Interaction with a Willard proponent

Two years ago the Lord brought my attention to some of the wayward false teachings that are making inroads into the church. I have had the opportunity to sit beneath this where a well meaning pastor chose (and continues to promote) a false teacher- Dallas Willard. But for the light God has graciously given me I may also have been seduced by these teachers. I am sure my encounter is one of many, occurring all around the world, as we head into an age of greater falling away.

The Lord jealously guards His Word. We should also: from those that seek to bring in doctrines other than those spelt out in His Word. These heresies aren't just "theological issues" as some have said but the difference between light and darkness. Does the devil introduce false doctrines that are harmless? He mascquerades as an angel of Light to deceive the elect- The Word says so. He is out to destroy us. When he deceived Adam and Eve, what was the result? Separation from the Tree of Life and death (spiritual first and then physical). False teachings are dangerous. 2 Peter 2:1 talks of "damnable heresies". "Damnable" means (in the Greek) "utterly destroying". Are these "theological issues" just that, or more important? The Lord seems to think the latter- He says so in the Word. They aren't just a debate subject we dance about whilst still actively continuing in them. 

My first email to my pastor was after a sit down discussion in which I questioned his loyalty to a man (namely Willard). During the discussion he remained "mum" on the subjects of Willard and his endorsement of a Christ denier (Nouwen) as well as the following: He recommends reading occultists (Evelyn Underhill- a member of the "Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" and Loyola the father of the Jesuit order who's writings are referenced in books on shamanism) and he has a close ongoing working relationship with a self confessed New Ager- (Richard Foster). 
The Holy Spirit would not recommend or endorse occultists, those that deny that Jesus is the only way, or work with New Agers. The Holy Spirit would not allow the mark of approval of a goddess worshiper. Dallas Willard does all of these things and it isn't hard to see that it isn't the Spirit of God leading him but another spirit. 
I have pointed these things out to my pastor who never addresses or responds to these issues but continues to promote the man.

In this blog post I will show the emails I sent to my pastor David, followed by his responses and then a short comment at relevant points in the exchange.

To those in the church that have found their way here I have provided a few links to information provided in recent email

• Willard has worked and still works closely with Richard Foster who is a self proclaimed New Ager (among other issues) http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/foster/foster.htm
• Willard recommends that you read the writings of occultists on his website (Evelyn Underhill of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn). http://www.dwillard.org/resources/RecReading.asp    http://www.evelynunderhill.org/newsletter/EUA_2003/newsletter_2003_final_final.PDF 
• Willard's work has the endorsement of a self proclaimed "goddess" worshiper Sue Monk Kidd. See below in the email correspondance.
• Willard recommends you read the writings of a Roman Catholic mystic (Nouwen) who says That you don't need to believe in Jesus- he's (Nouwen) is there to help everyone find their own way to God. As an aside he doesn't seem to think homosexuality is wrong. http://jameslau88.com/my_history_with_god_by_henri_nouwen.html
• Willard recommends you read the writing of a Jesuit priest who's work is referenced in books on witchcraft (Loyola) http://www.dwillard.org/resources/RecReading.asp
• Willard preaches that you don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved (He suggests that the good buddhists of a backsliden christian may be saved) http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=14
• Willard says that we can become like Christ through modelling ourselves on His lifestyle (sound familar) http://www.svchapel.org/resources/book-reviews/4-christian-living/621-the-spirit-of-disciplines-by-dallas-willard-
• Willard, Jan Johnson (someone who's material David has promoted), and I believe David (he won't answer or acknowledge the question) practice contemplative prayer. This is an Eastern derived but "churchy" sounding practice that supposedly gets you in communication with God.     Jan teaches on the subject at Willard's Fullers Seminar (http://www.janjohnson.org/biography.html).  Heres are a few sites offering a commentary on the supposed 'christian' practice of contemplative prayer:   http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c33.shtml      http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/contemplative/contemplative_prayer2.shtml  http://www.chooseyourbeliefs.com/2009/03/many-definitions-of-contemplative.html 
• Willard is held in high regard by the "emerging church" movement. http://therefinersfire.org/emergent_church.htm

In case you are wondering.... all of theses points have been elaborated to the pastor involved (repeatedly) but ignored.

Here we go....

JR wrote in 3/11/09:

Hi David,

Lovely message the other day. So much better hearing God's word.

Here's are a few more things I thought you may find interesting as well as to follow up on a few things we discussed.

Dallas's website isn't shy in having Sue Monk Kidd's endorsement on its pages. http://www.dwillard.org/books/reviews/reviewspirt.asp

Now, of course the book is years old, as is the endorsement, but the website and him allowing the endorsement is current and stands. Strange for him to allow the affirmation of a Goddess worshiper on a book that's meant to "make people more like Jesus". http://www.suemonkkidd.com/DanceOfTheDissidentDaughter/Conversation.aspx .... and a bit more background on Sue http://www.wayoflife.org/files/8ffc86c93f4b097ed3ae16c2b70579ec-114.html . That she has this leaning, is well publicized and I find it very hard to believe Dallas or someone in his organisation isn't aware of it. Her embrace of the disciplines didn't exactly lead her into "Christlikeness" but rather into demon worship.

From the above link you will see that there is a common thread with Sue endorsing or being quoted by the likes of Foster, Foster endorses Willard and the reverse. Nouwen is highly referenced by all, even Jan Johnson. http://www.janjohnson.org/articles__spiritual_growth_-_w.html. Everyone may have something correct from time to time but Jesus said that no good tree produces bad fruit and vice a versa. Nouwen's central universalist philosophy is bad fruit. Everything that may appear "good" from him is only an appearance of "good". Bad tree. Its just as the Tree of Knowledge. Looks good and seducing spirits will say if you eat this "you will be like God/Christ". Nothings changed. That he is endorsed and used by Johnson, Foster and Willard shows amazingly poor judgement/discernment or further 'bad trees".

You claimed Willard is not a universalist. Lets agree to disagree: http://teleological.org/theology/?p=48 . At the absolute best he is deliberately ambiguous or confused in his position.

The spiritual incest of Willard, Foster, Johnson, Nouwen, Kidd and several others screams false doctrine. Just because the name of Jesus is used doesn't mean it is of God. Many will come in the name of Christ. Again signs and wonders isn't a mark of the presence of God or His endorsement eg Lifeshapes. If it isn't in the scriptures why use it?

Do those in the church council know you are a proponent of contemplative spirituality ie "christian meditation"? I found Jan's endoresment and I'm assuming yours, of Lectio Devina strange. Seems Willard is also proponent given his recommendation of Ignatius. This form of "meditation" outlined in this webpage has more in common with a seance or divination than anything I have ever seen in the name of "christianity" to date. http://janjohnson.org/pdf/Lost_Sheep.pdf

First we start with "centering": Seen widely in Eastern Meditation practices as well as in the contemplative movement.

I never realized we needed "centering" to encounter God. That is a New Age term not a biblical one. Of course it is also used in "centering prayer" http://www.cuc.claremont.edu/interfth/Centering%5Ccentering_prayer.htm . This is a very telling article. Please read the origins of the movement section. Again this is NOT of God and Not endorsed by Him. http://meditation-techniques.suite101.com/article.cfm/centering_prayer .

Heres Jan:

"Breathe in and out deeply a few times. Relax your neck and move it around. Then let your arms go limp and relax the legs and ankles. Relax each part from the inside out. "..... Lets find the verse for that.... oh yes we have it here in the yoga teachings in hindu god worship.

"Take a few minutes to reflect. It's OK if nothing comes to mind right away. Just enjoy God's presence."

Really? God's there if you are practising breathing and centering yourself?

As an aside : Here's another Jan gem :

"In Jesus’ day “lost” did not mean what it has come to be in recent days: those who are not trusting Jesus for salvation. “Lostness” is about losing one’s way and there are many kinds of “lostness” in which we are all engaged."

Really? If this is where meditation leads you why would I want to do it? Jesus said what the lost represents as does the context:

He was telling the Pharisees why He was mixing with sinners- to save them! A lost sheep dies. "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." Not too complicated is it?

And again Luke 19:9-10 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.10For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Jan: "What word, phrase, scene or image emerges from the Scripture and stays with you? If you latch on to something right away, set that aside for a minute and see if anything else emerges. "

Bit like what we do at some meetings now? Anybody just blurts out stuff be it from their own imagination, a spirit of the devil you name it?

"Ask group members to respond by saying, I SENSE THIS PASSAGE CALLING ME TO: and then completing that statement with a short phrase".

Here in lies the crux of the issue. In seances and divination you call up a spirit and get an instant answer in relation to a particular question. Same methodology as Jan. Meditate on a passage get an instant answer and assume that what you got was from God.

You seem to have used this approach in our church at the Leaders meeting and on other occasions. Dwell on what we want an answer to and then whatever word/picture/sense comes to you is then blurted out by the flock as though it is of God. Just tap in to God and turn Him on or off as you please.... What frightening arrogance.

No, I haven't read all of Jan's stuff. What I have seen is heresy. She has erroneous interpretations of scripture and engages in and endorses Catholic Mystical practices - Lectio Divina to name one. You asked how can someone judge on one quote etc like my comment on Jan's chapter on anger where she questions Jesus being angry when He drove people from the temple. I've reread your blog. You provided three paragraphs and a paraphrase of what she is saying. If she was in fact, saying that Jesus was angry despite the paraphrase and quote selection, I am happy to admit I made a mistake.

Would you need to read all of Mein Kampf to know it was wrong? What about the Satanic Bible? One could read the first commandment of the latter -4 words and be done with it.

Again, I submit to you as I did the other day, I have not based a judgement on her in myself. God has shown me this is false teaching/doctrine. Jesus when walking the earth as a man discerned in the Spirit what was in peoples hearts sometimes without a word being said from them.

-But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

I haven't really dealt with Foster but you are free to research him. His endorsement and use of CG Jung who had a spirit guide -Philemon is enough. That Willard writes books with him shows an ideological marriage and similar bent.

I thought you may be interested in this Emerging Church documentary. Some of their activities seem very similar to the way our church is heading (we'll just let the people vote and decide "and each man did as he saw fit in his own eyes"). See 1m 50 for example. Please watch the whole thing. You'll see there's a move to downplay the importance of preaching. Its all about discussing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGSQjtWTpaw and some more on the Emerging Church and CS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6inrdtzN6c&NR=1 . This chap has a 7 part series put on youtube.

Finally a little more on Contemplative Spirituality/ "christian meditation:

http://integrallife.com/member/peter-haas/blog/bridge-crossing-over-contemplative-christian-territory

Interesting that supposed "light" is mixing with darkness. You wouldn't find any true Spirit filled message about the Blood of Jesus and the need for sinners to "repent and be baptized" message on a site like this with a "multi-faith inter-spirituality agenda". You do however, have the virtues of "Christian Meditation" (and the famous three Willard, Foster and Nouwen's names) being proclaimed.

Again, I exhort you to pray and put these people and their teachings before God before putting them before the flock or using these "techniques" on the gullible and unknowing.

In love

Justin

2 Tim 4: 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Proverbs 16:5 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Matthew 15: 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).

Davids Response on the 14/11/09

Hi Justin,

Have you read the actual article quoted on http://teleological.org/theology/?p=48 on Dallas Willard's website (it is called 'apologetics in action')?

I haven't said lifeshapes are in the scriptures but are a helpful way to remember things taught in the scriptures. What specific concerns do you have about the content of what lifeshapes helps people to remember?

I have watched the youtube videos you linked ( I think I may have even watched the first one myself a while ago). I have read both Carson and McKnight (who spoke in the video) and a variety of others on the 'emergent' movement and agree with many of the critiques. Those 'emerging churches' that depart from the orthodox positions on who Jesus is, sin, the need for repentance and faith etc. are and will run out of steam (there may be only 200 'emerging' churches in the whole US - not a big movement). From what I read they tend to be dividing into a more liberal and a neo-reformed/neo calvanist branches.

David

Comment:

Please note: He does not address any of the charges laid- ie Willards associators and collaborators are ignored.... this is no trivial matter to be swept under the carpet.

He doesn't confirm not deny his involvement in Contemplative prayer- and its Eastern origins. He in fact, doesn't address much at all after 10 days.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My response 18/11/09 22:07hrs

Hi David,

Yes I have read Willard's article. I found it a surprisingly poor example on how to communicate the "Gospel" and it wouldn't be something I would be proud to display on my website. I would be hoping it was buried. I guess thats why the Emerging church leaders encourage the reading of Foster and Willard. I believe he is a universalist and if he isn't, he does an almighty good job of trying to show he is. Why camouflage your beliefs? As testament to Willard's poor discernment/universalist bent is his foreword to Ruth Haley Barton book. She's proud to display her mentor as Tilden Edwards who thinks Jesus and Buddha are friends. http://www.upanishad.org/dialogue/jesus_buddha.htm How Willard could be so obtuse to miss that is unbelievable. More likely he is in agreement. After all he and Foster are mates and Foster also is pro Buddhist and encourages the reading of Edwards and Merton. Tilden's got some interesting ideas: http://www.shalem.org/files/transcripts/tilden_speech_06.pdf.

I am surprised at your lack of response in relation to Foster and Willard closeness. My comments on Foster quoting Jung. Johnson and her poor understanding of scripture. Most importantly I asked "are those on the church council aware of your position on 'christian meditation'"?

Do you honestly believe in lectio devina being of God? Clearly Willard Johnson and Foster do. If so where do you draw the line? Walking the labryinth? or is the line beyond that? How many Catholic practices would you have our church embrace?

Why are you so coy about stating your position? If its of God and He wants you to introduce the church into Contemplative Spirituality there's no need to be shy.

I don't agree... the emerging church movement isn't going anywhere. The name may change though. The same deceiving spirits at work in those labelled "emerging" are at work in other groups who labels themselves - Catholic, Apostolic and Baptist etc. Labels don't matter. The fact that you are championing the cause of those embraced by the movement is why I brought it up. http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/jasonclark/index.htm.

That, and the fact that those at the forefront of the movement embrace, endorse and practice "christian meditation". You can put jelly in the cookie jar and pretend you are eating cookies but its still jelly. The same deceptions will infiltrate many churches irrespective of the label.

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/emerging-church/who-are-some-leaders-emerging-church-movement

Lifeshapes hasn't helped me remember a thing from scriptures. I can say that in all honesty, as someone with a fair share of brain cells. The only thing I remember from lifeshapes is the Kairos moment thing which is unscriptural and faulty. You've taught that because Jesus taught using everyday moments we can also learn from everyday moments. We look at the events in our life and then ask what is God trying to teach us ie. we identify an event and then try and work out what God is saying/what we need to address from that. Of course in the scriptures Jesus drew the attention of the disciples to something and then He taught them. That is God draws the discples attention to something and then God teaches. Of course it is the Spirit that performs the changes in us. Lifeshapes model is like most things "man centered"- man identifies, man self teaches and then presumably engages in an "exercise" to change.

Davids response

18/11/09 22:55hrs

Isn't ' it is possible to go to hell with a lot of certainty-people do it every day' not clear enough for you?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My Response 19/11/09

Hi David,

I suggest you read all the material presented to you before responding.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Again you remain "mum" on 99% of issues. Why?

Isn't ' it is possible to go to hell with a lot of certainty-people do it every day' not clear enough for you? (D)

Is it clear enough? um ..... no. Having one nugget of truth in a sea of ambiguity and falsehood doesn't improve things. Its like a lolly in dog poo. Context is everything. Same as the devil quoting scripture.

The uncertain people get to go to heaven and the certain go to hell? The "good" buddhist may get saved? Scripture for that? This my friend is Hindu universalist philosophy to a tee. Those that practice there religion (all are ok) and are "good".... get "saved". Supporting this is his alignment with people who endorse and have practised other religions -Foster and Merton and endorsing the likes of Barton.

We are known by our fruits. What does darkness have in common with light? You cannot drink the Lord's cup and the cup of demons. How can you (Willard) endorse and use material that gets peddled at a "new age/spiritualist store"? Adding a christian or Jesus label, adds no credibility.

Are you following Willard or God?

David's response 20/11/09

These are substantial theological issues. If we are to have a fruitful conversation we will probably need to work hard at a few things to make sure we get anywhere.

1. Definition of terms. For example, my understanding is that when the term 'universalism' is used in Christian theological debates it refers to the idea that everyone will one day be saved not whether it is possible that some people might be good enough to be saved. That is an issue of original sin and there have been a variety of positions from pelagianism through arminianism to calvanism. It seems that your concerns are more about pelagianism but I would be happy to stand corrected. Willard and I disagree with universalism as defined above. We also disagree with pelagianism.

2. Tone of language. I think using terms like 'lolly in poo', 'spiritual incest', etc are emotive, pejorative and unhelpful to clear thinking and debate based on the authority of scripture. Note that does not preclude expressing reasoned opinions about the scriptural or other validity of ideas.

3. Presuppositions and logic. For example: is there any context in which the word 'meditation' can be used where it is acceptable to orthodox Christianity?. Also, should another starting point be that wherever possible, to work with original documents rather quotes? Thirdly positions need to be tested against the entire witness of Scripture - if it explains one verse or seems to contradict or not adequately explain another verse it needs to be reconsidered. Regarding logic, for example in the article you referenced earlier (http://teleological.org/theology/?p=48), the argument the person made was logically unsound. They finished the article with this statement "The hope of salvation and humanity is not in our ability to save ourselves outside of the gospel, but in the finished work of Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness to sinful Man." Yet he/she ignores (and doesn't bold) the clear statement of Willard that "But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus" which says the same thing. Any interpretation of other comments in the article by Willard need to take account of that phrase - context is important.

4. Discussion needs to start at the place that is most relevant to our church specifically Willard and the book 'Invitation to the Jesus Life' by Jan Johnson. Lets deal with them first and move on to other matters after that.

5. Openness - I am happy for openness. The council is aware your comments that are posted on my blog. I have also told them that I am having a substantial conversation with you. I have not told them the content of that conversation to respect confidentiality but would be happy for you to forward all copies of our communication (and summary of our face to face conversation) to them either now or an edited version after we have worked through some misunderstandings (eg universalism). If you would prefer, I am happy to forward them myself.

David.....

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


My response the following day

Hi David,

Definition of terms. For example, my understanding is that when the term 'universalism' is used in Christian theological debates it refers to the idea that everyone will one day be saved not whether it is possible that some people might be good enough to be saved. That is an issue of original sin and there have been a variety of positions from pelagianism through arminianism to calvanism. It seems that your concerns are more about pelagianism but I would be happy to stand corrected. Willard and I disagree with universalism as defined above. We also disagree with pelagianism. (D)

I guess that section answers a few questions. “We”. You and Willard are pretty close. If someone where to show me serious flaws in someone who I held in esteem, I would be grateful, digest the material and pray about it, not defend without reading the material. Why are you so devoted to a man? It is Jesus we follow.

My last email offered about 2-3 hours of reading material. You gave me a curt 1 line response within the hour indicating you have neither read, digested or prayed about that material.

The universalism issue is one drop in an ocean of issues with Willard and it is the only one you have chosen to respond to. I assume that is because there is some leverage to be had with the definition. There are many definitions of universalism. I have made it clear that I read Willard’s article. And of course there is talk of hell. So yes, traditional christian universalism is not in question. There are many definitions and variations. I offered you one that explains Willard’s position. Hindu universalism.

The context of the whole paper is of a backsliden christian who wants to know what happens to her buddhist friend. Willard never mentions in clear english to repent or turnback to her only hope, Lord and saviour- Jesus. He never mentions that the Buddhist needs to turn to Jesus. He is unsure what happens to that Buddhist and that Jesus may save him. “Who am I to stand in the way of whom Jesus wants to save”?

Not quite the -repent, be converted, baptised, and be filled with the Spirit gospel. Not the “I am the way, the truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father but by Me”. Rather the buddhist who never believed or knew Jesus may get saved....

What other definitions do you need to address? There aren’t any complex theological issues. There’s black and there’s white. You are in Christ or not. The Spirit teaches of all things and those in the Spirit aren’t confused or uncertain about what is of God or not. Are we following Jesus or someone who says this is how we follow Jesus?

Tone of language. I think using terms like 'lolly in poo', 'spiritual incest', etc are emotive, pejorative and unhelpful to clear thinking and debate based on the authority of scripture. (D)

I guess when Jesus called the pharisees “white washed tombs”, “sons of hell”, “brood of vipers” etc they also felt these phrases “emotive, pejorative and unhelpful”. Sometimes the Lord calls a spade a spade. Or when Paul through the Holy Spirit called our righteousness as “used menstrual rags”. Or when The Spirit by Ezekiel admonished the Israelites “For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses”. I am sure they found that offensive and demeaning.

....unhelpful to clear thinking and debate based on the authority of scripture.Note that does not preclude expressing reasoned opinions about the scriptural or other validity of ideas. (D)

??I am waiting for reasoned opinion and scriptural insight in support of your position that Willard with his endorsement of godess worshipers/Jesus deniers/Roman Catholic mystics and occultists is a right, God ordained position. See my final questions...

Presuppositions and logic. Also, should another starting point be that wherever possible, to work with original documents rather quotes? Thirdly positions need to be tested against the entire witness of Scripture - if it explains one verse or seems to contradict or not adequately explain another verse it needs to be reconsidered. Regarding logic, for example in the article you referenced earlier (http://teleological.org/theology/?p=48), the argument the person made was logically unsound. They finished the article with this statement "The hope of salvation and humanity is not in our ability to save ourselves outside of the gospel, but in the finished work of Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness to sinful Man." Yet he/she ignores (and doesn't bold) the clear statement of Willard that "But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus" which says the same thing. Any interpretation of other comments in the article by Willard need to take account of that phrase - context is important. (D)

No David, those two statements are not the same thing. If I said “only the white boxes will be saved from going into the furnace by assembly worker no.15”, it is not the same as saying “only assembly worker no. 15 saves”, which deliberately does not include the “white boxes”. It is a half truth. The teleological site specifies several things which Willard is ambigious or unscriptural on. It says “outside of the gospel” vs Willard’s unscriptural “a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that?”. The teleological site talks about “sinful man” vs Willards “almost totally good”. So no, if we use logic and context the two statements are not saying the same thing.

“I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.” That is the final synopsis of Willard to a backsliden christian and her buddhist friend, not a buddhist in the jungles of Cambodia.

As far as original material, I have provided many links to the original peoples websites. How can we go more “original”. Is Willard’s and Jan Johnson’s words on their own website not sufficient? I think that they should suffice.

Is there any context in which the word 'meditation' can be used where it is acceptable to orthodox Christianity? (D)

Whilst that meditation is of the Eastern variety- No. The answer is obvious. If it is repackaged Eastern and termed ‘christian’ meditation the answer is still no. I have provided links showing the connection between the current Contempaltive Prayer movement and the RCC, Buddhism etc. You have not responded to it.

Discussion needs to start at the place that is most relevant to our church specifically Willard and the book 'Invitation to the Jesus Life' by Jan Johnson. Lets deal with them first and move on to other matters after that. (D)

I’ve provided lots of information as to why these folk are not who, anyone in Christ, should look to. What is there to discuss? The information I have given you has been left unanswered for many weeks now. If you wish to start discussing, the door has been open for a long time.....

Openness - I am happy for openness. (D)

Really? you don’t answer anything I put to you of import. If you are so happy for openness please respond to my questions and many comments directly.

The council is aware your comments that are posted on my blog.(D)

Yes, but have you told them about your practice of contemplative prayer/ christian meditation/ lectio divina? That is the question I have asked on several occasions. Yes or no?

I have also told them that I am having a substantial conversation with you. (D)

What conversation? That requires two way dialogue. I have shown you links between Willard and occultists etc and get no feedback. I ask specific questions and get met with no answer.

What about these very simple questions: 

Do you believe it o.k. to direct your christian walk (and your flock) by a man/woman that endorses the work of a goddess worshipper? Or a man that believes their are many roads to “god” with or without Jesus?

Yes or no?

Is it o.k to be schooled in your christian walk, by an person who is a trained, ongoing member of an interfaith spirituality organization? Yes or no?

I am more than happy to send through all the emails to the church council when the Lord directs. I will, when that time comes, collate all correspondence, so that they can read things in the order in which they have been said or not said.

David's response 23/11/09

Hi Justin,

Thanks for your reply.

I have endeavoured to read all the links that you have previously provided. Have you had a chance to read 'Invitation to the Jesus Life' yet? I am concerned about that book in particular (and any issues with it) because I don't think I have talked about any other Jan Johnson book/publication at Stonnington.

Could you please explain what you mean by 'hindu universalism'

In response to you comments about meditation, do you think there are any 'practices of meditation' that are acceptable in orthodox Christianity?

Who are those who are saved is an important question.

I would think we both agree that those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection is saved. However are there any others for examples:

• Will anyone from old testament be saved since none of them had the full revelation of Jesus Christ that we have today (according to Paul it was hidden Col 1:25-28)?

• Do any babies of Christian parents go to heaven if they die before making a profession of faith?

With regard to the article - we have to wrestle with and integrate into our own positions the plain reading of Romans 2:6-10. How do you understand v7?

If you are interested in checking out Willard's full position and arguments about who is saved, I would recommend you read Chapter 7 'Knowledge of Christ and Christian pluralism' in Willard's latest book "Knowing Christ Today".

Regarding language I recognize the robust statements of scripture and please continue to use robust language if you want. I just know for me that I have less confidence in myself that I can use that sort of language without slipping into slander or looking down on or insulting. Jesus warned of the dangers in Matt 5:22, James talked about it in 3:9-10. Paul questioned the practice of 'looking down on your brother' in the middle of teaching about the most controversial theological topic of his day (Rom 14:10) and in Jude the archangel Michael avoided slander even of the devil.

I have been looking at your concerns about endorsement and association of various people. I haven't addressed them in detail yet for a number of reasons:

• I think guilt by association arguments are inherently weaker than an assessment of people's direct writings or teachings. So I think it is more important to deal with content first.

• Someone endorsing me does not imply a reverse endorsement. If the Dalai Lama endorsed a book of mine about Jesus that doesn't mean I would endorse what he teaches, but his endorsement may result in alot of tibetan buddhists finding out about Jesus

• Presence of books with other books in a bookshop doesn't imply support - would the presence of a bible on the shelf of a secular book store mean that bible and it author (God) supports secularism?

• My endorsement of a book doesn't mean I endorse everything the author does. Paul is clear it is about the particular content. Paul was concerned about the fact of the proclamation of Jesus even if there were some seriously wrong motives (PHil 1:15-18). He even said if he preached another gospel at a later time he should be condemned (Gal 1:8-9). While previously being willing to associate with Peter in Gal 2:6-10, over a particular matter in Galatia he opposed him to his face (Gal 2:11)

Regarding your final questions - I don't believe in goddess worship and have never advocated it. I don't believe there are many ways to God, Jesus is the only way. I have read allot of authors and have always endeavoured to compare their teachings to the full witness of scripture. However, I disagree with some of your assertions or interpretations of people's teachings and so we need to work through those.

Regarding Jan Johnson, I simply ask that we start with the Jan Johnson material that has been presented to the church. That is much easier to assess as a starting point.

I look forward to your reply

God Bless

Comment:

There was an appeal to logic in the previous email and no response to it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My reply:

Hi David,

Thanks for your email. Several comments....

I am not trying to provoke you but want it to be noted I have asked you at least three times : Are the church council aware of your practice and endorsement of “lectio divina”/contemplative prayer? I am yet to receive an answer. I can only assume the answer is “no” and for some reason you don’t want to say so. Why the avoidance of a simple question?

I asked: Do you believe it o.k. to direct your christian walk (and your flock) by a man that endorses the work of a goddess worshipper? Or a man that believes their are many roads to “god” with or without Jesus?

Yes or no?

Your response suggesting I read a chapter of a book by him (Willard), by implication says “yes”

My other question was:

Is it o.k to be schooled in your christian walk, by a person (Johnson) who is trained by and an ongoing member of an interfaith spirituality organization? Yes or no? You responded by asking if I have read her book? Again your response is a veiled ‘yes’.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit has led Jan Johnson to follow Jesus better, by being schooled by Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Unitarians and other non born again people? Please note this is not “past tense”.

Is it the Holy Spirit that encourages us through Willard to read material by occultists, demon worshipers, and apostates? Is it the God of Israel that causes him to be joined at the hip with a New Ager (Foster) and to write material together? Please note this is not “past tense”.

In relation to “content” irrespective of the source, I disagree very strongly. I know the Lord does. When the demonic spirits called out that Jesus was the Son of God, which was a true statement, and with modern logic, may have “helped” people believe, did He permit it? When the sorceress followed Paul about saying “these are the servants of the most High God that show us the way of salvation”, Paul was grieved and her demonic spirit was cast out.

Sure, Christians sin. Paul confronted Peter, but Peter wasn’t encouraging us to follow the path of Buddhists to help us find Jesus. He didn’t have a recommended reading list of Baal priests to help us better worship Christ. Paul does talk about how to deal with a brother that sins. There are also plenty of verses as to how to deal with false teachers and those promoting “another christ” and they less than gentle.

I think guilt by association arguments are inherently weaker than an assessment people's direct writings or teachings. So I think it is more important to deal with content first. Someone endorsing me does not imply a reverse endorsement. If the Dalai Lama endorsed a book of mine about Jesus that doesn't mean I would endorse what he teaches, but his endorsement may result in a lot of Tibetan buddhists finding out about Jesus. (D)

These aren’t guilt by association arguments. They are guilt by promotion, endorsement and collaboration. The Dalai Lama argument doesn’t fit the situation. If you were to endorse the work of the Dalai Lama, learn from him, and suggest we read his books in order to better follow Jesus, you would have some serious questions raised. That is abetter analogy of the situation. There are very clear commands not to be yoked with unbelievers or to be a companion of fools.

Willard and Johnson do both and then also suggests we read their material.

Presence of books with other books in a bookshop doesn't imply support - would the presence of a bible on the shelf of a secular book store mean that bible and it author (God) supports secularism? (D)

No. If the Lord had written several books of the bible with secularists, referenced them throughout His word, and given a list of recommended secularists books and gurus to help you better follow him... then -yes. If those same secularists then recommended the Word as a way to better be a secularist then- yes. That again is a better representation of the situation.

Again, I have no desire to read any of their material. Until the Holy Spirit in me, can identify with the spirit in them, I will not (at least, to actually gain anything useful). I have already pointed out several things they have written that are erroneous and have not received a direct answer to the points. I could go through Jan Johnson’s book and given her history, and other erroneous material, pick it to bits for you, but what would that prove? God looks at the heart. It is out of the overflow of the heart that the mouth speaks. Their mouths suggest we read occultists, RCC priests, Jesuits etc. If we are to read material without “knowing people by their fruit” we could happily read a book with the author on the cover being Lucifer himself and then try and sift out the good whilst being poisoned by the bad. First and foremost we should be encouraging the body to read the Word and study that. We should be encouraging people to walk with God and not be a disciple of Willard or Johnson.

Also, you say we should look at the specific content even if you don’t agree with all an author does. (Willard’s recommended reading list is poison as well as most material he and Jan use to prop up their views). Then, on the other hand you point to people and what they do, to support the material (eg life-shapes). You admit life-shapes is extra-biblical but because the guy "carried a cross around", the material is sound. I’m confused. We look at the material when it suits, not the man. And if the material is extra-biblical and questioned, we look at the man? Very double minded.

Regarding your final questions - I don't believe in goddess worship and have never advocated it. I don't believe there are many ways to God, Jesus is the only way. I have read allot of authors and have always endeavoured to compare their teachings to the full witness of scripture. However, I disagree with some of your assertions or interpretations of people's teachings and so we need to work through those. (D)

Those are answers to different questions, not those I asked. I can repeat them here for you:

Do you believe it o.k. to direct your christian walk (and your flock) by a man/woman that endorses the work of a goddess worshipper or a man that believes there are many roads to “god” with or without Jesus?Yes or no?

Is it o.k to be schooled in your christian walk, by a person who is a trained, ongoing member of an interfaith spirituality organization (Buddhist/RCC/Unitarian etc)? Yes or no?

Which assertions or interpretations do you disagree with and why?

As far as: Will anyone from old testament be saved since none of them had the full revelation of Jesus Christ that we have today (according to Paul it was hidden Col 1:25-28)?

Do any babies of Christian parents go to heaven if they die before making a profession of faith? (D)

I am happy to address these questions at a later time if you wish, but they are somewhat tangential to the discussion and aren't discussed by Willard in the article referenced. So rather than muddy the waters ,lets address the issues at hand.

With regard to the article - we have to wrestle with and integrate into our own positions the plain reading of Romans 2:6-10. How do you understand v7? (D)

Its more important to have our positions integrated into the Word rather than wrestling the Word to fit with our "positions" ie. Have the Holy Spirit show us what that passage means in the context of the whole Word and have Him transform your mind. Perhaps you should state your understanding on that verse, since Willard uses it to imply that "good buddhists may be saved", and you are defending him.

In response to you comments about meditation, do you think there are any 'practices of meditation' that are acceptable in orthodox Christianity? (D)

Is there a prescribed formula/practice as to how to meditate in the Word? Does it marry up with lectio divina and what Jan tells us to do on her website? When you meditate are you following what God tells you to do ie a biblical 'how to" or are you getting it from a book?

If we, at any time, look to a ritual instead of the Lord we are heading down the wrong path. Attaching the Lord or His Name to a ritual makes it no less a ritual. The same goes for willard and his disciplines- they are rituals devoid of life changing power. Believing God will speak to us or change us because we are engaging in such activities whilst invoking Him is unscriptural and pagan in origin.

Please can you answer the above highlighted questions. Yes or no preceding any explanation would be appreciated. No “wishy washy” (from your last sermon) answers :).

Justin

Comment:

Following this exchange there was total silence for 2 months until I raised the issue with him (again) in person. That was after further material of Willard was advocated for church consumption on his blog. At this point he said he wouldn't address any of my concerns until I had first proved to him I had read a chapter of Willards book. That isn't biblical in approach. We are called to avoid false teachers not read more of their material.

Galatians 1:8-9

2 John 9-11

Romans 16:17-18

I Timothy 6:20-21

2 Peter 2:1-20

For the sake of brevity I haven't included the email's relating to my "having to read Willard". If any wish to read this exchange I will post them/email depending on demand.

I am sure that my experiences are not an isolated phenomena. I post my encounters (with someone who I am sure fully believes they are doing "God's work" but have strayed from the narrow path),  in the hope that  it encourages others to remain strong and stedfast,  grounded in the doctrines of God, not the doctrines of men. It would have been far easier for me to simply leave the church (some have because of these issues) rather than make these issues public. 

The above material is to highlight the fact that error is, and will continue to increase as we enter the latter days. Finally- we are called to follow Jesus and be obedient to Him. I choose to follow Him not a man (a cult isn't an option). We are called to follow the Lord and not extra-biblical concepts and teachings like Contemplative Prayer and Lifeshapes no matter how appealing they may be naturally. We should be followers of God, not men or what they may say of God.

In Christ

JR