Spiritual Formation - An Interview with Dr. Gary Gilley

Have you heard of Spiritual Formation?  Do you know what it is?  Chances are  in some way this movement has affected you.  Recently, Stand up for the Truth radio program did an interview with Dr. Gary Gilley on his new book:  Out of Formation.  Please go to the ministry webpage (Click here).  Near the bottom of the article  you will find a audio link to listen or download the program to hear the interview. Hear the program interview here.  This movement has taken the modern church by storm in the last decade. It has affected just about every denomination - from seeker-driven churches to those considered to be conservative. 

The book “ Out of Formation”  by Gary Gilley can be purchased at these website and ministries: (click link below). 

Personal Freedom Outreach:  

P.O. Box 26062 • Saint Louis, MO 63136-0062

(314) 921-9800

Southern View Chapel: 

Amazon 

We at Stand Firm in the Faith have recently posted a book review of Dr. Gary Gilley’s new book “Out of Formation”.  Here is part of that review: 

“Gary Gilley’s new book: Out of Formation deals with the Spiritual Formation Movement.  This movement is re-introducing ancient and mystical spiritual practices to the modern Church and Evangelicals are jumping on the bandwagon to be a part of this movement.  Popular Christian and Evangelical publishers have made it easy for Christians to access these Spiritual Formation practices, and have recently in the last decade produced volumes and series of books promoting it.  Current popular Evangelical authors quote christian mystics in their books and recommend ancient practices as a fresh means of spiritual growth. (See pg 9)  

Gilley cautions Christians to be aware and concern about the drift away from proper biblical discipleship which is given to us from the Bible on spiritual discipline and growing in Christ. Gilley cautions early in the book “It is absolutely essential to get this connection early in our study. Many if not most, of the disciplines and instructions found within spiritual formation are not drawn from Scripture; they are drawn from imaginations of men and women  passed along as tradition.”  (pg. 25). “ 

Some of the practices that are covered in the interview and are covered at length in Gary Gilley’s book are: Contemplative Prayer, Sacred Reading (Lectio Divina), Solitude and Silence, Journaling, spiritual mentoring, pilgrimage, Sabbath keeping, fasting and discernment and revelation to name a few, and are explains. 

MORALOPHOBIC

This article is from Midwest Christian Outreach Journal - Fall 2013 /Winter 2014 - Volume 19 No 2,. The article is written by L.L. (Don) Veinot, Jr. & Dr. Jerry Buckner. Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the article. Please see MCO’s website for additional helpful articles and resources.

MORALOPHOBIC

In the 1930s, Roman Catholic priest and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin discovered a very effective way of discrediting people he considered political threats. He would appeal to the anti-Semitism and isolationism shared by much of his audience by denouncing various individuals as “atheistic Jews” or “imported radicals.” It mattered little to Coughlin that the sources of his “information” were often untrustworthy. He know that once he used the power of the broadcast medium to slap labels on people, those people would find them very difficult to remove from their reputations.

 

In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy used the new medium of television to boost his political career by taking advantage of Americans fear of Communism. No evidence was too slight, no testimony too tainted, no logic too specious for him to use it to label various individuals as “Communists” of “subversives.” Reputations were destroyed. Careers were ruined. For decades after McCarthy himself was discredited and died, his victims struggled to rebuild their shattered lives. McCarthyism has come to be synonymous with intimidation through labeling and blacklisting and has often been mistakenly portrayed as a “right-wing” tactic. The fact is, however, that McCarthyism is equally useful to demagogues of all political persuasions. In fact, it has become a favorite tool of the Left for stifling opposition to their agenda today.

Conservatives are often labeled “Uncle Toms,” if they are black, or “racists” if they are white, for daring to voice opposition to any aspect of the Left’s “civil rights” agenda. People who oppose gay “marriage” are labeled “homophobic.” Men and women who oppose abortion on moral grounds are dangerous “extremists,” and so it goes. Thus, opposes are allegedly motivated by “hate” or “fear” rather than rational disagreement. Name-calling, then, becomes a very effective substitute for rationally defending one’s case-- legitimate viewpoints are summarily de-legitimized and thinking is short-circuited by knee-jerk reaction to an emotional appeal. Whenever you hear someone slap a label on someone else without providing careful definitions and clear evidence, you are more than justified if you suspect you may be listening to a propagandist rather than someone who truly desires to inform the pubic. (1)

These words penned in 2003 and published in our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life are just as relevant today as they were than. The art of name-calling can often be a useful tool to marginalize or even silence those with opposing views. It masquerades as defending the rightness of a position without actually ever defending the position itself with clear, logical and actual precision. If done well, name-calling keeps those with another view so busy trying to demonstrate they have been maligned, that they rarely have the opportunity to address the actual original issue.

This is true in the area of religion, where groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs aka Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) write about “The Whore of Babylon, World Empire of False Religions” as a description of all groups which claim to be Christian., but who are not JWs. At times when confronting false teaching, I am accused of being mean, narrow-minded or even bigoted. But since I am aware of the gamesmanship here, I elect not to begin defending myself from the accusations, but instead I respond with something like; “You might be right, I might be mean. I might even be short and perhaps even fat. All of those things can be true, and we certainly can discuss them, but the question we need to answer first is: Where am I wrong?” I am often met with a blank expression at that point.
 

You Are Homophobic

In the current cultural battle, name-calling really has replaced reasoned debate and discussion. If someone holds to historic Judeo/Christian moral values--the values which have been central in the founding and history of our nation--they often find themselves or their group the object of name-calling and character assassination. Anyone who is opposed to “same-gender marriage” is labeled “homophobic.” Those opposed to abortion are “misogynists.” Is it really true those who oppose abortion hate women? I clearly remember in the days leading up to the Gore vs. Bush election in 2000 watching a woman in tears at the local Post Office begging the postal clerk to vote for Gore because, according to her, “Bush wants to kill women!!” I suppose I missed Bush’s plan for the mass extermination of women.

Is opposition to same-gender marriage actually “homophobic?” The definition of phobia is fairly straightforward and simple:

…usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. (2)

 

Of all of the people I know and with whom I have spoken, including some homosexuals, “fear” of homosexuals--much less “irrational” “fear” -- simply is not present. But many people are often cowed by the accusation; because like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar-Baby, (3) the more they fight to defend themselves against name-calling, the more stuck they become.

I have wondered: Are those who support abortion, same-gender marriage, and other “Progressive” social issues “moralphobic?” That is, do they have an irrational” “fear” of morals, or would using that term just be name-calling instead of sound, reasoned debate as well? I have come to two conclusions on this question. First, it would be name-calling and, as tempting as it may be to me, it comes across as a playground squabble ending with “So is your mother!” The accusations that Progressives and Liberals are moral phobic lacks reasoned debate and comment on the issues at hand. Second, it is actually not true. They don’t have an “irrational” “fear” of the morals which have been the fabric of our nation since its inception--the ones contained in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Rather, they have a rational fear and hatred of those morals. They are not opposed to morality per se, but they are working to change morals to accommodate the way they desire to live rather than how God says we ought to live. Fear of condemnation can be assuaged--if not eliminated altogether--by making the change. It is being accomplished a little at a time.

The big push now is to normalize same-gender, sexual relationships. The line from married to non-married sexual relations had been shifted a few decades ago. Now that unmarried sex is more acceptable, there is just a small shift in cultural thinking to embrace same-gender sexual relationships. “How can you deny someone sexual satisfaction solely because they are attracted to others of the same gender?” we are asked. The highest moral values in this area today: Personal Satisfaction. Legitimizing same-gender sex happens simply by moving the martial requirements one (albeit huge) step to include these homosexual relationships. But then, why not include polygamy or eliminate the age of consent and include children in the mix? Well, that would absolutely be met with near-complete cultural rejection …right now. However, by moving the boundaries one-step-at-a-time, it is easier to change morals. The new morality becomes, “How could you deny the right of two people who love each other ‘the right’ to marry.” Once that is accepted, it then becomes immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. The next part of the process is to create peer pressure to conform to the new morality.

 

Thought-Shapers and Peer Pressure

Changing morals across culture is perhaps an easier task than one might think. For many, the change appears to be sudden and drastic but that is really only because they have just noticed. This has been in the works for the last century as the battle between Progressives (in the early twentieth century Marxists/Socialists) and Conservatives has been waged. As we have pointed out in numerous articles in the past, those who believed in the fundamentals of the faith abandoned the colleges and universities in the 1920s and 30s, while Marxists/Socialists used those institutions to spread their philosophy pretty much unchallenged. The college student rebellion of the late 1960s and 1970s were the fruition successfully reeducating the children of the “Builder Generation.” (4) The abandoning of the faith and changing of national morals was already well underway, but we still had a Christian hangover. Many still live by Judeo/Christian morality, but it was not attached to any foundation. It would give way to the morals of self. Self-centeredness would become the guide for determining the shape of national and individual morality. What we are now witnessing is the clearing away of the hangover of Judeo/Christian morality and the codifying of the new moral expectations.

Most of the population are followers. It is not that they are unintelligent or uncaring, but they are mostly focused on the day-to-day aspects of their lives. Their opinions on big issues in life are informed mostly by the media to which they are exposed, the organizations in which they participate, and friends with whom they interact regularly. It is falsely assumed that news organizations are philosophically neutral and simply reporting the facts. Church leaders, it is believed, are there to be caretakers of the soul and guide their followers with the wisdom God has imparted whether directly from the Scriptures or not. The combination of these influences set up guidelines as to what someone should believe; and the peer pressure follows from it and enforces how one ought to behave. As our culture has made what are now substantial shifts away from Judeo/Christian values, that shift has been guided by those thought-shapers who have the biggest public voice.

The news media and government officials have been near giddy with the elevation of acceptance of the homosexual practices, and they vilify anyone who publicly expresses a contrary view. In 2012, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, was quoted as supporting the biblical definition of marriage: One man and one woman. When asked, he said he was “guilty as charged.” It became a media circus as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that these are “not Chicago’s values.” When Emmanuel made that assertion, I wondered how many Chicagoans in a one-man,-one woman marriage realized their marriage did not fall within the bounds of “Chicago values?” It wasn’t that Chick-fil-A, as a company, discriminated against homosexuals. They did not and do not ask about sexual orientation in hiring. In fact, how one is sexually satisfied is not a concern with the company as long as it isn’t being pursued on the job. It doesn’t impact promotions or in any way impact one’s employment. Chick-fil-A also does not ask customers about their preferred sexual encounters before taking their order. How someone has sex has nothing to do with whether or not they can purchase a sandwich and fries. But here is where the media and government ban together to bring peer pressure to bear: Dan Cathy and others who looked on were bullied--in no uncertain terms--that no one may have an opinion which is different than the news media and government, or they will be punished.

　

The “new morality” was forced into the military. Sexual relations between non-married troops have always been discouraged. Males and females, even if they want to have relations, are segregated when it comes to sleeping and showering arrangements. The reason is fairly understandable. It is a practical way to diminish sexual tension, as well as to protect those who would be the objects of sexual advances from potential predators. Now, it is politically correct to force the military not only to allow but to endorse those who prefer same-gender relations to publicly advertise their preferences. However, there is no segregation to alley sexual tensions from those with whom they may want to have relations. The result?

More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults. (5)

 

In 2004, roughly 12% of sexual assaults were against males. In 2012, approximately 54% of sexual assault victims were male. (6) Now, it should be noted that there are far more males in the military than females, but that was also the case back in 2004. The basic change has the implementation of the new morality by Federal fiat. In reality, if the military were to be truly fair and liberated about this social experiment, they would eliminate any reference to gender or sexual orientation and make all facilities--barracks etc, --gender-neutral. Anything less is discrimination. 

The legalization and recognition of same-gender marriage as no different than opposite-gender marriage will not be the end of the changing morals I the nation. As Denny Burke points out in “The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper,” polygamists and polyamorists are just waiting in the wings for the door to be open by same-gender marriage.

The redefinition of legal marriage in our culture will not end with same sex “marriage.” The polygamists are waiting in the wings for the opportunity to make their case--a case that will be all the more compelling as arguments for gay “marriage” take hold across the country. If marriage becomes defined as legal recognition of whoever it is that you love, on what basis will the polygamists be excluded?

But redefinition won’t end with polygamous marriage either. The polyamorists are beginning to make their case as well. In an article for Slate magazine, Jillian Keenan argues that polyamorous unions should be on an equal footing with all other marriages. The polyamorous “family” featured in the article includes two men and two women, all of whom share one another sexually. Their relationship is defined as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.” (7)

Where is The Church in All Of This?

Of course, there are many solid, biblically based churches which are horrified by what they are seeing. They receive the brunt of the name-calling and bullying by the high priests of the new morality. But there are segments of the church which are being unduly influenced and have become supporters of the new morality even though those who attend the churches--and, perhaps, even the leadership--do not agree with abortion, homosexuality or other elements of the new morality. They have become accessories to facilitating the change through their political allegiances.

 

Our friend, Advisory Board member, and co-author of the article, addresses the issue of how the Black church has been captured by what he calls, “The Cult of Black Liberation Theology.” Over 90% of the Black vote for President went to Barack Obama. Barack and Michelle Obama had been members of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, Illinois. Trinity United Church of Christ not only embraced Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (8) under the leadership of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but it was a flagship church of Black Liberation Theology. BLT was central to the teaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and it promotes Marxist idea of class warfare between “oppressed groups” and “established groups.” The United Church of Christ is the first denomination in America to ordain gays/homosexuals as ministers. The influence of BLT on the Black church along with Obama’s views on homosexuality have had a big impact upon the Black church and the Black community. Even though Black churches may lean toward being theologically conservative, they tend to be socially liberal through the influence of Black Liberation Theology. It is very difficult to be of African-American descent and go against the tide here. Those who do are called, “Uncle Tom” or are labeled as being not really Black. In this setting, one’s race is no longer a matter of ancestry, but rather one of political affiliation. The recent stand for same-gender marriage by Black pastors in Chicago claiming it is “about civil rights, not religion” (9) is a demonstration of the effective power of peer pressure to achieve the implementation of the new morality.

There is a similar assault on the White church. It is coming from the Emerging Church movement. Brian McLaren made slow moves away from affirming biblical views on sex and marriage. In 2006, he called for a five-year moratorium on asserting firm views about homosexuality:

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When dicisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing refection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course. (10)

　

Six years later, McLaren affirmed the rightness of same-gender marriage by leading the “Commitment Ceremony at Son’s Same-Sex Wedding.” (11) Rob Bell, another well-known and widely read luminary, also came out in favor of homosexual relationships and was fairly unhappy at the questions directed at his position:

“Do you believe that this is an area where actually God is ahead of the church, that affirming same-sex partnerships is actually a God thing and that we will eventually all get to see that in the course of time. Brierley asked Bell of comments he made in March.

The former Mars Hill Bible Church pastor revealed in March his acceptance of gay marriage, having said, “I believe God [is] pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and pastors and friends and neighbors and coworkers.” Previously Bell had also stated that he was for “marriage….for fidelity…for love” whether it was with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. (12)

 

The young adults and teenagers within the Evangelical, Fundamental and Confessing church read and are greatly influenced by these and other well-known leaders who are going down the same path. They are--whether intentionally or unintentionally--thumbing their noses at God. The moral code god handed to Moses (the Ten Commandments) does condemn all of us. Paul calls it “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones.” (2 Corinthians 3:7a) and writes the “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The moral code reflects God’s holiness and is not able to make us live holy lives, but rather, it was given to teach us how sinful all of us really are and to point us to the solution to our sin:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:23-25)

 

If we get to write our own moral standards, we can do it in such a way that we can come out looking righteous and those who disagree and regarded as immoral by the standards of the newly defined morality. This is not a new issue; it has been the pattern of humanity nearly since The Creation. Noah’s descendant, Nimrod, established a kingdom “in the land of Shinar” (Gen10) and his descendants turned from God to create their own religion (Gen. 11) The plan to build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves (rather than hallow God’s name) would obviously include their new moral code. We see examples of this in the leaders of the Nation of Israel when Jesus walked among them. For example, sons created a way not to have to assist parents(s) in need by keeping the money that should go to assist them, and employing it for their own use, while maintaining the appearance of being righteous. How? They developed a doctrine called Corban which means dedicated to God. As long as it was “dedicated to God,” they couldn’t give it to someone else; but they, themselves, could use it as they wished. Jesus spoke to this issue as, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:8). He went on to say:

…”You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God,’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”    (Mark 7:9-12)

 

Notice the common thread of self-centeredness as regarding the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11:4 they say, “…let us make a name for ourselves.” We find Lucifer weighing in similarly in Isaiah 4:14 as he asserts, “I will make myself like the Most High.” In Mark, the Hebrew concept of “Corban” was a demonstration of self-centeredness. Today’s equivalent of working to redefine morality is also based on self-centeredness. It comes from the now-pervasive idea that “God wants me to be happy.” Let me say for the record, God is more concerned about our holiness than He is about our happiness. For unbelievers, His focus is on their being clothed with His holiness by being redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. For believers, He is more concerned they practice the holiness to which they have been called rather than whether they are happy or not. That doesn’t mean He is unconcerned about our happiness, but He has other priorities. An example from the life of an earthly father may be helpful here. I love my son, daughter and grandchildren. There have been times when each of them have fixated on doing something which they convinced themselves would make them happy. For reasons they didn’t understand, but was in their best interests, I would prevent them from carrying out their intentions. Sometimes their response was, “I hate you,” or “You must hate me.” Neither was true. I just had something better for them. It is the same with God. He has something better for us which our self-centeredness will never fulfill. 

Is There Hope?

There is hope, but the hope should be focused toward the Lord. Left to ourselves, we will manage to spiral into the abyss of the immoral. The task of Christian leaders is to train and to shepherd their flock in understanding and living out the Word of God. Church is the place for equipping, binding up the wounds of living in a fallen world, being examples to the flock of selfless lives in service to the Master who bought us. In turn, the flock goes into the world as missionaries, or as Paul put it, “…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”    (2 Cor. 5:20)

© 2013 Midwest Christian Outreach Inc.

　

LL (Don) Veinot, Jr. is co-founder and president of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, IL with offices in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio. He and Joy, his wife of 42 years, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts including The John Ankerberg Show. He is a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Christian Outreach Inc. Journal and is co-author of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, contributing author of Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials as well as author of articles featured in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. Don is a charter member of ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics) and is also the current President of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of counter-cult/apologetics and discernment ministries from around the country.


 

 

　

Dr. Jerry L. Buckner graduated from California Baptist College in Riverside and earned his Master’s at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary where he is currently an adjunct professor. He earned his Doctorate at San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, CA.

 

Dr. Buckner lives in the San Francisco Bay Area where he serves as pastor of Tiburon Christian Fellowship hosts Contending for the Faith a live call-in-radio program that airs on KFAX (AM 1100), one of the largest Christian radio stations in Northern California.

Midwest Christian Outreach

Website Link: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/

 

 

 

ENDNOTES:

1. Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, (Midwest Christian Outreach, inc, 2003) 175-176

2. Phobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobic

3. The Tar-Baby is a fictional character in the second of the Uncle Remus stories published in 1881; it is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Be’er Rabbit. The more that Be’er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.

In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “stickly” situation” that is only aggravated by add ional contact.”

Tar-Baby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

4. Generations in our Nation; http://aimysgeneration.blogspot.com/p/buiders.html

5. Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men, Rowan Scarborough, http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all

6. Ibid

7. The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper” Denny Burke http//www.dennyburk.com/the-case-for-plural-marriage-the-slippery-slope-gets-slicker-and-steeper/

8. We discussed this in the Fall 2009 Issue of the MCOI Journal article “Barack and the Borg.” http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2010/Fall%202009%20FINAL

9. Chicago-Sun-Times April 4, 2013 , ‘Gay Marriage support about civil right, not religion, pastors say’ http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/19274300-418/gay-marriage-support-about-civil-rights-not-religion-pastors-say.html

10. Brian MaLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response; Brian McLaren; Out of UK. Christianity Today, http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

11. Brian McLaren Leads Commitment Ceremony At Son’s Same-Sex Wedding. Melissa Steffan, Christianity Today, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/09/brian_mclaren_l.html

12. Rob Bell Grows Frustrated Amid Questions on Sinfulness of Homosexuality; Nicola Menzie; The Christian Post; http://www.christianpost.com/news/rob-bell-grows-frustrated-amid-questions-on-sinfulness-of-homosexuality-95209/

 

Discernment and Revelation

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission by Pastor Gary E. Gilley to reproduce this article below: Discernment and Revelation from the Feb/March 2013 - Think on these things Newsletter. He is pastor of Southern View Chapel, in Springfield, IL. Please refer to the links below to visit the website.

Dr. Gary E. Gilley has been pastoring at Southern View Chapel for more than 37 years. He is author of five books, and has also contributed to four other books, including Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond, a Tribute to Charles Ryrie.

Pastor Gilley received his B. A. from Moody Bible Institute and his M.B.S and Th.D from Cambridge Graduate School. He is a frequent speaker at Bible conferences and writes the monthly study paper, Think on These Things and is the Book Review Editor for the Journal of Dispensational Theology. He is also a board member of Brazil Gospel Fellowship Mission, Personal Freedom Outreach and New Tribes Missions.


Think on These Things Articles
Discernment and Revelation February/March 2013 - Volume 19, Issue 6

Discernment, one would think, is an extremely positive quality. In a world in which there are incalculable numbers of voices calling us to travel many different directions, discernment is invaluable. However, when used by those involved in spiritual formation, discernment is defined as the discipline that enables one to know when a person has supposedly heard the voice of God. Spiritual formation leaders do not question that God speaks to us today apart from Scripture, but they do believe that since God is speaking there has to be a means whereby we can discern the voice of God from our own thoughts. Adele Ahlberg Calhoun writes in her Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, “Discernment opens us up to listen to and recognize the voice and patterns of God’s direction in our lives.” [1] Ruth Barton further explains,

Discernment is a quality of attentiveness to God that is so intimate that over time we develop an intuitive sense of God’s heart and purpose in any given moment. We become familiar with God’s voice – the tone, quality and content—just as we become familiar with the voice of a human being we know well. [2]

Christian psychologist Larry Crabb believes he has learned the art of listening to God and proposes to let us in on what he has discovered in his book The Papa Prayer, “Sometime, though never audibly, I hear the Father speak more clearly than I hear the voice of a human friend.” [3] And influential pastor John Ortberg adds, “It is one thing to speak to God. It is another thing to listen. When we listen to God, we receive guidance from the Holy Spirit.” [4]

As we contemplate the subject of discernment it is important that we determine whether or not God does speak to Christians today outside of the Scriptures themselves. This is hardly an issue pertinent only to the Spiritual Formation Movement. As a matter of fact modern day revelations (or lack thereof) from God are one of the most hotly debated topics within evangelicalism today.
 

Despite the fact that the majority of conservative evangelical Christians since the Reformation have held to a cessationist (that present day revelations from God no longer take place) position with regard to Divine revelation, true cessationists are rapidly disappearing. In the articles and books I have written nothing has evoked as much criticism and anger as my position that God is speaking to His people today exclusively through Scripture. Due to the influence of a multitude of popular authors, theologians and conference speakers, cessationism is barely treading water, even within the most biblically solid churches and organizations. As a matter of fact, among those who claim to be evangelicals there are five identifiable views prevalent today on the matter of revelation:

Identifiable views:

Pentecostal/Charismatic/Thirdwave: All miraculous gifts exist today, including the gift of prophecy. God speaks through prophets and to His people both audibly (through dreams, visions, words of knowledge), and inwardly (inaudibly in the mind or heart). Representatives of this position are Jack Deere, John Wimber, the Kansas City Prophets, the Assemblies of God and the Word of Faith movement. Charismatic author Tommy Tenney, in his popular book The God Chasers, writes, “God chasers…are not interested in camping out on some dusty truth known to everyone. They are after the fresh presence of the Almighty…A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. God chasers don’t want to just study the moldy pages of what God has done; they are anxious to see what God is doing.” [5]

Classical Mysticism/Spiritual Formation: Through the use of various disciplines and spiritual exercises, God will speak to us both audibly and inaudibly. Dallas Willard and Richard Foster are two such examples. Willard, a leader within the Spiritual Formation Movement, recently updated a previous book renaming it Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship with God. The thrust of his book is that we can live “the kind of life where hearing God is not an uncommon occurrence, [for] hearing God is but one dimension of a richly interactive relationship and obtaining guidance is but one facet of hearing God.” [6] In other words, the maturing Christian should expect to hear the voice of God on a regular basis, independent from Scripture, and that voice will reveal God’s individual, specific will for his life. Such personal communication from the Lord, we are told, is absolutely essential because without it there can be no intimate walk with God. [7] And it is those who are hearing from God today, in this way, who will redefine “Christian spirituality for our time.” [8]

　

Evangelical Mysticism: God is speaking to Christians regularly, mostly inaudibly through inner voices, hunches, promptings, feelings and circumstances (examples: Henry Blackaby and Beth Moore). Southern Baptists ministers Henry and Richard Blackaby wrote Hearing God’s Voice to “teach God’s people not only to recognize his voice but also immediately to obey his voice when they heard it.” [9] They promise that “as you spend time with Jesus, you will gradually come to recognize his voice more readily than you did at first…You won’t be fooled by other voices because you know your Lord’s voice so well.” [10] And, once you have figured out when God is speaking to you, “write it down in a journal so you can refer back to it as you follow him.” [11]

In this category could be placed the New Calvinists or Calvinistic Charismatics such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll and C. J. Mahaney. Their followers are sometimes called the young, restless, and Reformed. Mark Driscoll, who often claims extra-biblical revelation, dreams, and visions from the Lord, documented four such events in his recent book Real Marriage. He writes, “…when God spoke to me, I had never experienced anything like that moment. God told me to devote my life to four things. He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, train men, and plant churches. Since that day in 1990, that’s what I have been pursuing by God’s grace.” [12] Matt Chandler would be on page with this idea. In his popular book The Explicit Gospel Chandler writes, “He [God] speaks to us in dreams and in visions and in words of knowledge—but in no way that runs contrary to Scripture.” [13] Long time Southern Baptist pastor, Charles Stanley is of the same opinion. In a recent interview with Christianity Today he is asked about his frequent references to God speaking to Him. He responded by mentioning a time that very week when God said to him, “Don’t do that.” He claims that he does not hear an audible voice “but it’s so crystal sharp and clear to me, I know not to disobey that.” [14]

Cessationist: All miraculous gifts, including prophecy, have ceased (examples: the IFCA International, John MacArthur and Charles Ryrie). The Westminster Confession states well the historic cessationist position,
　 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. [15]
 

Cautious, but Open: Those holding this position are skeptical of prophetic claims and the majority of inaudible experiences. But they do not want to “put God in a box” and therefore are cautiously open to the possibility of additional revelation from the Lord today, although they are not certain how this works or how to identify God’s voice. Nevertheless, they are afraid to limit the power of God and fear that they might be missing out on a close personal relationship with the Lord if they do not allow for the possibility of God speaking today apart from Scripture (examples: most Christians).

Modern Revelations

Continuationists, those who believe that the miraculous sign gifts, including prophecy, are still available to believers today, define their supposed revelations in different ways. There are two broad categories that could be acknowledged, the first of which claims prophetic messages from the Lord. Such messages would be direct, clear words from God or angels, perhaps in dreams or visions or through audible voices. Such claims have long been common in Pentecostal and charismatic circles and are increasing among non-charismatic evangelicals. Extremely popular conference speaker and author Beth Moore is well known for her claims of hearing from God. In a DVD she states, "Boy, this is the heart of our study. This is the heart of our study. Listen carefully. What God began to say to me about five years ago, and I'm telling you it sent me on such a trek with Him, that my head is still whirling over it. He began to say to me, 'I'm going to tell you something right now, Beth, and boy you write this one down and you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it.” [16] Such statements coming from evangelicals are far too common to need much documentation. Moore is claiming a direct word from the Lord that sets the future agenda for her ministry. The source of authority is her own experience.

From a more doctrinal base we turn to theologian Wayne Grudem, who has had a massive impact on the evangelical world concerning modern prophecies. Grudem has written the definitive book on the subject, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, in which he claims that church age prophecy is different than Old Testament prophecy. While the Old Testament prophet was held to the standard of infallibility when speaking a word from the Lord (Deut 18:20-24), prophecies beginning with Pentecost are fallible and imperfect. He writes, “Prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but simply a very human—and sometimes partially mistaken—report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.” [17]  Modern prophecy then is impure and imperfect. By way of example and documentation Grudem quotes the Anglican charismatic leaders Dennis and Rita Bennet who claim
　

We are not expected to accept every word spoken through the gifts of utterance…but we are only to accept what is quickened to us by the Holy Spirit and is in agreement with the Bible…one manifestation may be 75% God, but 25% the person’s own thoughts. We must discern between the two. [18]

One of the most disconcerting aspects of Grudem’s position is his uncertainty as to how we can distinguish between our own thoughts and those supposedly from God. This is such an important and disturbing feature of the conservative continuationist’s system that I will quote Grudem at length.

But how would a person know if what came to mind was a “revelation” from the Holy Spirit? Paul did not write specific instructions; nonetheless, we may suppose that in practice such a decision would include both an objective and subjective element. Objectively, did the revelation conform with what the prophet knew of the Old Testament Scriptures and with apostolic teaching? [19]

With this quote cessationists partially agree. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself and anything allegedly spoken by the Holy Spirit which is in disagreement with Scripture is naturally spurious. The continuationists, however, are rarely claiming new doctrines that supplement Scripture; they are claiming specific, personal words that guide them in decision making or knowledge of the future. It should be mentioned in passing that contrary to what is often stated by continuationists, many espousing modern prophecies do in fact add numerous doctrines not found or taught in the Bible such as specific demonic warfare techniques, insights on heaven or hell, “word of faith” authority that releases the power of God, dominion theology, novel views on the atonement, inspiration and ecclesiology. While more conservative continuationists such as Grudem, Piper, and Mahaney would not be guilty of such theological additions, many others are.

Turning back to Grudem we read of his subjective element of prophecy
　

But there was no doubt also a subjective element of personal judgment: did the revelation “seem like” something from the Holy Spirit; did it seem to be similar to other experiences of the Holy Spirit which he had known previously in worship…Beyond this it is difficult to specify much further, except to say that over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies, and individual prophets would also benefit from those evaluations and become more adept at recognizing a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit and distinguishing it from their own thoughts. [20]

When we contrast Grudem’s view of prophecy with Scripture we find nothing remotely resembling what Grudem teaches. Nowhere in the Bible is one receiving a message from God left to wonder if God is speaking to him (with the temporary exception of the young boy Samuel). No one had to ask if what they were hearing “seemed like” the Holy Spirit or matched previous subjective experiences that also “seemed like” the Holy Spirit. They knew without question when God was speaking to them. This is essentially the same teaching that Dallas Willard exerts in Hearing God: “How can you be sure God is speaking to you? The answer is that we learn by experience.” [21] Therefore subjective experience becomes the test of authority concerning revelation from God. This is a far cry from what we find in Scripture.
 

The second half of Grudem’s quote moves into the realm of the incredible. After 2000 years of church history, the best this world-class theologian can offer is that “over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies…” This is a statement of speculation and hope that at some point the church will begin to figure out when a word of revelation is actually coming from the Holy Spirit and when it is the imagination of the speaker.

 

Let’s put Grudem’s hypothesis to a test. Sister Sally stands up in church and says the Holy Spirit has just revealed to her that an earthquake will flatten much of the city sometime within the next eight weeks. The congregation needs to add earthquake insurance to their properties, pack all their belongings, leave their jobs behind and head to the countryside. What is to be done? Given Grudem’s theory, the congregation knows that at best this prophecy is impure and most likely contains elements that are not from God. The people are then left to evaluate the validity of the revelation just received based on their own experience or other purely subjective means. In the Bible, if a true prophet of God warned of an impending earthquake there would be no doubt as to what to do, but Grudem’s New Testament prophet is unreliable. I have to ask, of what value is such a prophecy? It has no authority or certainty, and may actually lead to bad and even disastrous decisions. These modern prophecies do not have the ring of “thus says the Lord.”

When the different views on modern revelation and prophecies collide, continuationists attempt to pacify cessationists by assuring them that their messages from the Lord are not on par with Scripture. Grudem quotes George Mallone saying,
　
Prophecy today, although it may be helpful and on occasion overwhelmingly specific, is not in the category of the revelation given to us in the Holy Scripture…A person may hear the voice of the Lord and be compelled to speak, but there is no assurance that it is pollutant-free. There will be a mixture of flesh and spirit. [22]
　

Since almost no one within Christianity (save the cults) is claiming revelation that is equivalent to the Bible, we are left with a dilemma. Is it possible for God to speak in a non-authoritative way? Is it possible for Him to speak something less than His inspired word? The continuationists seem to have invented a novel type of divine revelation; one that contradicts Scripture and defies reason. In the Bible, and logically, either God is speaking or He is not. There is no such thing as partially inspired revelation or the true words from the Lord polluted by the misunderstanding or imagination of the prophet. This is not to say that all of God’s divine words are found in Scripture. John is careful to inform us that Jesus did many things, and certainly said many things, that are not recorded in his Gospel (John 20:30) , or the other New Testament books for that matter. Yet all that Jesus said were the words of God. He never expressed an impure or untruthful thought. He spoke with authority. Undoubtedly the Spirit also spoke through various men and women in biblical times whose words were not recorded in the Bible. The point, however, is that, while the Holy Spirit has not included every prophecy that He spoke through humans in Scripture, everything that He inspired people to say carries with it the infallible authority of the Word of God. Nothing that He said through people is less than God’s word. A polluted or partial revelation from the Holy Spirit has never been uttered.

This means that modern prophecies, words of knowledge, and other claims to hearing the voice of the Lord, if they are truly from the Holy Spirit, must be equal to the Scriptures in both inspiration and authority. God cannot speak with other than purity and inerrancy. Modern claims of the Lord speaking but with a “mixture of flesh and spirit” simply are not possible and are never attested to in Scripture. Those who are claiming divine revelation today must wrestle with the fact that what they are supposedly hearing must carry the same authority of the divinely inspired authors of Scripture.

　

A Case for Cessationism

 

With all of this as a backdrop, the question is reduced to this: Is God giving authoritative revelation on par with that which He has given in the past, much of which has been inscripturated, or is He not? If He is, then the church of Christ needs to take note and come into compliance with the modern prophecy movement, following its revelations as it would Scripture. But if the Lord is not revealing His inspired word today, then we need to reject the claims of the modern prophets and expose these supposed revelations for what they are. This means the position taken by most on prophecy – cautious but open – is untenable. The cautious but open crowd is skeptical of the claims coming from the prophetic movement and they are suspicious of the many “words from God” that so many evangelicals are claiming. Still they hesitate to embrace cessationism. They are concerned about limiting God or, as it was mentioned above, “putting God in a box.” To this let me make two replies:

It is okay to put God in a box if God, in fact, is the One who put Himself in that box. In other words, God can do anything He wants to do, but we expect God to do what He says He will do. If God has put Himself in the cessationist box we can embrace and proclaim it.

 

 Taking the open but cautious view really does not hold up. Either God is speaking today apart from His Word or He is not. If He is speaking, how do we determine which of the multitude of messages people claim are from Him and which are bogus? If, with Grudem, we have eliminated the tests of Deuteronomy 13 and 18, how are we to evaluate all these revelations? How do we know to whom we should listen and whom we should ignore?

On such an important area as divine revelation it is indefensible to believe that God’s people cannot know with certainty whether such is taking place. Surely we should expect that the Scriptures themselves would lay out the guidelines for us to determine if divine, authoritative, inspired revelation is being given today. I believe it does and that we can be confident, from the witness of Scripture itself, that God has ceased speaking to mankind during this age apart from the Bible. Let’s take a quick look at what the Word has to say.

 

A cessationist view begins with a careful look at what God actually did in Scripture. We find, when we search carefully, that God was not speaking to everyone all the time. His revelation, even in biblical times, was rare and when He did speak it was always supernaturally with an audible voice, never through inner voices or impressions. The assumption held by many that God spoke to most of His children in biblical times is simply not true. The average believer in either Testament never received a personal word from God and even the majority of key players never heard the voice of God personally. When God did speak in Scripture it almost always dealt with the big picture of what He was doing in the outworking of His redemptive program or the life of His people in general. You will search in vain to find God instructing someone to take a job, purchase a number of donkeys, or buy a house – except as it related to the bigger issue of God’s dealings with His people. Beyond a few individuals, finding a non-prophetic person in Scripture who heard directly from God becomes a difficult task. The contention that God spoke to almost everyone all the time, leading, guiding and directing, simply does not stand the test of careful examination of the Scriptures. Even those to whom God spoke in the Old Testament, to only Noah, Abraham, Moses (considered to be a prophet), Jacob, Aaron, Joshua, David and Solomon, did He speak more than twice in their lifetimes.

But what about the New Testament? We find that most records of God speaking to individuals after Pentecost are found in the book of Acts. But even here we find only thirteen distinct times in which God spoke directly to individuals (two of these through angels), (8:26-29; 9:4, 10; 10:3, 11-16; 12:7-8; 13:2-4; 16:6,9-10; 18:9; 21:4, 11; 22:17-21; 23:11). Eight of these occasions were to Paul or Peter, leaving a total of five other individuals or groups to whom God spoke directly in the first 30 years of church history.

 

So far, we have examined what might be called negative evidence. That is, if we are looking for a pattern of how God spoke to individuals in scriptural times, that pattern reveals a scarcity of individual revelations. The Lord chose to speak primarily through His prophets and the apostles. Following that pattern we should expect the same today. Let’s now move to more positive evidence that the Lord has ceased speaking today apart from Scripture.

Beginning with Ephesians 2:20, we find that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Since Christ is the cornerstone of the church, this verse has to be speaking of the witness concerning Christ that the apostles and prophets provided to the church. It is only to be expected that this witness would be passed along to the future generations of believers via the instrument of Scriptures that those men were inspired to write. As Ephesians 3:5 tells us, the “mystery of Christ” has been “made known to the sons of men through the revelation given to Christ’s holy apostles and prophets.” In the next chapter, Paul teaches that the Lord has provided gifted men to the church for its perfection or maturity. The apostles’ and prophets’ role in that process was laying the foundation of the church, as we have seen (Eph. 2:20; 3:5) . How? Through the teaching of New Testament truth, the apostles’ doctrine. The early church gathered together to devote “themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) , for it was the apostles who would provide New Testament revelation.

The book of Hebrews enhances our understanding by detailing two periods in human history in which the Lord has spoken to mankind. Hebrews 1:1 proclaims that the first period was “long ago to the fathers and prophets in many portions and in many ways.” This is an obvious reference to the revelations given during the times of the Old Testament. In verse two the author of Hebrews cites the second period of divine revelation by simply saying that “in these last days [God] has spoken through His Son.” But as we know Jesus Himself did not write down anything that He said. That was left to His followers and so, the author of Hebrews adds: “After it was first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3) i.e. the apostles. This however raises a practical problem. How did the people know that the communication they were receiving from the apostles was true? After all, many individuals made claim to being an apostle during the first century. The Lord would authenticate His true apostles by giving them the ability to perform “signs and wonders, and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb 2:4). When the Corinthians challenged Paul’s apostleship and authority, he pointed them to the “signs of a true apostle…[which were] signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Cor. 12:12 ), just as the author of Hebrews confirmed. The book of Acts verifies repeatedly that miraculous gifts were taking place through the apostles for this very reason (Acts 2:42; 5:12,13; 9:38-41; 14:3, 8-9; 15:12; 19:11; 20:10; 28:8,9) . The only exceptions were Stephen (6:8), Philip (8:6-7) and possibly Barnabas (15:12), all very closely associated with the apostles. We find no examples of the average Christian in the New Testament either performing miracles or receiving authoritative revelation. Miracles were for the purpose of authenticating the office of the men who would lay the foundation of the church. Once the foundation of the church was in place, the role of the apostles was no longer needed. With the death of John, the last of the apostles, gifts authenticating the apostles were no longer necessary and they ceased.

　

But did that necessarily mean revelation ceased as well? I believe the evidence of Scripture would indicate that it did. We start with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which clearly tells us that the day comes when prophecy and supernatural knowledge will be done away, and tongues will cease. Specifically Paul writes that “when the perfect comes the partial will be done away.” All Bible believers are ultimately cessationists for this passage is clear that revelatory knowledge will cease at some point; that point being when the perfect comes. Many believe that the “perfect” refers to the coming of Christ or the eternal kingdom. That is a possible interpretation but the context is contrasting partial knowledge and revelatory gifts with that which is perfect. The best explanation in such a context would be that the perfect (or complete) would be the completion of Scripture. In other words, when the revelation for this dispensation as recorded in the New Testament is completed the need for partial words of knowledge and prophecies would cease. That is, because the final, full revelation of the Lord for this dispensation has arrived, there is no need for additional messages from God. This seems reasonable, but did it happen?

 

This understanding of the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is reinforced later in the New Testament by Peter, Jude, Paul and John. When the apostle Peter pens the inspired epistle we call Second Peter, he is desirous of reminding them of many things, especially that they “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (3:2). Peter did not point his readers to new or fresh revelation but to the words spoken previously by the prophets and apostles. Jude offers similar understanding when in verse three he urges his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” A message had been given, a foundation laid once for all that had to be defended. How did they know what that message was? In verse 17 Jude answers, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The faith in verse three that was handed down to them, the faith that was to be defended and proclaimed, had been given to them by none other than the apostles.

　

As the apostle Paul writes virtually his last inspired words to his friend Timothy he points him to the Scriptures that are able to make the people of God “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). In light of this lofty claim for the God-breathed Scriptures, Paul gives Timothy a final charge – “to preach the word…” (4:1-5). There is no hint in Paul’s charge that Timothy is to seek additional revelation, listen to the prophecies or words of knowledge of fellow believers or preach his own dreams or visions. He is to preach the Word handed down to the saints through the apostles. As the New Testament canon nears its close the divinely inspired authors unite in pointing their readers to the apostles as the inspired human source of New Testament truth.

The apostle John joins the chorus as he closes down the New Testament with a solemn warning against adding to or subtracting from this final revelation from God. He writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev 22:18,19). Since this is the last chapter in the last book of the last Testament it is only reasonable to deduce that from that point on any addition of any prophecy would be adding to Scripture. With the death of John shortly thereafter, the last of the apostles had faded from the scene and with him the final word of revelation for this age. In addition there is no indication either the twelve apostles or the New Testament prophets were ever replaced (Rev 21:14).

 

The witness emerging from the Scriptures themselves is that God has chosen to communicate with mankind throughout history in specific and unique ways. He has chosen certain men at certain times to be prophets and apostles to speak and record divine revelation (Heb 1:1-2; 2:3-4). When God’s revelation was complete for this age, the ministry of the prophets and apostles was finished and we would expect no further communication at this time. This expectation is verified through the statements found in the Bible itself. What we are seeing today is not new revelation from God but subjective experiences and, at times, deception. Let us cling tenaciously to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) rather than chasing the inferior, inadequate imaginations of those who claim a new word from the Lord today.

Copyright © 2013 Gary E. Gilley

　

[1] Adele Ahleberg Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, Practices That Transform Us, (Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 99 (emphasis mine).

[2] Ruth Haley Barton, Sacred Rhythms, Arranging Our Lives for Spiritual Transformation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 111.

[3] Larry Crabb, The Papa Prayer, the Prayer You’ve Never Prayed, (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publisher, 2006), p. 8.

[4] John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted, Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140.

[5] Tommy Tenney, The God Chasers (Shippensburg, Pa: Destiny Image, 2000), unnumbered pages in introduction (emphasis his).

[6] Dallas Willard, Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship With God, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), pp. 12, 13.

[7] Ibid., pp. 26, 31, 67.

[8] Ibid., p. 15.

[9] Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers), 2002, p. 234.

[10] Ibid., p. 235.

[11] Ibid., p. 236.

[12] Mark and Grace Driscoll, Real Marriage, the Truth about Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), p. 8. For more of Mark Driscoll’s claims of extrabiblical revelations see his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Hard Lesson from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 39, 74-75, 97, 99, 128, 130.

[13] Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), p. 30.

[14] Mark Galli, “The Mystic Baptist,” Christianity Today, Nov 2012, p. 54.

[15] The Westminster Confession , chapter 1, section 6.

[16] Quoted from Beth Moore's DVD “Believing God.”

[17] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), p. 14.

[18] Ibid., p. 110.

[19] Ibid., p. 120.

[20] Ibid., pp. 120, 121 (emphasis mine).

[21] Dallas Willard, p. 9 (emphasis mine).

[22] Wayne Grudem., p. 111.

Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker Sensitive, Church Growth

Church of Tares
See Video  here:  http://youtu.be/kxY3VbBHTkY

There is only one way to stand...That is to:  Stand Firm in the Faith.  We do well to remember the words given in  Titus 1:9 "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."

1 Timothy 4:6  "In Pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following."

2 Timothy 4:3,   "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.

 

From the Video: "Can the Church borrow the marketing tools of the world and apply them to the Church? What is the history of the Church Growth movement and its false premises? Who is involved in the new evangelicalism and second reformation? Why are these movements embracing contemplative mysticism? How does this movement play into the New World Order? These questions and more are answered in Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker-Sensitive, Church Growth & New World Order.

Church of Tares chronicles the man-centered pragmatism of these evangelical Christian movements in comparison to the Bible's instruction for building the Church of Jesus Christ.As a sequel to The Real Roots of the Emergent Church, Church of Tares documents the connections between the liberal Emergent Church movement and the Church Growth movement. Both movements' leadership were discipled by business management guru Peter Drucker, who was attracted to the megachurch movement as a social phenomenon that could bring about his "new society" and New World Order. Megacurch pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels as well as Leadership Network founder Bob Buford all acknowledge Drcuker (who professed not to be a Christian) as their mentor and have built their organizations upon his secular business management philosophies rather than the foundation of Jesus Christ.

The fruit of these movements is great compromise of the Gospel and the Great Commission. Rick Warren claims to be ushering in a new spiritual awakening and second reformation with his P.E.A.C.E. Plan. But this reform appears to be a social reformation rather than a spiritual one by joining together in ministry with unbelievers to fight global giants. Such compromise has led to the affirming response letter to the Common Word document which declares Muhammad to be a prophet and the Bible and Qur'an to be of the "same Divine origin."

Written, edited, narrated and directed by Elliott Nesch.

The Real Roots of the Emergent Church

See Video
Roots of the Emergent Church
Here: http://youtu.be/SKLAPmQBvdA

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.  Jude 3

From the video’s description:

Because diversity characterizes the Emergent Church movement, it is difficult to paint everyone in the movement with a broad brush. Some have observed that defining the Emergent Church is like nailing jello to a wall. All participants agree on their disillusionment with the institutional church, but do not all agree on where the church is destined to go from here. They share a common concern with many evangelicals over the state of the modern church, especially the mega-church phenomenon and “seeker-friendly” churches. For this reason, many evangelicals who observe the Emerging Church are fascinated by it, drawn to its creative approaches to worship, genuineness of many of the leaders and desire to reach Gen Xers. However, these evangelicals fail to look beyond it to understand its underlying theology, or lack thereof.

This Christian documentary film The Real Roots of the Emergent Church will take an honest look at the leaders of the Emerging Church movement such as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, Tony Campolo, Steve Chalke, Peter Rollins, Dan Kimball, Richard Rohr, Phyllis Tickle, Spencer Burke and others. Who are they and what are they teaching? Become familiar with the postmodern Emergent Church and its popular tactic of literary deconstruction applied to the Bible. This film takes an in-depth look at what the Emerging Church believes concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, absolute truth, hell, homosexuality, mysticism, contemplative prayer, other religions, and eschatology in comparison to the Bible. Much more than candles and couches!

 

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

It is every christian's responsibility to Stand Firm in the Faith. What we are to hold firmly to -- is the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Titus 1:9-11 says: "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

Below is a link to the website for Grace to You for an article on Rob Bell's teachings examined. Here we include some quotes from that article:  "If, as Jesus said, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), then we ought to look with the utmost suspicion on anyone who doubts and denies as much of Jesus' teaching as Rob Bell does, and yet claims to be a follower of Christ.

Scripture is crystal-clear about this: "If any one advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine comforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing" (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Below is a link for the present article. There will be additional posts added at the website.

** Please see links below for Articles by John MacArthur

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?
Rob Bell: ""Evangelical and orthodox to the bone?" Hardly.  http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110414
Rob Bell’s Unbelief in His own Words  http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110418
Rob Bell’s Inferno http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110421
For Those Who Rail Against Hell - http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110426
The Truth About Hell - http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110430
Is Hell really endless? -http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110506


Additional resources
Radio interview on Way of the Master
YouTube - John MacArthur - The Emergent Church - Part 1  
SEE Video here: http://youtu.be/OH1yOmij7Q4

The Emergent Church - Part 2
http://youtu.be/vG3VNrfJsLI

Why does Rob Bell have weird theology?

Why does Rob Bell have weird theology?

SEE Video: http://youtu.be/FnyPX1cHzwY

Rob Bell has been one of the voices in the Emergent/emerging movement. In the book: "Why we're not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck they write: "As a third-year philosophy student, he is conversant in the names and theories surrounding postmodernism but isn't ready to anoint his/our generation as overtly postmodern as some in the movement would believe. "Donald Miller, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell especially have been big influences, especially in the Campus Crusade group," Since the release of his new book this month (Love Wins, a closer examination of Rob Bell's teachings should be forthcoming by all Christians.

No one listens when warned

SEE VIDEO HERE: http://youtu.be/1jYHhKa81Ds

Christians need to stand firm and test all things to the Word of God. 1 John 4:1 "

 

GAY AWAKENING FOR MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM GROWS CLOSER

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.  1 Cor. 16:13.  Below are quotes from the Article.

"Evangelicalism, by embracing the postmodern liberalism spreading through the Emerging Church and using these warped and toxic teachings in their Young adult and Youth ministries, is now on the very same path as the mainline denominations who sold-out to liberalism."

Please see link for full article below:

GAY AWAKENING FOR MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM GROWS CLOSER

Mysticism in the Church

Mysticism in the Church

What is Christian Mysticism?  New Age Spirituality and Contemplative prayer, and a list of other heretical practices that are not consistent with Christianity.  In 2 Tim. 4:3,4  it says; "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 there own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 

Gary Gilley's new book: "This little church had none - A Church in search of the Truth",  in the chapter titled:  'The Emergent Church goes Ancient' ,  Gilley explains that there is a keen interest in Mysticism and also an attraction to mystics such as Meister Eckhard, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, George Fox, William Law and Thomas Merton.  Gilley writes this on mysticism: "the whole goal of mysticism is to experience something in a super-rational way."  

If you are interested in learning more about the dangers of mysticism in the church, what it is, and it's affects on  biblical christianity this book is a good starter on mysticism in the church.

 

  

The Emergent Church Defined

The Emergent Church Defined

Stand Firm in the Faith is given permission to share a recent Newsletter article from MM outreach - July 2010 issue. MM Outreach is an Apologetic /Discernment Ministry that was established in 1979. Please see the end of article for resource and contact information.

2 Cor. 11:3,4  But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
_____________________________________
_______________________

The Emergent Church Defined 
MM Outreach - News & Views July, Aug, Sept - 2010

Defining the Emergent Church is no easy task. Someone once likened it to trying to nail jello to the wall! Just when you think you have a definition, it slips away!

Why are so many churches of varying denominations going “emergent” or “emerging”? It truly is the latest fad to run rampant through the Christian world. Like many movements, it is not “new” at all, but has come to prominence, particularly in Bible Colleges.

It follows on the heels of the Purpose Driven Church, who strove to be “seeker friendly” and re-work the gospel message to fit the needs of the people. Unsuitable words like sin, judgment, hell etc. were never used, and people were made to feel that God would accept them, just as they were. Repentance for sin was not mentioned. Love covered all, and don’t forget the coffee and doughnuts as you walked in the door! After a “feel good” message, you left feeling good about yourself but devoid of the Gospel message.

Another way to reach people was ready to be tried--the Emergent Church. The “emergent” ideas were first presented by German theologian Jurgen Moltmann in the 1900’s who borrowed some concepts from the Buddhist monks and fused them with bible concepts, which he redefined. Scriptures that could not be manipulated into emergent theology were just ignored, and modern followers do the same. Not all Emergent Churches are exactly the same, as none are required to have any set guidelines, but can choose what “feels right” to them, and “anything goes”.

So, now we enter an Emergent Church. What might we find? Often the pulpit has been removed and the chairs rearranged to form a circle around a platform in the middle. The person on the platform reads a portion of scripture without comment or teaching. The audience is now invited to share what this portion of the bible means to them. All comments are received without criticism or correction. This has replaced the sermon of Christianity which is basically a topical study of the Bible, or a verse-by-verse teaching of God’s word.

As Bible readers know, the Bible draws the line between good and evil and leaves us in no doubt as to what the Creator requires of us to be in God’s Kingdom. We must acknowledge that we are sinners, repent of the sin, receive the free gift of salvation from our Savior, Jesus Christ, and then live our lives as the Bible instructs, with the help of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the atonement. We believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us and at death we will be resurrected to life with Him. Our Christian lives should produce the fruits of the Spirit, and we should lead others to Christ’s saving grace. If we slip into sin, we repent, seek forgiveness and live on in a Christian manner.

Well, forget the concept of “good” versus “evil” in the Emergent Church. They believe there is a third alternative, “synthesis”, with no set definition of right or wrong. Each one must decide by his or her own feelings or emotions what is right or wrong.

How does one try to get close to God in the Emergent Church?  Their beliefs reject the Bible as an authority, hell as a real destination for sinners, judgment from God is ignored, and the cross is offensive. What is left? Nothing but feelings, emotions, and pagan mystical experiences! Yet they claim to be “Christian”, but time has proven that they have a “different gospel” and a “different spirit”. (2 Cor. 11:3,4,13-15).

The Bible teaches that world conditions will get worse and worse before Christ comes in judgment. In the Emergent Church the thinking is that the world is getting better and better until all will be eventually saved! How does the world get better? EC believers think they will bring this about by their good works. They are to choose some good work that they feel good about and then do it. They are supposed to discover something about God in the process, and grow spiritually.

They use the term “theology of hope” for this idea, and speak of their efforts as “missional”. Words, especially those in the Bible are considered by the EC to be “too limited” to teach us about God so each one has to have his/her own definition, found through their meditations and experiences. The EC says that anything that makes you feel closer to God goes, like “Christian” Yoga, contemplative prayer, labyrinth walking, “going into silence” (emptying your mind) spirit world influence, and “imagining God”. Whatever!

These folks are not living in the real world when it comes to religion! Denying reality will not work any better for these professing “Christians” than it has for the New Age Movement and Eastern Mysticism. They are in rebellion against God plain and simple!

God is our Creator and we are His creation and we need to obey His guidelines set out in Scripture, and we need to accept the revelation of Himself to us as found in the pages of the bible. Our experiences, no matter how profound, do not define God. God defines Himself!

Good and evil do exist! Absolute truth does exist! Judgment from God will come! Salvation is limited to those washed in the blood of Jesus Christ, and they alone will spend eternity with Him!

We appreciate the DVD “Emergent Church Defined” done by Pastor Bob Dewaay and TV Host of SO4J, Martha Mac. At last we have an expose of this movement which has been flying under the radar and being coy about their real beliefs.

We suggest you consider ordering two copies, one for yourself, and one for your Pastor who can put it in the church library. Truly wolves have entered in among the sheep and need to be exposed!

Copyright 2010 Lorri MacGregor   All rights reserved.

Pastor Bob DeWaay's DVD - "Emergent Church Defined", can be obtained from MM Outreach.

Contact and order information: MM Outreach website: http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/ and http://www.mmoutreach.org/

Ministry Address:  Box 454 Metaline Falls, WA. 99153