Posts Tagged ‘The Emerging Church’

by Roger Oakland

It may seem out of place to include a section on sexuality in [Faith Undone] on the postmodern reformation. However, one aspect of the topic cannot be ignored, and it has become an earmark in the emerging church—that aspect is related to homosexuality.

In this section, I am merely going to present certain statements made by those in the emerging church for the purpose of showing you this paradigm shift in attitude toward sexuality. How you interpret these statements is up to you, but it is my prayer you will look at them through the eyes of Scripture. One thing is for sure, after reading this section, I think you will agree that emerging spirituality is attempting to redefine how Christians view and think about sexuality. I begin first with the Word of God:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:1-2)

One example of this new reformation mindset on sexuality can be found in Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church. Kimball devotes an entire chapter (called “The Church is Homophobic”) to homosexuality and says that Christians need to reinterpret what we thought the Bible says about homosexuality. He states:

Because this is such a huge issue in our culture, and because all of the tension and discussion on this issue is over what the Bible says about it, we can no longer just regurgitate what we have been taught about homosexuality.… We cannot do that any longer … We must approach the Bible with humility, prayer, and sensitivity, taking into consideration the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and looking into the historical contexts in which passages were written.… we can no longer with integrity merely quote a few isolated verses and say “case closed.”1

Kimball elaborates:

Quite honestly, and some people might get mad at me for saying this, I sometimes wish this [homosexuality] weren’t a sin issue, because I have met gay people who are the most kind, loving, solid, and supportive people I have ever met. As I talk to them and hear their stories and get to know them, I come to understand that their sexual orientation isn’t something they can just turn off. Homosexual attraction is not something people simply choose to have, as is quite often erroneously taught from many pulpits.2

Kimball does not stand alone within the ranks of the emerging church in his permissive, accepting view of homosexuality. Someone else in this camp is Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker of the former PTL Club. In an interview with Radar magazine, Bakker says, “I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin’”3 (brackets in original). On Bakker’s website, he upholds this view.4 And in a December 15th, 2006, interview with Larry King, the following conversation took place:

KING: Would you say that you’re part of the liberal sect of Christianity?
JAY BAKKER: Well, I definitely say I’m a little bit more liberal than probably most, yes.
KING: You, for example, in your church would you marry gays?
JAY BAKKER: If the laws passed, yes.
KING: You favor there being a law, though?
JAY BAKKER: Yes, I do.5

Brian McLaren expressed his views (or lack of them) over the subject and stated:

Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question [on homosexuality].… Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” … Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements.6

One pastor who runs a ministry that helps homosexuals leave the lifestyle, can help us see the extent of these changing attitudes toward homosexuality. He explains:

They call themselves new-evangelicals. Philip Yancey devoted a whole chapter to homosexuality in his book What’s So Amazing About Grace? He thinks we need to extend grace to people who can’t change their homosexuality.… Tony Campolo thinks people who can’t change their homosexuality should live in celibate homosexual partnerships. His wife thinks gays should just get married to each other. Lewis Smedes agrees with Richard Foster. They all seem to agree there are some gay people who cannot change their homosexuality, are not able to live celibately and therefore exceptions should be made for them.7

The pastor, an ex-homosexual, disputes those in the church who publicly embrace homosexuality, and he believes there is an answer to these postmodern views. He states:

Since when are Richard Foster, Philip Yancey, Tony Campolo and Lewis Smedes experts on the changeability of homosexuality? … I have lived this issue for most of my 42 years. For seventeen years I’ve helped hundreds, maybe thousands, of people come out of homosexuality. I’ve never seen two healings alike. And I’ve never seen someone who by the grace of God could not be healed. Now that’s what’s so amazing about grace! It empowers us to live a moral and transformed life in Christ.8

In 2004, Philip Yancey (author and editor for Christianity Today) accepted an interview with Candace Chellew-Hodge for Whosoever, “an online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, and Transgendered Christians.” When Chellew-Hodge asked Yancey about his views on gays and lesbians in the church, Yancey answered:

When it gets to particular matters of policy, like ordaining gay and lesbian ministers, I’m confused, like a lot of people. There are a few—not many, but a few—passages of Scripture that give me pause. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to those questions.9

My question to Yancey and other proclaiming Christian leaders is why don’t you know the answer? The Bible is clear on this matter. We may not always understand but part of being a Christian is accepting God’s Word and trusting that it is truly just that. Yancey may not be an emergent leader, but his beliefs certainly fit with emerging spirituality. The following statement he makes shows he shares a similar disregard for biblical doctrine:

Perhaps our day calls for a new kind of ecumenical movement: not of doctrine, nor even of religious unity, but one that builds on what Jews, Christians, and Muslims hold in common.… Indeed, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have much in common.10

(excerpt from Faith Undone, chapter 12)

Related:

The “Kingdom of God” in the Emerging Church: A Theology of Despair and Hopelessness

What’s Sex Got To Do With It?

Notes:

1. Dan Kimball, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, op. cit., p. 137.
2. Ibid., p. 138.
3. Interview with Jay Bakker, “Empire of the Son” (Radar, http://radaronline.com/features/2006/12/empire _of_the _son _par t_ iii.php).
4. Bakker’s website: http://www.revolutionnyc.com/links.htm.
5. Interview by Larry King with Jay Bakker; see transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/15/lkl.01.html.
6. Brian McLaren, “Leader’s Insight: No Cowardly Flip-Flop: How should pastors respond to “the Homosexual Question”?(Christianity Today, January 23, 2006, http://www.christianitytoday.com/leadersnewsletter/2006/cln60123.html).
7. Mario Bergner, “Conversations with Jason about Homosexuality” (Redeemed Lives News, Spring/Summer 2001, http://www.redeemedlives.org).
8. Ibid.
9. Interview by Candace Chellew-Hodge with Philip Yancey, “Amazed by Grace” (Whosoever online magazine, http://www.whosoever.org/v8i6/yancey.shtml).
10. Philip Yancey, “Hope for Abraham’s Sons” (Christianity Today,  November 1, 2004).

 

LTRP Note: In view of the fact that Rob Bell’s Nooma films and his book, Velvet Elvis, are still popular within evangelical circles, this article by Bob DeWaay, on Bell’s “Mindblowing”* model New Ager Ken Wilber, should be taken seriously. 

by Bob DeWaay
author of The Emergent Church 

In rejecting a “downward spiral” (that history is heading toward God’s judgment), emergent/postmodern theology holds to an upward spiral theory called spiral dynamics and a helical theory of time:

First, it [a helical structure] has a spiral form. The motion of time, the motion of life, is not linear, but spiral. Mate a line with a circle, connect linear to nonlinear, connect analytic to associative powers of the brain, connect past to future—and you end up with a spiral. In spiral dynamics, each level of the past remains curled up inside us (like nested Russian dolls) as we move up to next-level challenges. A spiraling faith is one of timelessness within time, one in which the past is embedded in the future.1 

These ideas are primarily Wilber’s expressions drawn together from people such as Arthur Koesler and his concept of “holons”, Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, and the much earlier thinking of Hegel himself. This material quickly can become very dense and confusing, but the basic idea behind it is the idea of evolution (and not just biological evolution,2 but a holistic evolution that includes all things). It is supported by a pantheistic worldview (Wilber being a Buddhist).3 If God is part of the process of history, and if all of reality is interconnected, then the process can be expected to be spiraling upward to something better. This worldview is characteristic of neo-paganism in its many expressions. 

It is difficult to describe these ideas without leading the reader into confusion, and any such result is unintentional. This philosophy is based on a paradigm involving life, categories, and terminology that may not correspond to anything in the real world. For example, consider the term “holons.” In A is for Abductive, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren and Jerry Haselmayer discuss it: “Holarchy: The ordering (arche) of holons (whole/parts). The word holon was invented by Arthur Koestler to describe increasing levels of wholeness in the universe. Every whole is a part and every part is a whole. Everything is a holon.”4 This confusing paradigm is one of the key concepts Wilber uses; his philosophy has been adapted by the Emergent Church, and his work is footnoted in their entry. 

But scientists did not discover “holons”; Koestler proposed them in his book The Ghost in the Machine as a way of proposing and explaining that man’s brain became confounded in the evolutionary process, and thus caused the evils in society. I am not saying that Wilber’s or the Emergent’s use of the concept is identical to Koestler’s. Koestler thought the best way to fix man’s brain, wired wrongly by evolution, was through drugs. Instead of drugs, the emergent panentheism sees the immanence of God in the process as reason for hope. Wilber’s Buddhist pantheistic “hope” is based on some concept of God, but it is not the God of the Bible. Theirs is a more pagan view. 

My intent is to provide a basic overview of Wilber’s ideas by citing both his writings and an interview he granted. His ideas are esoteric, so do not be shocked if they do not make sense to you. But since Wilber is a key source of the concept of the “emergence” underlying the philosophy of the Emergent Church, it is necessary to explain his ideas. We will find his neo-pagan ideas to be shockingly antithetical to Christian theology. Here is an example where he describes “emergence” and evolution according to his idea, the “Great Nest of Being”:

But, according to the traditions, this entire process of evolution or “un-folding” could never occur without a prior process of involution or “in-folding.” Not only can the higher not be explained in terms of the lower, and not only does the higher not actually emerge “out of” the lower, but the reverse of both of those is true, according to the traditions. That is, the lower dimensions or levels are actually sediments or deposits of the higher dimensions, and they find their meaning because of the higher dimensions of which they are a stepped-down or diluted version. This sedimentation process is called “involution” or “emanation.” 5

According to the traditions, before evolution or the unfolding of Spirit can occur, involution or the infolding of Spirit must occur: the higher successively steps down into the lower. Thus, the higher levels appear to emerge “out of” the lower levels during evolution—for example, life appears to emerge out of matter—because, and only because, they were first deposited there by involution. You cannot get the higher out of the lower unless the higher were already there, in potential—sleeping, as it were—waiting to emerge. The “miracle of emergence” is simply Spirit’s creative play in the fields of its own manifestation.6 

The “traditions” he refers to are various versions of the “Great Chain of Being.” He includes a chart that shows his conception of how this works in various religions. But take note, as a Buddhist and a pantheist, Wilber’s “infolding of Spirit” is a description of Spirit being lost in the material. Here is Wilber’s description in his own words: “These levels in the Great Nest are all forms of Spirit, but the forms become less and less conscious, less and less aware of their Source and Suchness, less and less alive to their ever-present Ground, even though they are all nevertheless nothing but Spirit-at-play.”7 So all things are “Spirit at play” but have lost awareness of this. Evolution is Spirit manifesting itself in emerging levels of complexity and awareness. The reason evolution makes sense in this scheme is that either God is in the creation (panentheism) or that creation is a manifestation of God (pantheism). In Christian theology, God created the world out of nothing and then rested (Genesis 1). The creation is separate from God. 

But if creation is Spirit-at-play as Wilber says, there is reason to think that things can evolve into more complex and better realities. Here is his explanation of the involution process that is subsequently reversed to be evolution: 

Spirit “loses” itself, “forgets” itself, takes on a magical façade of manyness (maya) in order to have a grand game of hide-and-seek with itself. Spirit first throws itself outward to create soul, which is a stepped-down and diluted reflection of Spirit; soul then steps down into mind, a paler reflection yet of Spirit’s radiant glory; mind then steps down into life, and life steps down into matter, which is the densest, lowest, least conscious form of Spirit. We might represent this as:  Spirit-as-spirit steps down into Spirit-as-soul, which steps down into Spirit-as-mind, which steps down into Spirit-as-body, which steps down into Spirit-as-matter. 

These levels in the Great Nest are all forms of Spirit, but the forms become less and less conscious, less and less aware of their Source and Suchness, less and less alive to their ever-present Ground, even though they are all nevertheless nothing but Spirit-at-play.8 

So whatever sort of “deity” Spirit is in this scheme of things, either he or “it” as the case may be, it has lost consciousness of its own existence and must regain consciousness. This is where we come in. We are supposed to help the emergence of Kosmic 9 consciousness through meditation. In essence, we help God find himself. I find it interesting that Wilber cites Hegel approvingly: “But the traditionalists were more straightforward about it: ‘God does not remain petrified and dead; the very stones cry out and raise themselves to Spirit,’ as Hegel put it.”10 

Wilber says “traditionalists” because though he admires their experiences and ideas, he wants to synthesize them into a better version of the Great Chain of Being that will incorporate more ideas: “It is not so much that the scheme itself is wrong, as that the modern and postmodern world has added several profound insights that need to be added or incorporated if we want a more integral or comprehensive view. This is what is meant by ‘from the Great Chain to postmodernism in three easy steps.’”11 Then Wilber proceeds to point out the shortcomings of pre-modern meta-physics, modern meta-physics, and propose an integration of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern understandings using a quadrant theory he proposes.12 

What Wilber proposes is that all evolving exterior things have a corresponding interior aspect which also is evolving. So rather than being “meta-physical” (concerned with things that transcend physics, and therefore would be considered beyond or above physics such as questions of causality, the ultimate nature of being and so forth) he considers them “intra-physical.” In this scheme, every form of reality, including atoms, has a corresponding interior, spiritual reality (as understood by panentheism or pantheism). This is reflected in Wilber’s quadrants. Furthermore, the exterior and interior realities that evolve into higher levels of complexity have a correspondence to social realities, both of individuals and society. Thus the quadrants are “I, we, it, its.” These are for “interior individual, exterior individual, interior collective and exterior collective.” All are evolving in complexity in both interior and exterior aspects, but evolution incorporates everything that went before and does not leave anything behind. 

I realize this is complex, but it is necessary to understand because it is the source of much of Emergent leadership’s thinking—such as McLaren’s and Rob Bell’s. I can only demonstrate it by first helping you to understand Wilber. In his pantheistic thinking, all of reality, including the atomic level, is spiritual and has consciousness. Here is his explanation: “But each of those material forms of increasing complexity has, as an interior correlate, a level of increasing consciousness. Thus (following Whitehead): atoms, whose exterior forms are physical entities such as neutrons, protons, and electrons, have an interior of prehension or proto-feelings (proto-awareness). . .”13 Of course, this makes sense to Wilber because of his Buddhist worldview. Fritjof Capra, whose book The Tao of Physics uses quantum physics to support a monistic, Eastern meta-physic, is mentioned by Wilber, who criticizes him for “reducing all realities to one quadrant.” But the idea that everything is spiritual in some sense is also Capra’s idea. 

Wilber claims that evolution includes the external and internal, or the matter and consciousness: 

Increasing complexity of form (in the UR) is correlated with increasing interior consciousness (in the UL). This was Teilhard de Chardin’s “law of complexity and consciousness”—namely, the more of the former, the more of the latter. As we might put it more precisely, the greater the degree of exterior complexity of material form, the greater the degree of interior consciousness that can be enacted within that form (i.e., correlation of UR and UL).14 

The UR and UL designations refer to his quadrant scheme, upper right and upper left. If one keys “evolving consciousness” into Google.com, the Web sites that appear include a veritable who’s who of New Age thinkers, including Wilber.15 Other terms and ideas associated with Wilber exist, but his quadrant map of reality is at the heart of them. 

Other terms include spiral dynamics, holarchy, integral dynamics, and integral theory of consciousness. 

Wilber has been interviewed frequently, and though he offers his comprehensive philosophy in his books, he claims they are not intended to help with the “advancement of consciousness.” When asked what knowing his philosophy could do for the advancement of consciousness16 he replied, 

Not very much, frankly. Each of us still has to find a genuine contemplative practice—maybe yoga, maybe Zen, maybe Shambhala Training, maybe contemplative prayer, or any number or authentic transformative practices. That is what advances consciousness, not my linguistic chitchat and book junk.17 

Meditation advances consciousness, he says, even in the absence of understanding his integral theory. No wonder various versions of meditation are popular in Emergent Churches. 

Understanding this theory is not for the faint of heart. A further exchange in the interview: “Your own world view is complicated enough. Meditators might just say, ‘Why do I need to have a globalhistorical view at all? Leave me alone to just meditate.’ What would you say to them?” Wilber’s answer: “Just meditate.”18 The interview reveals Wilber’s highest regard for Buddhist mediation, whose goal is to reach emptiness. 

At one point, the interview turned to what Wilber termed, “mystical Christianity”. The question posed was why a thousand years of it had not delivered “transcendence.” His response: 

Imagine if, the very day Buddha attained his enlightenment, he was taken out and hanged precisely because of his realization. And if any of his followers claimed to have the same realization, they were also hanged. Speaking for myself, I would find this something of a disincentive to practice. But that’s exactly what happened with Jesus of Nazareth. “Why do you stone me?” he asks at one point. “Is it for good deeds?” And the crowd responds, “No, it is because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” The individual Atman is not allowed to realize that it is one with Brahman. “I and my Father are One”-among other complicated factors-that realization got this gentleman crucified. The reasons for this are involved, but the fact remains: as soon as any spiritual practitioner began to get too close to the realization that Atman and Brahman are one-that one’s own mind is intrinsically one with primordial Spirit-then frighteningly severe repercussions usually followed.19 

Wilber interprets Christ to be an early Buddha type who was crucified for holding Buddhist ideas. 

Needless to say, Ken Wilber’s ideas are antithetical to the teachings of the Bible. Why would Christian theologians and teachers look to them for guidance? The answer is that they are interested in “emergence”, and Wilber is a brilliant philosopher whose combination of physical and spiritual evolution points to a better future through meditation. (from chapter 9 of DeWaay’s book, The Emergent Church)

* In the back of Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell tells readers to spend three months studying one of Ken Wilber’s books for a “mindblowing” experience. For more refutation by Bob DeWaay on Rob Bell and the Emerging Church, watch Exposing the Quantum Lie.

Notes:
1. Ibid.
2. Ibid.
3. Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer, A is for Abductive – The Language of the
Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003). 143.
4. Ken Wilber actually criticizes biological evolution.
5. Ken Wilber is a pantheist but the Emergent writers who use his material are panentheistic. The difference is that panentheism still maintains a distinction between the creator and creation, believing the creation is infused with God; but that God still has His own identity. Pantheism is
monistic.
6. Sweet, Abductive, 145.
7. Cited from http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm This is an excerpt from a draft of a book Wilber is writing called Kosmic Karma.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Wilber purposely spells “cosmic” as “kosmic” to distinguish his ideas from the idea of the
cosmos which is usually not referenced in a pantheistic way but can mean “creation.”
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. The best way to understand this is to go to his Web site http://wilber.shambhala.com/ and
look at the charts and representations there. But all of it is based on his Buddhist worldview, the
lens through which he integrates everything else.
14. Wilber Kosmic Karma excerpt.
15. Ibid.
16. This site: http://www.wie.org/directory/evolution-consciousness.asp which is “What is
Enlightenment, Redefining Spirituality for an Evolving World,” is filled with links and articles
including material by Ken Wilber.
17. “The Kosmos According to Ken Wilber – A Dialogue with Robin Korman” in Shambhala
Sun September 1996: http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=2059 (accessed April 2, 2008).
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.

LTRP Note: As the organized Christian church and church leaders continue in their plunge toward apostasy, turning their heads and ignoring the truth, all the while attempting to discredit those who are trying to warn, more and more people are being pulled into this tidal wave of deception. When Lighthouse Trails wrote a press release in 2005 showing that Rick Warren was planning on using New Age sympathizer Ken Blanchard to help implement his Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan and train leaders, attempts were made to discredit Lighthouse Trails.

Now 5 years later, as various Christian organizations, denominations, and movements have spun out of control and hastened toward major spiritual deception through contemplative mysticism, kingdom now theology, and emerging spirituality (all part of Satan’s Great Lie that started in the Garden of Eden), others have joined in attempting to discredit Lighthouse Trails and other concerned ministries.

In response to some of these attempts, Lighthouse Trails author Ray Yungen wrote an article in 2009 titled Is Lighthouse Trails haters? This stemmed from a Calvary Chapel event in 2009 called Movement 2009, in which a Calvary Chapel leader told thousands of youth that the haters tried to stop us but they didn’t. This was in reference to Lighthouse Trails previous reporting that Calvary Chapel was going to use emerging church author Mike Erre to address these youth. Erre’s book, Death by Church is a primer on the “new” emerging spirituality.

In 2009, Warren B. Smith wrote a book titled A “Wonderful” Deception: The Further New Age Implications of the Emerging Purpose Driven Movement. In this book, Smith tells the story of what happened after Lighthouse Trails wrote that 2005 press release on Rick Warren and Ken Blanchard. Today, we are presenting this section of the book in its entirety because we think people need to know what is going on behind the scenes and know that things are not always as they seem.

As we witness the lacking of a majority of Christian leaders to warn against  last days apostasy IN the church (not just secular deceptions in the world), we soberly continue to report on what is taking place. If your pastors and leaders are telling you NOT to listen to Lighthouse Trails and others who are critical of the evangelical church’s move toward a “new” Christianity, a paradigm shift they say, please do your own research before you take their word for it.

To illustrate just how far Christian leaders have slipped in contending for the faith and courageously standing against those who are bringing in dangerous false doctrines, in the summer of 2009, at a Greg Laurie Harvest Crusade, Calvary Chapel founder Chuck Smith introduced Rick Warren as his “good friend.” Warren, who was sharing the platform with Smith and Laurie that day, then addressed the crowd. Just a few years earlier, Calvary Chapel had publicly denounced the Purpose Driven teachings, saying: “The teaching and positions of Rick Warren have come into conflict with us at Calvary Chapel. Pastor Chuck has directed us to discontinue this product [Rick Warren's book, The Purpose Driven Life] effective immediately.”1

From chapters 4 & 5 of A “Wonderful” Deception by Warren B. Smith

In a May 31, 2005 midnight e-mail to Lighthouse Trails Publishing, Rick Warren made it clear that he was not happy with George Mair or with Lighthouse Trails regarding the subject of Ken Blanchard. With an apparent effort to take the spotlight off Blanchard’s New Age affinities, Warren attempted to place it on George Mair and Lighthouse Trails instead.–Warren Smith

In April 2005, a new book was published about Rick Warren. It was titled A Life With Purpose: Reverend Rick Warren: The Most Inspiring Pastor of Our Time. The book was an extremely favorable presentation of Warren and the Purpose Driven movement. Author George Mair genuinely liked and respected Warren as he described the Saddleback pastor’s life and ministry. Mair’s book was carried in major bookstores around the country—including Christian bookstores. The author’s high regard for Warren was evident throughout A Life With Purpose. Early on in his book, Mair writes:

I knew one thing for sure about Rick Warren: his is a fascinating story. A humble man with humble beginnings, he is changing America—and the world—“one soul at a time.”2

After hearing him preach and experiencing Saddleback Church, I understand why millions are listening to this man, and knew that the story behind the movement deserves to be told.3

His demeanor as the founder and pastor of one of the largest churches in the world reflects a man whose focus is on his mission to serve the Lord by bringing in the unchurched souls—the lost sheep—to embrace and celebrate the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.4

A Life With Purpose is filled with continuous praise for Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven ministry. Nothing George Mair said could be considered negative or critical about Warren. In fact, the rare comment of a critic is usually offset by the author himself. For example, Mair states:

Another thing those critics fail to take into account is the role that Rick himself plays in the phenomenal growth of his church. Rick Warren is a truly charismatic spiritual leader. It’s clear to anyone who experiences one of his Saddleback services that he truly loves what he does. He relishes standing up at the podium, looking out at the smiling crowd, and sharing the Good News of Jesus.5

There is no question that A Life With Purpose is an overwhelmingly positive account of Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven movement. However, at one point George Mair—in an almost naive and non-judgmental way—talks about Norman Vincent Peale and the New Age influence Peale had exerted on the Church Growth movement. Mair frames his remarks about Peale by writing:

The numbers speak for themselves. The Church Growth Movement has been wildly successful in Southern California . . . as well as in the rest of the country. Which prompts us to ask: what are the roots of this powerful movement? Rick Warren may be the foremost figure in the CGM today, but he’s only a piece—albeit an important one—of a greater development in the Christian Church. Who and what gave birth to this movement in which Rick would play such a vital role?6

Mair answers his own question by stating what other writers have known and also set forth—that it was Norman Vincent Peale who really provided the spiritual foundation of today’s Church Growth movement. In a sub-section titled “Laying the Groundwork: New Age Preacher Norman Vincent Peale,” Mair writes:

Reverend Norman Vincent Peale is, to many, the most prophetic and moving New Age preacher of the twentieth century. He is also the father of the self-help movement that formed the groundwork for the Church Growth Movement. Peale formed perhaps the most dramatic and meaningful link between religion and psychology of any religious leader in history. It is this same approachable, therapeutic brand of religion that many mega churches, including Saddleback, put forward today. It is this kind of religion that is so appealing to the masses of unchurched men and women that Rick Warren hopes to reach.7

George Mair goes on to state that Saddleback Church “distinctly bears the stamp of Norman Vincent Peale”:

Peale’s ministry was the first to raise the question that still faces mega churches today: is it spiritual compromise if a pastor simplifies his message in order to make it appealing to a huge number of seekers?8

His biographer, [Carol R.] George, says, “Norman Vincent Peale is undoubtedly one of the most controversial figures in modern American Christianity.” But no matter what people think about his theories, they have to acknowledge Peale’s remarkable unification of psychology and theology. Without that unification, mega churches wouldn’t exist today. . . . In that sense, Saddleback distinctly bears the stamp of Reverend Norman Vincent Peale.9

While Mair explains that it was Peale who laid the New Age “groundwork” for today’s Church Growth movement, he notes that it was Robert Schuller who helped to create the effectiveness of the megachurch movement on a national scale:

But it’s hard to argue that Schuller was not the first person to be effective on a national scale. He was unquestionably a pioneer in the Church Growth Movement and a major influence on Rick Warren.10

In his book, George Mair notes that Rick Warren had attended the Robert H. Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership.11 Then, after describing some of the various church growth leaders up to and including the 1980s, Mair writes:

But in the 1990s, following in the footsteps of Peale and Schuller, the leader of the next generation of Church Growth Movement pastors emerged. That man was none other than Rick Warren.12

In researching his book, George Mair had discovered the same Lutheran Quarterly article sent to me the month before by the Indiana pastor. Citing the article, Mair wrote how Norman Vincent Peale had been accused of plagiarizing material from an occult source:

Some of Peale’s former colleagues and another minister went so far as to accuse him of plagiarism. Writing in the Lutheran Quarterly, Reverend John Gregory Tweed of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Reverend George D. Exoo of Pittsburgh wrote that many of Peale’s uplifting affirmations originated with an “obscure teacher of occult science” named Florence Scovel Shinn. They based this charge on their comparison of words in Peale’s writings and those of Shinn’s book, The Game of Life and How to Play It, in which they found some identical phrases.13

In A Life With Purpose, George Mair also reveals that Norman Vincent Peale had been accused of using unattributed material from occult/New Age author Florence Scovel Shinn. From my own research that had been spurred by that same Lutheran Quarterly article, I learned that Peale had much more interest and involvement in the occult than I realized. He had openly endorsed the works of key New Age figures like Ernest Holmes, Eric Butterworth, and Bernie Siegel. Because questions had already arisen regarding Rick Warren’s undiscerning reference to Siegel and Warren’s use of unaccredited material from Robert Schuller in the The Purpose Driven Life, the very last thing Warren needed was a book—no matter how much it praised him—intimating a New Age link running from Peale to Schuller to Warren himself. In short, Warren did not need any more New Age implications arising that would cast further doubt upon his Purpose Driven movement. But ironically—at least on the surface—it wasn’t Mair’s remarks about Peale that stirred up concern at Saddleback Church but rather an offhand remark Mair had made in his book about author and businessman Ken Blanchard….

It was not until the release of George Mair’s book in 2005 that some people learned that Rick Warren had announced back in 2003 that Ken Blanchard would be working with him on the P.E.A.C.E. Plan. When Lighthouse Trails Publishing learned about Blanchard’s involvement with Warren, they were concerned. One of their authors, Ray Yungen, had been researching the New Age for many years and often came across Blanchard, who had been consistently endorsing and writing the forewords to New Age books and organizations. On April 19, 2005, Lighthouse Trails issued a press release, quoting George Mair’s book that Warren had “hired” Blanchard to work with him on the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.19 Lighthouse Trails warned of the serious New Age implications of allowing someone as undiscerning as Blanchard to teach Christians around the world how to “lead like Jesus.”The press release documented many of Blanchard’s New Age endorsements including Deepak Chopra’s book, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success and a book titled What Would Buddha Do at Work? for which Blanchard wrote the foreword. (To read all of chapter 4 and 5 of A “Wonderful” Deception and for endnotes, click here.)

by Bob DeWaay

Missionary or Missional?
For hundreds, if not thousands, of years Christians have used the term “missionary” to describe one who goes out to preach the gospel to an unsaved world headed toward judgment—repentance for the forgiveness of sin found in the death and resurrection of Christ. The mission of the missionary was to proclaim the absolute truth of the gospel—a fact proven by Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. The gospel is “good news” because it provides condemned sinners with a certain escape from God’s wrath.

Missional means zealous—about what ?
Emergent’s word “missional” does not convey this meaning. “Missional” sounds like “missionary” except that the “mission” is undefined. Emergent leaders disagree among themselves concerning the definition of their “mission,” but the mission they tend to embrace is to improve society now. They borrow much from Catholic liberation theologians and liberalism itself—that Christianity’s mission is to make the world a tangible paradise immediately. Outside of bettering society, the missional concept has no content; it specifically denies a mission of proclaiming an escape from God’s coming wrath. For Emergent, “The journey is the reward,” and the journey will certainly end well for all—without exception.

According to Emergent thinking, being missional means following the journey wherever it leads as long as it corrects society’s evils. In their view, missional is more like the opposite of apathy; it is zeal to right the wrongs of society. Because the eschatological end of the journey is assured for everyone, the path the journey takes doesn’t matter much. One mission to fight social evil is as good as another; what matters most is that we are missional together.

“Escape from Coming Wrath” or a “Certain Future of Hope”
The content of the gospel (that God has offered a path to escape His coming wrath) is the core issue to a missionary but irrelevant to one who is missional. To the missionary, those who repent and believe the gospel are reconciled to God and enter His kingdom. That message is unimportant, or at least not central, to one who is missional. Why? Because to the Emergent there is no impending judgment and if we do something nice on our journey nothing more is needed. To them, a focus on the content of the message is a distraction at best and harmful at worst.

(Excerpted from Bob DeWaay’s book, The Emergent Church, pp. 31-32)

Related Article:

The New Look of Christian Missions by Roger Oakland

By Ken Silva
Apprising Ministries

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NASB)

Professing To Be Wise They Became Fools

Apprising Ministries has been pointing out that with the arrival of A New Kind Of Christianity (AKNoC), the latest book by Brian McLaren, we’re seeing some Dissention Growing Around The Emerging Church. In what’s beginning to look like a major tactical error, in AKNoC McLaren, unquestionably a leading theologian in the sinfully ecumenical Emerging Church aka Emergent Church—that morphed into Emergence Christianity—(EC), finally has begun clearly stating his reimagined ( i.e. post) form of liberal theology aka Progessive Christianity, which so many in the EC have actually adhered to all along.

With this backdrop I now bring to your attention a very telling interview with John Shelby Spong conducted by EC leader Doug Pagitt December 20 on his Doug Pagitt Radio program. Interestingly enough Spong, who’s billed as a Champion of progressive Christianity, has an upcoming appearance in something called The Sacred Awakening Series from the The Shift Network, which is dedicated “to our Evolution.” Click here to listen to the interview and to read more.

by Bob DeWaay
(author of The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity)

Imagine a world where the polarity of time is reversed so that history moves backward toward Paradise rather than forward toward judgment. Consider a world in which God is so immanently involved in the creation that He is undoing entropy1 and recreating the world now through processes already at work. Think of a world where the future is leading to God Himself in a saving way for all people and all of creation. This imaginary world is our world viewed through the lens of Emergent eschatology.

Several acts of God’s providence brought me to know the nature of Emergent theology and its unique eschatology. The first happened in 1999 during my final year in seminary when the seminary hired a new professor, LeRon Shults. Shults, a theological disciple of the German Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, became my professor for a logic class. Shults often described his beliefs with this simple statement: “God is the future drawing everything into Himself.”

Some years later, several people suggested that I consider writing an article for Critical Issues Commentary, our ministry newsletter, examining a new movement called “The Emerging Church.” For my study I carefully read Brian McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy.2 What baffled me about his theology was that his views were nearly identical to those refuted 40 years earlier by Francis Schaeffer, who had called it “the new theology.” But as Schaeffer so clearly showed, the result of this theology is despair because under it there is no hope of knowing the truth. But the Emerging writers describe their theology as one of hope. If there is no hope of knowing the truth about God, man, and the universe we live in (as they claim), then how is hope the result? It turns out that a theology from the 1960s, first articulated in Germany when Schaeffer was writing his books, is the answer.

That leads to a second providential event. A member of our congregation handed me a book that she thought might be of interest in my research: A is for Abductive – The Language of the Emerging Church.3 Under the entry “Eschaton,” the heading “The end of entropy”4 appears. It then says, “In the postmodern matrix there is a good chance that the world will reverse its chronological polarity for us. Instead of being bound to the past by chains of cause and effect, we will feel ourselves being pulled into the future by the magnet of God’s will, God’s dream, God’s desire.”5 Reading this brought my mind back to 1999 and Shults’ interpretation of Pannenberg: “God is the future drawing everything into Himself.” Could this be the ground of Emergent “hope”?

The third providential event was the debate with Doug Pagitt, the 2006 event on the topic of The Emergent Church and Postmodern Spirituality. That event gave me the opportunity to ask Pagitt, a nationally recognized leader in the Emergent movement, whether or not he believed in a literal future judgment. He would not answer either way but did state that judgment happens now through consequences in history. His refusal to answer that question convinced me that the Pannenberg/Shults eschatology was behind the movement!

The fourth providential event was a meeting with Tony Jones of the Emergent Village with the goal of setting up another debate. It turned out that they did not want another debate, but Jones offered to answer any of my questions about Emergent. I responded by e-mail asking about Stanley Grenz, Wolfhart Pannenberg, LeRon Shults, and Jürgen Moltmann and their influence on Emergent theology. Jones replied that Grenz (who, as I will later show, praises the theologies of both Pannenberg and Moltmann) was influential and that Jones himself was studying under a professor named Miroslav Volf who had studied under Moltmann. Also, he helped me with his comment that their hope-filled belief generally leads them to reject eschatologies that “preach a disastrous end to the cosmos.”

The fifth providential event was when I fell and fractured my ankle while trimming trees. The broken ankle required that I sit with my leg elevated for a full week in order to get the swelling down. I had found a copy of Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope that I knew I had to read if I was going to write this book and prove my thesis. Reading Moltmann was so laborious that finishing the book was not likely to be completed quickly. But because of my immobility I finished Moltmann, taking notes on the contents of every page. The same week I read Moltmann I obtained the just-published An Emergent Manifesto of Hope with Pagitt and Jones as the editors. I read that as well and found Moltmann cited favorably by two emergent writers.6 In that same book, Jones describes why this theology is so hopeful for them: “God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward. We’re caught in the tractor beam of redemption and re-creation, and there’s no sense fighting it, so we might as well cooperate.”7 Or as professor Shults always said, “God is the future drawing everything into Himself.”

All of this leads me to my thesis: That the worldview represented by the theology of Grenz, Pannenberg, Moltmann, and Shults is the bedrock foundation of the Emergent Church movement. Their language and ideas present themselves on the pages of many Emergent books. For example, McLaren writes, “In this way of seeing, God stands ahead of us in time, at the end of the journey, sending to us in waves, as it were, the gift of the present, an inrush of the future that pushes the past behind us and washes over us with a ceaseless flow of new possibilities, new options, new chances to rethink and receive new direction, new empowerment.”8 Here is Pagitt’s version of it:

God is constantly creating anew. And God also, invites us to be re-created and join the work of God as co-(re)creators. . . . Imagine the Kingdom of God as the creative process of God reengaging in all that we know and experience. . . . When we employ creativity to make this world better, we participate with God in the recreation of the world.9

These writers often refer to “God’s dream.” Apparently they mean that God imagines an ideal future for the world that we can join and help actualize. When this dream becomes reality in the future, it will be the Kingdom of God.

This series of providential events in my life worked together to help me accurately understand a movement that works very hard to stay undefined. Definitions draw boundaries. Definitions are static. But definitions are necessary in order for us to understand anything. With no defined categories we would be hopeless human beings because, for example, we need our rational minds and valid categories to distinguish between food and poison. Definitions are valid, and no amount of philosophical legerdemain can change that reality. Definitions, to their way of thinking, impede the process of the “tractor beam” of redemption they are experiencing. They consider definitions too “foundationalist,” as we will discuss in a later chapter. I believe that I can now define the Emergent Church movement more accurately because I understand what they believe.

The Emergent Church movement is an association of individuals linked by one very important, key idea: that God is bringing history toward a glorious kingdom of God on earth without future judgment. They loathe dispensationalism more than any other theology because it claims just the opposite: that the world is getting ever more sinful and is sliding toward cataclysmic judgment.10 Both of these ideas cannot be true. Either there is a literal future judgment or there is not. This is not a matter left to one’s own preference.

(The article above is taken from The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity by Bob DeWaay, pp. 15-18; used with permission.)

 Note: In September 2009, Bob DeWaay attended the “2009 Emergent Theological Conversation” where Jurgen Moltmann was a guest speaker. This substantiated DeWaay’s findings regarding Moltmann’s significant influence in the emerging church.

Author:Bob DeWaay is the pastor of Twin City Fellowship in St. Paul, Minnesota and the author of The Emergent Church and Redefining Christianity. He also writes for the Critical Issues Commentary, a hard-hitting, Scripturally based commentary and articles ministry covering some of the most important issues affecting the church today, including mysticism and spiritual formation.

Notes:
1. Entropy is the principle by which physicists describe heat loss in a closed system. The existence of entropy is a proof that the universe is not eternal because if it were infinitely old it would have already died of heat death.
2. CIC Issue 87, March/April 2005. http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue87.htm
3. Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer, A is for Abductive – The Language of the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
4. Ibid. 113.
5. Ibid.
6. In An Emergent Manifesto of Hope,Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Moltmann is cited favorably by Dwight Friesen on page 203 and Troy Bronsink page 73 n. 24.
7. Ibid. Tony Jones, 130.
8. Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy; (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 283.
9. Doug Pagitt, Church Re-imagined(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003/2005) 185.
10. Please note that classical amillennialism also believes that the world is facing future judgment. Emergent is not merely opposed to dispensationalism, but any version of eschatology that asserts that God will bring cataclysmic judgment at the end of the age.

by Roger Oakland
Understand the Times

Promoters of the emergent conversation say we are on the verge of a new spiritual awareness. New “spiritual disciplines” are being touted as the avenue to spiritual formation that will take Christianity to a new and higher level. Where is this concept in the Bible?

…………………………………………………………………………

J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler are both professors at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in southern California. Moreland is professor of philosophy and Issler is professor of Christian education and theology. In 2006, Navpress published a book they co-authored titled The Lost Virtue of Happiness: Discovering the Disciplines of the Good Life. [1] On the back cover, the following statement is made:

Authors J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler illustrate how we are happy only when we pursue a transcendent purpose – something larger than ourselves. This involves a deeply meaningful relationship with God through a selfless preoccupation with the spiritual disciplines. The Lost Virtue of Happiness takes a fresh look at the spiritual disciplines, offering concrete examples of ways you can make them practical and life transforming.[2]

The title gives a good overview of what the book is about. Apparently, Moreland and Issler believe they have rediscovered important spiritual principles that have been lost.

One of the spiritual disciplines the authors have recovered is outlined in a chapter titled “Gaining Happiness by Losing Your Life.” Under the subheading “Two Friends: Solitude and Silence” the authors state:

The disciplines of solitude and silence are absolutely fundamental to the Christian life, and they are naturally practiced in tandem. In solitude we choose to be alone and to reflect on how we experience the facets of life (family, job, relationship with God, finances) and what they mean to us while in isolation. We unhook from companionship with others; we take ourselves physically and mentally out of our social, familial, and other human relationships. [3]

This spiritual discipline that Moreland and Issler suggest will bring true happiness requires a quiet state of mind and sounds like a good thing to do if one is attempting to get closer to God. However, there are some concerns. Further in the chapter the authors quote Henri Nouwen, a well known Roman Catholic mystic in support of this spiritual discipline that is being recovered. Nouwen said:

The man or woman who has developed this solitude of heart is no longer pulled apart by the most divergent stimuli of the surrounding world but is able to perceive and understand this world from a quiet inner center. [4]

This “quiet inner center” Nouwen mentions is suspect, especially in light of spiritual disciplines practiced by those involved in the Buddhist and Hindu faiths. Further, it seems Nouwen’s Roman Catholic mystical beliefs have strongly influenced the authors. Continuing to develop their idea of the importance of rediscovering the lost art of finding the “quiet inner center,” they state:

Go to a retreat center that has one of its purposes the provision of a place for individual sojourners. Try to find a center that has gardens, fountains, statues, and other forms of beautiful artwork. In our experience, Catholic retreat centers are usually ideal for solitude retreats… We also recommend that you bring photos of your loved ones and a picture of Jesus… Or gaze at a statue of Jesus. Or let some thought, feeling, or memory run through your mind over and over again. [5]

I have searched the scriptures. Staring or gazing at a picture or statue of Jesus or concentrating on a thought or feeling in order to establish “a quiet inner center” just isn’t there! For endnotes and also an audio version of this article by Roger Oakland, click here. If you have not yet read Roger Oakland’s powerful expose on the emerging church, Faith Undone, we highly recommend it.  This book shows how the panentheistic, anti-biblical spirituality of the emerging church is entering the evangelical church through many of the popular movements today including the Purpose Driven movement and the spiritual formation movement.

Related to this article:

Book Warning: Kingdom Triangle by J.P. Moreland

The following pertains to our January 25 article, Buddhist/Universalist Sympathizer Woos Nazarene Students at NNU. NNU’s president, Dr. David Alexander, has issued the following response to an undisclosed number of concerned Nazarenes. We are posting this and also our comments and documentation about his response (see our commentary below Dr. Alexander’s response).

From Dr. Alexander:

Greetings from the campus of Northwest Nazarene University.  I am writing to follow-up on an email you sent to General Superintendent Porter regarding the appearance of a guest on the NNU campus several years ago [2006].  Please allow me to speak to that, as well as make a couple general observations and finally update you on the present work of NNU for the Kingdom.

You wrote asking about the appearance of Jay McDaniel on our campus.  He was a guest speaker at NNU in the Fall of 2006.  Unfortunately, the video clip that you are referencing omits an NNU faculty member’s introduction of Dr. McDanie[l].  In effect, the introduction was a “disclaimer” regarding the fact that while we welcome him to speak, not all his views may align with our institutional views on matters of orthodoxy, theology and creedal statements.

Therefore, let me state explicitly so you know exactly where NNU stands as an institution.  NNU believes and affirms the Articles of Faith and Covenants of Christian Character and Conduct that are the bedrock of the Church of the Nazarene.  Furthermore, we espouse the centrality of Christ in all we are and all we do.  To that end, I’m inserting a paragraph from the Hallmarks of an NNU Education, that underscore this fact:

Northwest Nazarene University is built upon belief in and relationship with the One Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  In Him and His Son all things live and move and have their being.  He is the way, the truth and the life.  Therefore, we gather and organize ourselves around our relationship with God in Christ, made available to us through the Holy Spirit.  We exist to seek God.  He is the centerpiece around all we plan, do and are.  We seek His rule, righteousness and relationship in our lives and in the life of the institution.

Here is a link to the entire Hallmarks of an NNU Education document:  

http://www.nnu.edu/offices/office-of-the-president/hallmarks-of-an-nnu-education/

Let there be no doubt.  We organize and act from our belief that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  I understand that in viewing the remarks of our campus guest that some may mistakenly assume that what he said is what we believe.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  

Having said that, I want to explain the nature of his invitation.  (Please recall that this occurred in Fall of 2006, I became President of NNU in Summer of 2008.)  The university as a whole and our School of Theology & Christian Ministry in particular realize that the world is shrinking.  Culture and belief systems that were once a world away, are now as near as an immigrant student, a next door neighbor or a link to a website.  Consequently, it is the duty and responsibility of the university to make ourselves and our students aware of the world’s religions, sects and quests for God.  This is necessary if we are to appropriately know how we as Christians, are to proclaim the gospel to Muslims, pantheists, or Buddhists (an area where Dr. McDaniel has done research). 

It is our privilege and duty to assess and guide in this process, so that we and our students become adept at highlighting the good intentions and fallacies of various religions in order to then preach Christ and Him crucified.  This is in keeping with the same posture that the Apostle Paul used on his missionary travels, when he spoke directly to the belief systems of a particular town or region (e.g. Athens, Corinth) and then connected the hunger for a god, with the path to God in Jesus Christ.

To this end, we, as a missional expression of the Church of the Nazarene, promote the exercise of faith and reason, so that we might better observe the hand of God and His grace, preveniently at work in the world, so that we might be a part of the Holy Spirit’s moving.  In fact, my recent address to the campus community in our first Spring Semester Chapel, explores how to deal with the healthy tension that God has placed within us, His children, as we learn to exercise our minds in harmony with our faith.  Here’s a link to the text of that chapel message:  

http://www.nnu.edu/offices/office-of-the-president/presidents-messages/spring-2010-chapel-january-13th/

I’m sorry if this video of one of our guests, which you have encountered, has caused you to think poorly of our work.  I wanted to be quick respond and encourage you to stay in dialog.  For NNU has, is and always will be committed to proclaiming the good news of the gospel, saturating all we teach and do with His perspective, as we continually seek to provide transformative experiences for our students as they grow up into the full measure and stature of Jesus Christ.

Thank you again for your interest and concern.  I take it to mean that you have a heart for our beloved Church and the work the university does as the Church at work in higher education.  

May God bless you, may God bless NNU,

David Alexander, President

Northwest Nazarene University

Lighthouse Trails’ Commentary and Documentation Refuting Dr. Alexander’s Response:

We believe this is a case of a university president who does not appear to understand the nature of the current spiritual deception sweeping through the church, and very much so the Nazarene denomination. By his own admission, Dr. McDaniel was there to instruct the students, as Dr. Alexander points out (end of paragraph 6) when he says “make ourselves and our students aware of the world’s religions … an area where Dr. McDaniel has done research.”I think many parents would disagree with NNU’s idea that New Age Christians who dangerously teach another gospel should be the ones to teach their students about world religions. That’s a ridiculous argument by Dr. Alexander. There are many excellent books and resources that teach on world religions, written by fine Christian men and women. So when Dr. Alexander says that “it is the duty and responsibility of the university to make ourselves and our students aware of the world’s religions,” how that is done is up for dispute. 

Secondly, if the school is indeed “committed to proclaiming the good news of the gospel” and if something has changed since Dr. Alexander became President of NNU, which he points out in his letter that he began AFTER McDaniel’s visit, then why was Brian McLaren invited to speak in 2008, Philip Yancey this year and why do they presently have a Spiritual Formation program, in which heretical authors such as Richard Foster, Rob Bell, Henri Nouwen, Brian McLaren, Dallas Willard, Steve Chalke, David Benner, Brother Lawrence, Eugene Peterson, and Donald Miller are being used to teach the students?  http://www.nnu.edu/academics/graduate-programs/graduate-theological-online-education/master-of-arts-tracks/wwwnnuedumasf/textbooks/ Some of these listed above have outrightly denied the Atonement of Jesus Christ and all listed above are part of the new emerging spirituality, which promotes a mystical viewpoint. 

At the risk of sounding disrespectful, we will tell you why this is happening at NNU – it is because Dr. Alexander and the other teachers and leaders at the school think they understand, but they do not. 

Incidentally, the use of heretical teachers (ones who promote mysticism and panentheism) does not stop at NNU’s Spiritual Formation program. In their Missional Leadership program, the same thing is happening. Part of that list includes Brian McLaren (clearly a favorite of NNU, though McLaren calls the doctrine of the Cross and Hell “false advertising” for God), Eddie Gibbs, Leonard Sweet (promotes quantum spiriutality – see AWD), Dan Kimball, and a number of others. Dr. Alexander needs to understand that he is president of a university that has become an institution that is promoting the new emerging spirituality, a spirituality that by its very nature denies the tenets of the Christian faith, of which he says the school believes. 

For Dr. Alexander to single out McDaniel as if this was some rare exception is erroneous, because the names we have mentioned above are following the same spirituality as McDaniel. In his case, he was just more candid than some of the others. But for those who have studied McLaren, Sweet, and Foster, they have learned that the spirituality is the same.

Note: For detailed information on the beliefs of the names mentioned in this commentary, use the Lighthouse Trails Research Topical Index and Search Engine.