What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

I have noticed that many (not all) of those with the postmodern emergent/contemplative/mystical mindset and approach to spiritual matters and the biblical scriptures have some common traits. There are several, but I will highlight a few:

1.They deconstruct language taking biblical words and passages, imposing upon them their own mystical/ metaphysical / culturally relevant/ postmodern interpretations making them mean whatever they choose, rather than accept the straightforward text and meanings accepted throughout historic Christianity.

“Postmodern liberalism, which has slithered into the Church with the Emergent movement, shares intellectual roots with fascism. One of the most popular postmodernist tendencies within aesthetics is deconstruction. Deconstruction is a postmodern and Emergent tactic of textual analysis, typically literary critique, that questions presuppositions, ideological underpinnings, hierarchical values and power structures within any given text. Deconstructive approaches apply techniques of close reading of the text without reference to information outside of the text or an authority over the text such as the author.”

"The Emergent method of deconstruction seeks to ridicule the ability of God and humans to communicate clearly through language, all the while they expect the readers of their books to understand what they mean through the use of conventional language. In other words, deconstruction is not convenient when applies to Emergent writings. It’s only useful to Emergents when applied to the Bible, religion, philosophy and morality.

"These irrational and deconstructive seeds and thoughts will inevitably lead to moral breakdown and apostasy in the church that will subsequently unleash a monster comparable to those fascist regimes of the 20th century unless Christians contend for the faith once delivered to the saints".
excerpts from:
http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/2013/07/02/emergent-deconstruction-train-tracks-auschwitz/



2.In an effort to persuade others, they often and repeatedly create strawman and false dilemma fallacies. After creating a distorted view of Christianity, which they claim is held by those adhering to the fundamentals of the biblical faith, they then attack this distorted strawman and proceed to lift up their practice and perspective as the superior alternative. Yet, anyone who knows the scriptures and beliefs of a born again Christian knows these to be totally erroneous and contrary to the Bible and the life of the believer. The fundamental, evangelical believer knows that life in Christ is not “do’s and don’ts, the law brings bondage, but the Spirit of Christ brings freedom to live the new life which God desires for us and that God’s perfect love casts out fear.

Or making blanket statements such as, traditional, fundamental Christianity is a “dysfunctional, diseased, system devoid of love and compassion in which no spiritual growth occurs”. Again, against this caricature they present their way, their community and movement as offering a higher alternative for spiritual growth, empowerment, love, and compassion. Yet, this is another fallacy and complete distortion since the entire message of the gospel revolves around Christ’s sacrificial love, the injunction to love God and one another, and to live victoriously over sin through a life transformed and empowered by Jesus Christ.

3. Another strategy Emergents/contemplatives use is brazen self-contradiction. I’m not sure if it is deliberate or they are simply lost in their upside down world of synthesis and confused unreality. They assert, for example, that truth cannot be known with any certainty. Therefore anyone’s truth can be truth (except fundamental biblical truth claims). They deny the historic, Christian perspective of absolute truth revealed in the scriptures as the Word of God. This claim of theirs they consider to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE and they are ABSOLUTELY certain! They say that it is wrong for any segment of Christianity to arrogantly claim the Bible holds objective truth doctrines or practices which can be understood and apply to everyone, yet they repeatedly claim to have a loftier, superior understanding of these things than conservative Evangelicals do. While they claim standing for conservative biblical moral standards is wrong, they often insist that their views of liberal morality and social causes are correct.

I see that because of the self-contradictory nature of the relativism they embrace, emergent writings abound with these and endless contradictions creating a mindset and community of confusion. Since the true God, the Creator God who inspired and revealed Himself in the biblical scriptures is not the author of confusion ( 1 Corinthians 14:33), He is certainly not present in their midst...so it must be another "god" who is leading this movement, the same one who has been questioning God’s truth and leading it from the beginning ( Genesis 3:1)

Cute. but I've seen less holes in a sieve. To wit:
1) There is no "straightforward meaning accepted throughout historic Christianity." Meanings of words and texts have always been problematic, since from the time of Jesus, there have been differences in language and culture that demand a deeper probe of meaning. There has historically been a need for textual criticism and exegesis, and that has always been part of biblical scholarship. Rather, it's fundamentalists who dismiss the necessity of credible, biblical scholarship. The presuppositions, "ideological underpinnings," hierarchical "values," and "power structures" are generally "extra baggage" that has been imposed on the texts by a lack of scholarship. Asserting to gullible people that "they don't need scholarship in order to embrace Jesus," fundamentalists conflate the need for scholarship in reading and understanding the texts accurately with a "faith that's in the head -- not the heart," and thereby curtail information that might prove a too-narrow interpretation unworthy of the texts.

Today, we read only a translation of a translation, yet fundamentalists, instead of realizing the true nature of the texts they read, insist that what they are reading is "infallible," "the true words of Christ," etc. The source is wrong, since Emergents don't parse out words of the texts, because, by and large, they don't place nearly the emphasis on the bible that fundamentalists do. They don't care what the texts say, so much as they care what Christians do.

Equating post-modern liberalism with fascism, is not only wrong (since fascism is not "liberating" in any way), but inflammatory and a scare tactic.

The "Emergent method" doesn't "ridicule the ability" of anyone to clearly communicate anything through language. Post-moderns simply recognize the texts for what they are, and not for what some wish they were. In fact, if anything, the "Emergent method" (itself a misnomer, since Emergents eschew "methods" and "systems") celebrates the intellect and ability of the human mind to move beyond cheap emotionalism where ancient texts are concerned, and to study them effectively and dispassionately, in order to arrive at consistent and valid meanings.

"These irrational and deconstructive seeds and thoughts will inevitably lead to moral breakdown and apostasy in the church that will subsequently unleash a monster comparable to those fascist regimes of the 20th century unless Christians contend for the faith once delivered to the saints".

Note the scare tactic here. Emergents seek to shore up morality that has heretofore been lacking in the exclusionary and, at times, militant approach of imperial Xy to evangelism and dividing the human family into the "elect" and the "lost." The only thing that may be broken down is the chokehold fundamentalism has had on American Xy for far too long, with it's "gospel" of conformity to arbitrary and unreasonable standards.

2)

After creating a distorted view of Christianity, which they claim is held by those adhering to the fundamentals of the biblical faith, they then attack this distorted strawman and proceed to lift up their practice and perspective as the superior alternative.

Emergents claim that God is love, and that the gospel is a gospel of love, shown in egalitarian acts of mercy. This is a "distorted view" of Christianity?

they may charge evangelical Christians with having a, “tightly defined system of "do's and don'ts" or “Fear”.

"Believe in God and in the 'fact' that Jesus died to save you from your sins, or spend an eternity in hell" isn't fear?? I grew up and have spent most of my adult life in the bible belt. I've lived close to a lot of fundies, and not one person among them has ever fostered anything but the tightest systems of dos and don'ts. you either believe like them and act like them, or they see you as condemned.

The fundamental, evangelical believer knows that life in Christ is not “do’s and don’ts, the law brings bondage, but the Spirit of Christ brings freedom to live the new life which God desires for us and that God’s perfect love casts out fear.

Yet, all we hear is, "You can't dance, go to the movies, drink, smoke, or have premarital sex. Or be homosexual, or you're going to hell." That sounds a lot like a list of dos and don'ts to me.

Or making blanket statements such as, traditional, fundamental Christianity is a “dysfunctional, diseased, system devoid of love and compassion in which no spiritual growth occurs”.Again, against this caricature they present their way, their community and movement as offering a higher alternative for spiritual growth, empowerment, love, and compassion. Yet, this is another fallacy and complete distortion since the entire message of the gospel revolves around Christ’s sacrificial love, the injunction to love God and one another, and to live victoriously over sin through a life transformed and empowered by Jesus Christ.

But, apparently, "They deconstruct language taking biblical words and passages, imposing upon them their own mystical/ metaphysical / culturally relevant/ postmodern interpretations making them mean whatever they choose, rather than accept the straightforward text and meanings accepted throughout historic Christianity." and ""The Emergent method of deconstruction seeks to ridicule the ability of God and humans to communicate clearly through language, all the while they expect the readers of their books to understand what they mean through the use of conventional language. In other words, deconstruction is not convenient when applies to Emergent writings. It’s only useful to Emergents when applied to the Bible, religion, philosophy and morality." aren't blanket statements, themselves, that present the fundamentalist alternative as being higher? This is disingenuous, not only because it presents a straw man, itself, but it accuses the other side of doing the same things it, itself, is doing.

In fact, "Christ's sacrificial love, the injunction to love God and one another, and live victoriously over sin through a life transformed and empowered by Jesus Christ" is precisely what Emergents believe and promulgate. Unfortunately, I don't see that message coming through in fundamentalist circles.

3)

Another strategy Emergents/contemplatives use is brazen self-contradiction.

See above.

Your whole statement about truth claims is just as true for fundamentalists as you claim it is for Emergents. The difference is that Emergents tend to take an objective, more fact-oriented approach to the texts, while most fundamentalists throw around words like "infallible," "God's words," "absolute," etc., which are more subjectively-based. What you don't like is that Emergents and post-modern liberals don't share your emotional view of the texts, which can cloud the reality of what the texts are.

It's really sad that you pit Evangelicals against Emergents, creating this false dichotomy, without realizing that there is such an animal as an Evangelical Emergent. In fact, the Emergent Movement began in the Evangelical church as a backlash against rampant emotionalism, judgment, and exclusivism. As I said, the post is too full of holes to be called an argument. Better to call it a screen, keeping out bugs of truth that otherwise bother you and bite you in the butt.

 

[sojourner]

More on the Emergent Church...

More trash on the Emergent Movement, you mean. There is no such thing as the "Emergent Church," because the Movement cuts across both denominational and spiritual lines.

 

[sojourner]

More on the Emergent Church...

Who is this quack? He touts himself as a writer, yet can't even use correct grammar. I watched the first 6 minutes and was rolling on the floor laughing. This bozo talks about "historic doctrine" and "historic creeds," that Emergents have thrown out, yet I'd be willing to bet that this clown has thrown out a lot of historic doctrine (the real presence of Christ in communion leaps to mind) and I bet he's never said a historic creed in his life. He downplays conversation as if it's something that's not supposed to happen, or is unimportant. He apparently thinks that Emergent worship is some gimmick designed to "reach people." What he fails to recognize is that Emergent worship isn't an evangelical tool -- it's an expression of faith on the part of participants. I doubt he's read much, if anything, about the Emergent Movement, because he certainly doesn't "get it." And I suspect that watching the rest of the video would be a complete waste of an hour of my life I'd never get back, because it's probably more of the same misrepresentation and fear-mongering that permeates the first 6 minutes.

As I said in my first post re: this video: More trash on the Emergent Church. (Again, just to reemphasize: there is no "Emergent Church." Emergents aren't a "church." They are, however, in conversation.)

 

[InChrist]

Today, we read only a translation of a translation, yet fundamentalists, instead of realizing the true nature of the texts they read, insist that what they are reading is "infallible," "the true words of Christ," etc. The source is wrong, since Emergents don't parse out words of the texts, because, by and large, they don't place nearly the emphasis on the bible that fundamentalists do. They don't care what the texts say, so much as they care what Christians do.

I am aware that today we have translations, but I think the point of contention is over whether the original manuscripts were inspired by God and are therefore infallible as His Word. I believe this is the case and that God is quite capable of preserving His word through the ages and translations despite the fallibility of humans. Maybe if everyone who called themselves Christians simply placed more faith in the power of God to sustain His word and valued what He communicates through the scriptures then what they do would truly reflect Him. Paul believed that the scriptures were the word of God and his life demonstrated it...For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 1 Thess. 2:13

Equating post-modern liberalism with fascism, is not only wrong (since fascism is not "liberating" in any way), but inflammatory and a scare tactic.

I think when the outside authority of God as expressed through the scriptures is disregarded then the door is opened for fascism. It is scary, but not meant to be a scare tactic.

"Believe in God and in the 'fact' that Jesus died to save you from your sins, or spend an eternity in hell" isn't fear?? I grew up and have spent most of my adult life in the bible belt. I've lived close to a lot of fundies, and not one person among them has ever fostered anything but the tightest systems of dos and don'ts. you either believe like them and act like them, or they see you as condemned.

Yet, all we hear is, "You can't dance, go to the movies, drink, smoke, or have premarital sex. Or be homosexual, or you're going to hell." That sounds a lot like a list of dos and don'ts to me.

It is not all I hear. I’m sorry you grew up in the legalistic element of “Christianity”. I think it must be understood that many "Christians" are only cultural Christians, having never experienced the new birth or, if so, not understanding their identity in Christ. So all they have is a list of religious rules. I think this is especially the case in the Bible belt. At least, I’ve met some individuals like that, but that is not biblical Christianity. I don’t know any Christians who think dancing, movies, or smoking is a sin, at all, much less would merit hell or condemnation. Although, I don't think smoking is too wise and biblical discernment should be practiced in all areas of a believer's life.

In fact, "Christ's sacrificial love, the injunction to love God and one another, and live victoriously over sin through a life transformed and empowered by Jesus Christ" is precisely what Emergents believe and promulgate. Unfortunately, I don't see that message coming through in fundamentalist circles.

I’ve been a believer for 25 years and the love of God has always been prominent in the circles of Bible believers I’ve known. But it seems to me that the Emergent “love” is out of balance and based more on emotionalism and tolerance with an absence of truth and justice

Your whole statement about truth claims is just as true for fundamentalists as you claim it is for Emergents. The difference is that Emergents tend to take an objective, more fact-oriented approach to the texts, while most fundamentalists throw around words like "infallible," "God's words," "absolute," etc., which are more subjectively-based. What you don't like is that Emergents and post-modern liberals don't share your emotional view of the texts, which can cloud the reality of what the texts are.

I find it ironic that you would say Emergents take an objective view toward the text, while fundamentals an emotional view when it is the former who seem utterly subjective in approaching the text and base their spirituality and concept of truth upon the experiential, intuition and feelings.

It's really sad that you pit Evangelicals against Emergents, creating this false dichotomy, without realizing that there is such an animal as an Evangelical Emergent. In fact, the Emergent Movement began in the Evangelical church as a backlash against rampant emotionalism, judgment, and exclusivism..

I know there are many Evangelical Emergents and that I find sad. I don't think the movement started in the Evangelical church, but is a much older rejection of God's authority which has come into the church. Yet, the movement you speak of may be a combination of this and a backlash against the Spirit-less institutional church, which itself had already departed from the scriptures in many ways.

 

[InChrist]

More trash on the Emergent Movement, you mean. There is no such thing as the "Emergent Church," because the Movement cuts across both denominational and spiritual lines.

I stand corrected. You’re right. It isn’t the Emergent “Church”, but a movement that does cut across all denominational lines and has infected the church by trashing the gospel, the Bible, and even too often denying the Lord who bought them.

 

[Windwalker]

Is mystical experience emotionalism? No, it is not. Can there be emotions that arise during a mystical experience, in response to it? Of course, yes. But emotions are fleeting, temporary, and not at all meant to be the focus of mystical practices. Those who do this, make seeking the emotion the goal, in fact practicing a form of subtle-avoidance. It's a form of escapism, just as those who refuse to open the door to the heart and look within but instead misquote the Bible to justify that saying, "the heart is deceitfully wicked and can't be trusted!," do. Both avoid opening the door of the heart, one by seeking emotional experience, the other by hoping that an external force will magically do the work for them that they need to do, to magically make it all better without any work, subtly calling it a magical work that Christ magically does for you. Both emotionalism and fundamentalism are escapism.

Mystical experience on the other hand leads to clarity, centeredness, openness, compassion, peace, wisdom, knowledge, healthiness, and so forth. It is, quite literally being rooted and grounded in the Word of God. But by Word of God, I mean the Christ, the Eternal Logos, Spirit. It is not a book I am referring to. The book called the Bible is a collection of points of view of human beings, each on their own spiritual path as I am. The Apostle Paul has some tremendously insightful vision through his own mystical experiences, but he also at times is a flaming egotist. He was a man, working it out for himself like us, and not a god. I find value in how he expresses his own experiences, in that I am able to translate and relate them to my own! But I also recognize where he and I part in view, and much of this without doubt is due to cultural contexts, as well as the frameworks through which he is a pre-modern world translated reality, versus the way we do in a modern, and postmodern one.

To say one is "rooted and grounded" in the Bible, meaning the words of others, does not in any way translate into you being rooted and grounded in Christ! You are relying on the experience of others, and telling yourself it will all be taken care of one day for you, and just trusting in those words to find some solace and consolation, a temporary relief of fears and anxieties. And there may be some positive experience that comes through positive beliefs, but it is not the same as opening the door and stepping through to a mystical experience of Spirit - not emotionalism, but the experience of Peace itself, the Being of God, which opens one's own being into living and being rooted and grounded in Spirit itself. One is trusting in hope, the other resting in Spirit. Once that occurs, then how you see and understand the Bible becomes something entirely different. Your source of Authority, is the Spirit. A true spirituality is one that is lived, not just imagined and hoped for. And that is the difference between merely "believing", and the mystical experience. The mystical experience is a lived reality; One beyond the escapisms of a mere emotionalism, or a mere "beliefism".

 

[Windwalker]

I think when the outside authority of God as expressed through the scriptures is disregarded then the door is opened for fascism. It is scary, but not meant to be a scare tactic.

You believe any time some rejects another's claim of Absolute Authority, be that citing themselves or claiming it's God's word saying it instead of themselves, opens the door to "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."? Let me get this straight, rejecting authoritarian claims, opens you to accepting authoritarian claims?

Well, color me utterly confused! This sounds kind of nutty. I would think those who believe in external absolute authorities, like yourself, are the ones opened to being ruled by others in fascist systems, not those who don't operate in those modes of thinking at all. All that's lacking is a leader who tells you he is speaking the truth of God from the Bible, showing you his proofs to convince you, to lead you into his ego-maniacal vision of the world. That's what can much more easily happen when you spend your life looking outside yourself for truth, from others.

 

[sojourner]

I am aware that today we have translations, but I think the point of contention is over whether the original manuscripts were inspired by God and are therefore infallible as His Word.

They are inspired. They are not infallible, since they come through the filter of human understanding.

I believe this is the case and that God is quite capable of preserving His word through the ages and translations despite the fallibility of humans.

Here's the operative term: "I believe." You "believe" that. Not everyone else believes that. That's your choice -- not everyone else's choice. You don't know it -- there's no evidence to prove it -- you believe it to be so. Your belief doesn't make you "right" and everyone else "wrong." This is precisely what I addressed in my earlier post. Fundamentalists insist that their beliefs are the "correct" ones, despite evidence, and that everyone else must, therefore, be "wrong." That stance represents a narrowness and a conformity that drives people away. The Emergent Movement possesses no such narrowness or insistence on conformity. They allow others to believe as they believe, and they respect those beliefs.

Maybe if everyone who called themselves Christians simply placed more faith in the power of God to sustain His word and valued what He communicates through the scriptures then what they do would truly reflect Him.

Again: the operative term here is, "If everyone." Narrowness. Conformity. You insist that everyone conform to your viewpoint, or they're "wrong." Don't you think God created us in diversity for a reason? No one person can reflect all of God. No one group can reflect all of God. but every difference of every person does reflect the great diversity that is God.

Paul believed that the scriptures were the word of God and his life demonstrated it...For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Paul wasn't talking about the scriptures. He was talking about the message of the gospel. Remember: there was no bible when Paul wrote to Thessalonica. There was no NT. There were no gospels. There were only the various Hebrew scrolls.

I think when the outside authority of God as expressed through the scriptures is disregarded then the door is opened for fascism.

Once again: "You think." The mistake in your thinking is that Emergents "disregard" God's authority. They don't. They see that authority somewhat differently than you do. For you, that authority is wrapped up in some magical infallibility of the bible. For Emergents, that authority is shown through the loving acts of God's people. In fact, there's a lot more "fascism" shown through the fanatical insistence upon conformity of belief on the part of fundamentalists than there is in the liberation offered by the Emergent conversation. Why do you think some Evangelicals formed the Emergent conversation to begin with? Because they felt oppressed by their fundamentalist peers.

It is not all I hear. I’m sorry you grew up in the legalistic element of “Christianity”. I think it must be understood that many "Christians" are only cultural Christians, having never experienced the new birth or, if so, not understanding their identity in Christ. So all they have is a list of religious rules. I think this is especially the case in the Bible belt. At least, I’ve met some individuals like that, but that is not biblical Christianity.

No. It's not. Which is exactly the reason why the Emergent conversation began in the first place. But the insistence on conformity to some arbitrary belief is certainly present throughout fundamentalism. And that's just as bad.

I’ve been a believer for 25 years and the love of God has always been prominent in the circles of Bible believers I’ve known. But it seems to me that the Emergent “love” is out of balance and based more on emotionalism and tolerance with an absence of truth and justice

I've been a believer for over 50 years, and I've been involved with all kinds and flavors of churches. have you ever experienced firsthand the Emergent conversation, or participated in Emergent worship? I can assure you that the love that is fostered there isn't "out of balance." It's not based on "emotionalism," or an "absence" of justice. Quite the opposite! The love that is fostered is based upon justice. Justice is a major driving force in the conversation. If you got that part wrong, then you absolutely do not understand the Emergent Movement At. All. You should give these people a serious read. Go online and see videos of conversations. Attend meetings. Go to an emergent service sometime. Become involved and informed. Then come back here with your trash talk.

I find it ironic that you would say Emergents take an objective view toward the text, while fundamentals an emotional view when it is the former who seem utterly subjective in approaching the text and base their spirituality and concept of truth upon the experiential, intuition and feelings.

"Seems." You use an awful lot of "thinks" and "believes" and "seems" in proclaiming your absolutist judgments. "Experiential" =/= "emotional." The Emergents that I know (which is plenty!) don't take an "intuitive" or "emotional" view of the texts. They don't, by and large, "believe" that the texts are "infallible," for example. They take a considered approach, based upon what the exegetical scholars have to say about the nature of the texts. For them, "God's word" isn't synonymous with the bible. They find God's word within the writings, but the bible, itself, isn't generally viewed as some spiritual entity, that contains Godlike power. It's a book. It's the story of God's people.

I know there are many Evangelical Emergents and that I find sad.

It is sad that so many people have been judged and ostracized that they feel like they can no longer go to church. That doesn't represent the love of Christ, in my opinion.

I don't think the movement started in the Evangelical church, but is a much older rejection of God's authority which has come into the church.

Well... you're wrong. Let me ask you this: Upon what, in your fundamentalist church, does God's authority rest? From where is it propagated? How is it displayed? How do you think the Emergents "reject" that authority?

Yet, the movement you speak of may be a combination of this and a backlash against the Spirit-less institutional church, which itself had already departed from the scriptures in many ways.

So now you're attacking the mainliners, deflecting responsibility onto them? Holy crap! There's just no way in the world you could possibly be wrong, because your beliefs are the "right" ones. Wow. Just ... wow.

 

[sojourner]

I stand corrected. You’re right. It isn’t the Emergent “Church”, but a movement that does cut across all denominational lines and has infected the church by trashing the gospel, the Bible, and even too often denying the Lord who bought them.

"Trashing?" Really?! Srrsly?! "Love God, Love neighbor as self. Lift the downtrodden, include the outcast, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, show hospitality to all, help transform lives through love." That's "trashing the gospel," eh?

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Typically, you've cabbage onto some bozo who wrote a book once and calls himself an "authority" and you blindly believe everything he says, even though he's patently WRONG. Everything you've said thus far about Emergents is WRONG. You don't like 'em because you perceive that they're different from you, and you can't stand differences. So sad.

 

[Windwalker]

Paul wasn't talking about the scriptures. He was talking about the message of the gospel. Remember: there was no bible when Paul wrote to Thessalonica. There was no NT. There were no gospels. There were only the various Hebrew scrolls.

If I showed you a photograph from the 1600's of the Apostle Paul writing his letters directly into a copy of the King Jame's Bible on a desk in front of him, would you then believe he was referring to the Bible the Protestants call the Word of God and his own writings as scripture? Well, would you? What would it take to convince you? What would it take for you to put your faith in the Protestant Bible and be saved?

 

[sojourner]

What would it take for you to put your faith in the Protestant Bible and be saved?

A six pack of Schlitz, and a Quaalude.

 

[Orbit]

A six pack of Schlitz, and a Quaalude.

LOL

 

[Windwalker]

A six pack of Schlitz, and a Quaalude.

That's all?

You do know that when the author of John wrote the 1st chapter, he was thinking of the Bible that Evangelical churches would be using? "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.... and the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld it's pages."

 

[sojourner]

That's all?

You do know that when the author of John wrote the 1st chapter, he was thinking of the Bible that Evangelical churches would be using? "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.... and the Bible became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld it's pages."

View attachment 10904

Wait... what?! I thought the bible fell out of the sky in King James English... all 66 books.

 

[Windwalker]

Wait... what?! I thought the bible fell out of the sky in King James English... all 66 books.

Verily, verily...

 

[InChrist]

Who is this quack? He touts himself as a writer, yet can't even use correct grammar. I watched the first 6 minutes and was rolling on the floor laughing. This bozo talks about "historic doctrine" and "historic creeds," that Emergents have thrown out, yet I'd be willing to bet that this clown has thrown out a lot of historic doctrine (the real presence of Christ in communion leaps to mind) and I bet he's never said a historic creed in his life.

Is that an expression of emergent 'LOVE" to call someone, anyone... quack, bozo, clown?

 

[InChrist]

Is mystical experience emotionalism? No, it is not. Can there be emotions that arise during a mystical experience, in response to it? Of course, yes. But emotions are fleeting, temporary, and not at all meant to be the focus of mystical practices. Those who do this, make seeking the emotion the goal, in fact practicing a form of subtle-avoidance. It's a form of escapism, just as those who refuse to open the door to the heart and look within but instead misquote the Bible to justify that saying, "the heart is deceitfully wicked and can't be trusted!," do. Both avoid opening the door of the heart, one by seeking emotional experience, the other by hoping that an external force will magically do the work for them that they need to do, to magically make it all better without any work, subtly calling it a magical work that Christ magically does for you. Both emotionalism and fundamentalism are escapism.

Mystical experience on the other hand leads to clarity, centeredness, openness, compassion, peace, wisdom, knowledge, healthiness, and so forth. It is, quite literally being rooted and grounded in the Word of God. But by Word of God, I mean the Christ, the Eternal Logos, Spirit. It is not a book I am referring to. The book called the Bible is a collection of points of view of human beings, each on their own spiritual path as I am. The Apostle Paul has some tremendously insightful vision through his own mystical experiences, but he also at times is a flaming egotist. He was a man, working it out for himself like us, and not a god. I find value in how he expresses his own experiences, in that I am able to translate and relate them to my own! But I also recognize where he and I part in view, and much of this without doubt is due to cultural contexts, as well as the frameworks through which he is a pre-modern world translated reality, versus the way we do in a modern, and postmodern one.

To say one is "rooted and grounded" in the Bible, meaning the words of others, does not in any way translate into you being rooted and grounded in Christ! You are relying on the experience of others, and telling yourself it will all be taken care of one day for you, and just trusting in those words to find some solace and consolation, a temporary relief of fears and anxieties. And there may be some positive experience that comes through positive beliefs, but it is not the same as opening the door and stepping through to a mystical experience of Spirit - not emotionalism, but the experience of Peace itself, the Being of God, which opens one's own being into living and being rooted and grounded in Spirit itself. One is trusting in hope, the other resting in Spirit. Once that occurs, then how you see and understand the Bible becomes something entirely different. Your source of Authority, is the Spirit. A true spirituality is one that is lived, not just imagined and hoped for. And that is the difference between merely "believing", and the mystical experience. The mystical experience is a lived reality; One beyond the escapisms of a mere emotionalism, or a mere "beliefism".

I consider language to be a unique gift from God. Language and words have meaning and significance and it is obvious, to me anyway, that God chose to use language and the written word to communicate and make Himself known to humanity. I think that Jesus, the Son, is called the Word and actually dwelt among us further validates the importance of God’s use of words in His communication and interaction with humanity. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.(John 17:17. The scriptures also say...the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.(Heb. 4:12) and ...All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I believe the Holy Spirit uses the words of scripture because this is the way God has chosen to use to transform the minds of those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ and Jesus is the Savior by which all must be saved and connect with God, according to His Word. So I do not see them as words of other humans (although God inspired humans to write them), but as the living and powerful words of God. As such, they bring life, growth, and maturity in Christ and all that is needed for the present and eternity.

I believe to attempt to connect with God or transform one’s life by looking to mystical experiences is an attempt apart from the way God has in place and is choosing to reject God's way for one's own way which is self-focused and leads to delusion.

 

[sojourner]

Is that an expression of emergent 'LOVE" to call someone, anyone... quack, bozo, clown?

Is it an expression of biblical love to misrepresent something and then proceed to trash it to the world on the internet? Even Jesus used terms like "Hypocrite," "snake," and "fool" when dealing with dishonest people.

 

[InChrist]

You believe any time some rejects another's claim of Absolute Authority, be that citing themselves or claiming it's God's word saying it instead of themselves, opens the door to "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."? Let me get this straight, rejecting authoritarian claims, opens you to accepting authoritarian claims?

Well, color me utterly confused! This sounds kind of nutty. I would think those who believe in external absolute authorities, like yourself, are the ones opened to being ruled by others in fascist systems, not those who don't operate in those modes of thinking at all. All that's lacking is a leader who tells you he is speaking the truth of God from the Bible, showing you his proofs to convince you, to lead you into his ego-maniacal vision of the world. That's what can much more easily happen when you spend your life looking outside yourself for truth, from others.

I am not referring to rejecting authoritarian claims, but saying that rejecting God's claim as Authority through His Word, opens up the door to others who claim authority and a dangerous authoritarian state or condition.

 

[sojourner]

I consider language to be a unique gift from God. Language and words have meaning and significance and it is obvious, to me anyway, that God chose to use language and the written word to communicate and make Himself known to humanity. I think that Jesus, the Son, is called the Word and actually dwelt among us further validates the importance of God’s use of words in His communication and interaction with humanity. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.(John 17:17. The scriptures also say...the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.(Heb. 4:12) and ...All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I believe the Holy Spirit uses the words of scripture because this is the way God has chosen to use to transform the minds of those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ and Jesus is the Savior by which all must be saved and connect with God, according to His Word. So I do not see them as words of other humans (although God inspired humans to write them), but as the living and powerful words of God. As such, they bring life, growth, and maturity in Christ and all that is needed for the present and eternity.

I believe to attempt to connect with God or transform one’s life by looking to mystical experiences is an attempt apart from the way God has in place and is choosing to reject God's way for one's own way which is self-focused and leads to delusion.

Who's "self-focused" here? Look at what you've said:
"I consider." "I think." "I believe." This is extremely self-centered. We've said all along that meditation may not be right for you, and that's OK. If this is what you believe and think and consider, then by all means, Don't. Do. It. But don't disparage others' sincere religious experiences and judge them as unworthy of God.