "selling all you have and follow me". All of it, is excuses, and irrational justifications.

What I see in the link is an overwhelming disdain of the immanence of God. They seek to keep God at arm's length.

 

[Windwalker]

What I see in the link is an overwhelming disdain of the immanence of God. They seek to keep God at arm's length.

I think I touched on that in my post following the one you quoted. I think it's perhaps a certain love/hate fear of it. They desire it, yet are angry at themselves for not opening to it, and hate those who do. Sort of like Saul trying to prove the fledgling Christian movement as heretics. They had with ease and without the efforts that he worked so hard to attain through works and correct doctrines.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I see in the link is an overwhelming disdain of the immanence of God. They seek to keep God at arm's length.

That's incorrect.

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, but not the entire truth, because part of my truth includes the realization that the gospel isn't a truth for everyone.

So you believe in a half truth, your faith is also half truth? If the gospel is not a truth for everyone, what it concern to you?

Yeah, but "my place" isn't the only place. That's what I'm getting at -- my truth is not the truth. Your truth is not the truth.

If your/our truth is not the truth, then your way or ideas that you are doing in contemplative is not truth. Isn’t it? then who’s truth is the truth?

But it's not objective, because it's my experience -- not everyone's experience.

No, I’m not talking about experience. Is the winter in you place an Absolute truth?

How can you be naked, when you're already wrapped up in your truth?

Is God an Absolute Truth?

There is no "original text."

Then you contradicted your own truth; how come you can quote biblical verses such as Light and Salt, taken from the Bible and does not believe about the original text. Seems you believe all Scriptures are not authentic.

No, it's not. It's still words of people.

Ok. If the Word of God (Bible) is the words of people, and the Quran is the word of people, what is the true Word of God?

Or is it the work of God coming through relationships with people?

If it is the Word of God coming through the relationship with people, that is the starting of a cult. He focuses and dependent on people rather than relationship with God—that Scriptures served as his guide and light.

Because Jesus knew that there really are no enemies. That's why we're taught to love everyone equally -- because we're all one human family.

Oh. That is a new theology that seems no logic. Why would Jesus teach us to love, if there are people who don’t love? Logical
Satan is the devil; Jesus is the Son of God, and not the devil. Are they enemies or not?
God would not give the commandment “Thou shall not kill,” if people will not kill or have the tendency to kill because of our sinful nature.

If they're committed to love, they're committed to what Jesus taught.

If a Christian believed that Jesus died for our sins, and Muslim did not believed that Jesus died for our sins, would they both be right?

Thanks