Tony Campolo calls for Revolution in Baptist Churches.

I completely agree with this. I believe TC would applaud this as well.

But you just said that it wasn't just "objective".

I don't believe those who encourage "subjective experiences" would ever want to undermine the bible. I never would.

I agree that the biblical use of the ideas heart and mind are much more synonymous than our 21st century understanding. I believe around biblical times, it was believed that the faculty of reason came from the heart organ. It wasn't until recently that the brain was considered our organ of reason. So biblical writers saying heart, soul and mind would anatomically point to the same place for all three, the chest.

However in our modernist culture, we have severely separated the heart and the mind. Folks like Campolo are trying to encourage us to seeing it more biblically as one.

 

Thanks for your always courteous responses, Gold Dragon. It's never a drag to converse with you, even if we disagree.

I don't think most people who encourage subjective experiences want to undermine the Bible, but in effect, it does end up that way. People go for experiences because it feeds the senses. I am not saying it is wrong to have experiences by any means, but I do think it is dangerous to seek spiritual experiences. If someone is looking to have an experience, he/she will have one. And it can make you think it's with God, even if it isn't, especially with those techniques they are advocating like Contemplative Prayer.

The end result can undermine the Bible, even if it's not the original intention. Experiences are powerful and seductive.

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I believe you've made a leap in logic that I'm not following. Assuming that your concerns about experiences and Contemplative Prayer are real (which I believe they are when taken to unhealthy extremes), how does that undermine the bible as you've stated below?

 

I used to respect the man. But he shrouds what fundamental beliefs he has in so much liberal jargon, that it's hard to tell what he believes anymore. Just like the institutions he represents.

 

It undermines the bible by teaching a false way to talk to God which could result in while being in a hypnotic state using these false methods you are lead to believe the experience you have is of God when in reality you may have opened yourself up to God knows what.

That’s what makes it dangerous as it could be used as a tool to guide you into being deceived into believing a lie by you know who.

It is a method taught of man whose imagination is evil and in doing so has undermined the bible’s instructions in how we should pray.

I agree with what Marcia is saying and I’m sure her words will be much better than mine.

 

I think you misunderstand what Spiritual Formation and Contemplative Prayer are.

 

Marcia, I just read your article on Contemplative prayer and I must say I'm very impressed. It is a well written article fairly presenting arguments from both sides and well sourced. I don't agree with all your conclusions but it is an excellent work.

 

I think you misunderstand what Spiritual Formation and Contemplative Prayer are.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, I think that either you don't understand what spiritual formation is or don't understand what the Bible teaches. Marcia is right. The problem with this issue is that it takes knowledge and discernment. It is so attractive and sounds so appealing. After all, what can be wrong with spiritual formation? Don't we all want to be spiritual Christians? But we are not talking about being spiritual Christians; this is something different. There is a kind revived Neo-orthodoxy here--using traditional type Christian-sounding terms with new meanings. One has to have esoteric knowledge of the mystics, Jungian psychology, spiritualism, etc. to read the meanings behind the words. Also, one can follow the ideational trail back through Bro. Lawrence, Carl Jung, etc. to its roots. At its roots, we find it is not Christian at all; it is humanistic and pagan. I would question the discernment, doctrinal soundness and orthodoxy of any seminary with a spiritual formation program or emphasis. They might as well be teaching Dianetics.

 

I was just going to respond to your post to me previous to this one, asking you if you read my article. Thanks for reading it.

To answer your question about how CP ends up undermining the Bible: When one feels they are "communing" with God by practicing what are essentially Buddhist and Hindu meditation techniques, these experiences can become more powerful and 'exciting' than reading the Bible. Experiences that seem spiritual tend to trump something like reading the bible because our flesh likes experiences, especially powerful ones. Bible reading seems boring in comparison. As I pointed out in my article, and I think I proved, CP is neither contemplation (which is pondering and reflecting and thinking on) nor is it prayer (which is petitioning, praising, and thanking God)).

Because of the basis of CP, one can easily go into an altered state, which is what happens when you practice the techniques they suggest. Putting your mind in a state of no-thinking through these techniques gives one a feeling of being in touch with something greater and it's easy to think this is God. I used those techniques for years and know that they work and what it feels like.

But since this is NOT the way the Bible teaches us to get in touch with God but is the way Eastern religions teach to "awaken" to their true nature as being the Absolute/Buddha nature/ultimate reality/ whatever, then CP is not even giving practitioners a valid contact with God. These techniques have been compared to taking drugs by many who support hallucinogens as spiritual (Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, for one).

I asked Rev. Keating personally what biblical basis there was for prayer being what he was teaching and he could only give me Ps. 46.10, which of course, does not support that view at all. For those interested, here's my article on Ps. 46.10: http://cana.userworld.com/cana_Meditation_Psalm.html


So we have here people teaching something not supported by the Bible but actually influenced by Catholics who studied and admired Eastern techniques of meditation. Eastern meditation and Christian prayer are at opposite ends -- they have nothing in common. To be in a no-thinking state, especially for prayer, is something Satan promotes, not God.

 

I would like to add that the Roman Catholic church itself does not sanction CP. Catholic Answers, a Catholic Apologetics site, has an article against CP (not for all the reasons I oppose it, but they still oppose it) on their website.

 

Ben W.,
Joseph is correct I retracted my remarks about Tony C. I was simply commenting on the info. you have provided.
What I meant by "between the lines" was the way you have responded just gives me the impression that you think if we don't respond in almost the exact way that Tony C thinks we respond to these issues then we are automatically considered not "understanding enough".
I apologize if I was a little crass in how I came across.

However; I read again Tony and his wife's article about their experiences with gay people at their vacation spot or whatever. I admit gay people may have had some terrible experiences in and around some christians, in society, family members etc...
I'm not condoning some peoples behavior. But the article is very heavy on making it look like some of the homosexuals behavior is just the outpouring of the terrible thrashing they recieve from christians and society in general. He paints them out to be "victims" more than he does people who are suffering the consequences of their sinful activity. Tony needs to throw in a little bit of "personal responsibilty for ones actions" instead of "everybody is a victim here" kind of thinking.

Also, the clip he puts in there about how all folk see are the gay pride parades and the perverted things that go on in those kinds of displays. He says people have formed their opionions about gay people just by being influenced by that type of imagery.
Well, what is the point. There is that percentage of gay folk who like to "throw it in your face" I suppose the "militant homosexual" doesn't fit into his synopsis so he has to disassociate it with his premise somehow.

Also, pop culture is in direct opposition to his assumption. We have Madonna kissing Brittany, Queer eye for the straight guy" and on and on I could go. If anything society is being conditioned though media outlets to be acccepting of homosexuals.

 

I grew up as a Southern Baptist and have belonged to an American Baptist Church in NJ for about 15 years. I would be hard pressed to find any significant difference in the two churches. My church, like the bSBC churches used to do, believes in the autonomy of the local church so there would be variences between individual churches. The important theological beliefs are the same however. (I've served as a Deacon in my church for 7 years and have taught adult Sunday School for about 8-9 years.) Specically, just what are you referring to?

 

What about the Evergreen Association in Washington State? They are pretty sympathetic to having homosexual members in some of their churches. Is your convention gonna vote those churches out of its convention?
There are plenty of articles on the net concerning this matter. I admit most of them report it in a way that makes Dr. Patterson of the SBC look like a liar. Yet know one from the ABC has denied that they do have churches in that association that have homosexual members.

 

that would be no not Know sorry.

 

In the Current Events Forum, I noticed a thread announcing a live broadcast to be aired on American Family Radio in the near future. I went to their website to see if my old computer could handle their live radio broadcast, and after entering their site I browsed their home page while my dial-up connection down loaded their site completely.

What I noticed was article about TVLand and how that cable channel plans to broadcast a special that is called "Tickled Pink", a topic that "celebrates homosexual undercurrents". I noted in that article as I read it that "Ed Vitagliano, a media researcher for the American Family Association, says........

I thought about writing to AFR asking them to inform Ed Vitagliano that some of us Baptist here on the BaptistBoard agree that homosexuals need a relationship with Jesus, but we are not going to be the ones to encourage that to happen because their lifestyle is disgusting and we want nothing to do with them or their kind. We don't want them in our churches and we are not going to where they are.

"Perhaps they will feel accepted and comfortable in their sin because you befirend them. They may never be motivated to repent and be saved; they may go to Hell because you befriended them. How do you know they won't?

On the other hand, if you dispise and rebuke their sin, they may be ashamed and repent. They may be saved. On the one hand, we do not need to abuse and ridicule them but on the other we do not need to condone and coddle them either. We must stand for righteousness and rebuke sin".

And why stop there??? Maybe we should take a stand on alcholics and drug addicts too while we're at it. And why not shun men who are fornicators and adulterers too while we're doing this??? I mean we really can feel so justified in rebuking all of these sins and purging ourselves of the sin all around us.

No...... come to think of it........ I don't think I'll be writing to American Family Radio with this news at all. I think instead I will email Ed Vitagliano and tell him how much I appreciate the empathy he feels toward those who are lost and feel lost and are trying fill that empty void in their lives with the wrong things. We need more people like Ed in our churches. We need more Christians who say, "Here am I Lord. Send me", instead of those who are going to tell Christ Jesus who they will not be witnessing to.

When I read Tony Campolo I got the point. Ed Vitagliano gets the point too and he may not even know anything at all about Tony.

 

American Family Radio site and AgapePress article LINK

 

As I said, individual churches have autonomy. The denomination's position on homosexuality is:

AMERICAN BAPTIST RESOLUTION ON HOMOSEXUALITY

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.

Adopted by the General Board of the American Baptist Churches by Mail Vote - October 1992

Personally, I can't understand why homosexuality is any more contrary to Biblical teachings than divorce (without adultry) or divorse and remarriage. Both are lifestyle sins which are difficult to turn away from. In the case of divorce and remarriage, how can the situation be rectified? By divorcing your second spouse and remarrying your first?

How many in your congregation are caught up in this terrible sin (divorce)? My view is that we want to focus on somebody else's sin (the mote) and refuse to do anything about our own (the log).

 

I don't want to focus on anything you just gave me an example of liberal thinking in your denomination. I understand that your convention doesnt' control every church. It seems though that from what I read about Evergreen it was laid out with a mission statement that encourages "diversity". Well by allowing homosexuals to be members in churches without calling them into question be wrong. However I suppose according to your conventions' statement on homosexuality only those who "practice" homosexual sex are in contrary to christian teaching. I find that to be unscriptual. What is going to happen when one of those homosexuals in one of those churches finds true love with another man. Will the church then ask them to leave or be accepting. I say they will be accepting. If not their past actions would seem hypocritical. I have no problem with a saved,repented gay man or woman being a member.I do have a problem with one who is a member but just celibate. THat is an indication they are not willing to forsake their sin. Yes whether practicing or not practiceing homosexuality is a sin. The Bible says so.

I myself am not a southern baptist by the way. I grew up in the SBC . However God has led me into IFB circles as a missionary raising my support.

I'm sure you are a fine christian gentleman who loves the Lord but I personally don't agree with your conventions' thoughts on homosexuality.