Adventures in Odyssey...in a Monastery
Focus on the Family's Adventures in Odyssey, the kid's radio program, is promoting Contemplative Spirituality. The character in the story, Eugene, goes to a monastery. While there is asked whether or not he is willing to sit still and be quiet long enough to hear God speak to him through the silence. It sounds a bit mystical.
I've always thought God speaks to us through his Scripture.
I see some other problems with this too. In the story, those in the monastery come across as being very wise and spiritual. It is just assumed that a monastery is a safe place for a christian to be. Where is the discernment here? There is no mention at all of any distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism. Considering this, I would like to ask: What was the Reformation all about? What were the Truths that so many of the Reformers stood for which costs them their lives?
Is this what we want to teach our Protestant children.... that we can have fellowship with perhaps the most subtly deceptive religion in the world, Catholicism, and listen to God speak to us through the silence (found no where in scripture) as the desert fathers did so many years ago? Catholics are surrounded with erronous and blasphemous doctrines all through their religion from Transubstantiation of the Mass, to Mary as co-redemptress, to the Pope having authority over the Bible, to eliminating the second of the Ten Commandments. They need to be prayed for and shown the error in love, not embraced while ignoring their false teachings.
Ray Yungen's book A Time of Departing explains why things like this are happening today in the church.
THESE ARTICLES are also very informative on the infiltration of Contemplative Spirituality into the church.
See post on Lighthouse Trails' Blog.
posted by kennyo at 12:41 AM
14 Comments:
Kenny,
This is sooooo sad. Thanks for the bad news! Really thanks for your vigilance.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
How does one expose error without sin on his own part. I read in a previous blog the word vitriolic describing what the responder was reading. The first thing that entered my mind was his use of the word. It struck me as somewhat vitriolic or arrogant in its own right. Christ used strong words when he addressed hypocrisies but seemed to be far more gentle when addressing other sin. He did address Peter rather harshly when Peter tried to divert the Lord from His purpose to go to the cross. I am inclined again to go to scripture again here to find a possible response. Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
I can't help but wander if we are understanding this. I do not subscribe to all Dobson or any other man does. I do believe his faith in Christ is real and therefor he is my brother as are you and Mr. Nobel and my response to all of you should reflect that relationship as Paul describes in this letter. As to the issue of being still or quiet to hear from God, well I think there is scripture that would indicate there is value in that. Psalms 4:4 Be angry, and do not sin. Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still.
Psalms 46:10 be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!
Ecclesiastes 3:7 A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; I Peter 3:4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God., refers to a godly wife but can we say there is not as time when we should be quiet before the Lord and listen to Him? I don't agree a monetary is the place to go but caution against throwing the baby out with the dirty water. I am convinced the reason for the blog is not a direct attack on Dobson but a passion for the Church and it's purity. I applaud you that. If there is a caution here let it reflect the Lord's words to His disciples when he said, "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35. I refer once again Galatians 6:1.
In Him
HK
Hank,
What are you saying? Do you believe Kenny's warning about Adventures in Odessey lacks christian love? If so, I disagree. Please clarify.
-KCO
Keith,
My comment, 'How does one expose error without sin on his own part,' was rhetorical. I was responding to the blog on Adventures in Odyssey and comments of a previous blog about 'How to know if the Emerging Church is emerging in your church.' Jeff Noble said, “I hesitate to post here because the comments towards dissenters seem to be so vitriolic; however, the article posted is overly simplistic and reductionistic in its attempt to identify unbiblical trends.” I sensed Nobel’s words had their own ring of vitriolity but I digress. Also, I was assuming he felt Kenny was being ‘unloving’ or ‘vitriolic’ which may or may not have been an incorrect assumption. He also said “I believe that theology is best done in community.” I am in agreement with him, but why dismiss words from the community of faith that do not have all the polish and letters? Sometimes the remarks Kenny posts are strongly opinionated. (I have been accused of the same), and I do believe all the remarks on these blogs are of a strong and opinionated perspective, but I believe the source of his remarks comes from a genuine desire to serve the Lord and His Church. I respect what Kenny does. I am however, inclined to give Dobson more latitude in spite of some of his stances that I do not agree with. (He was recently taking some pretty heavy criticism from other evangelicals for his stance on the age of the earth.) In deference to Ken's words I agree that to endorse the postures of Rome or Emergent ideology is very dangerous. But all religions rely on elements of truth and just because Rome or the Emergent Church practices something does not automatically make it wrong. I believe we are to address each issue on its own right and check it against the Word. I caution all, myself included, to be motivated first by our love of God and His Church and to season our comments with that love. Thanks for your willingness to speak your heart.
Hank.
Keith,
My comment, 'How does one expose error without sin on his own part,' was rhetorical. I was responding to the blog on Adventures in Odyssey and comments of a previous blog about 'How to know if the Emerging Church is emerging in your church.' Jeff Noble said, “I hesitate to post here because the comments towards dissenters seem to be so vitriolic; however, the article posted is overly simplistic and reductionistic in its attempt to identify unbiblical trends.” I sensed Nobel’s words had their own ring of vitriolity but I digress. Also, I was assuming he felt Kenny was being ‘unloving’ or ‘vitriolic’ which may or may not have been an incorrect assumption. He also said “I believe that theology is best done in community.” I am in agreement with him, but why dismiss words from the community of faith that do not have all the polish and letters? Sometimes the remarks Kenny posts are strongly opinionated. (I have been accused of the same), and I do believe all the remarks on these blogs are of a strong and opinionated perspective, but I believe the source of his remarks comes from a genuine desire to serve the Lord and His Church. I respect what Kenny does. I am however, inclined to give Dobson more latitude in spite of some of his stances that I do not agree with. (He was recently taking some pretty heavy criticism from other evangelicals for his stance on the age of the earth.) In deference to Ken's words I agree that to endorse the postures of Rome or Emergent ideology is very dangerous. But all religions rely on elements of truth and just because Rome or the Emergent Church practices something does not automatically make it wrong. I believe we are to address each issue on its own right and check it against the Word. I caution all, myself included, to be motivated first by our love of God and His Church and to season our comments with that love. Thanks for your willingness to speak your heart.
Hank.
Thanks for your comments Hank.
True I do have strong opinions. My primary concern for thinkerup is for "contending for the faith", which I believe is being subtly attacked from many different areas.
I think we must test all things by scripture. I have benefited a great deal throughout the years from Focus on the Family but when they start to open the door in these areas, especially to children, I think they are getting into some spiritually dangerous tendencies.
When we consider what the Reformation stood for and the Biblical Truths for which many of the Reformers gave their very lives, I think we need to take these positions seriously and carefully consider where we are today in the contemporary church. Catholicism has not changed its doctrines since the time of the Reformation so what has changed since then?---THE CHURCH has changed. We have become more ecumenical, more accepting of errors. This I believe is reason for concern.
I am not saying that Focus on the Family condones everything in Catholicism but they seem to be OK with a Protestant attending a Catholic monastery.
Also, listening to God "in the silence" is a practice which derived from the "ancients" desert monks, not the apostles or Jesus. These are practices which are ladened with forms of mysticism and just so happen to be another one of the "trends" innodating the modern church today.
Being silent alone with God is not bad at all but no where in scripture are we to wait in silence to hear from God. This opens the door to all kinds of mystical experiences. It is not filling out minds with His Word as in Psalm 119.
I believe this is worth taking the time to research and understand if it is leading the church toward God or further away from him.
Hank,
Do you believe that the catholic church is wrong in their theology?
Has the devil gotten a strong hold In the catholic church ? If so where?
The devil in the garden sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about, he gave some of the truth but not all the truth and the result was DEATH .
Maybe that is why one needs to discern all things and test all the things.
I will never trust the devil if I see him in his true self ... he always is sneaking in the camp so you have to find him and expose him. Am I correct ? If not please calrifly.
There is so many " new " ways of exploring/experimenting " God " it is imposible to keep up with.
Two titles/names come to me first when I think of Satan:
1. LIAR
2. DECIEVER
Hi All,
I have a question for anyone to answer. Well, four actually.
1. What if Kenny (or anyone for that matter) exposed error while smiling, and laughing?
2. What if he (or anyone) exposed error while red-faced and so angry spit was coming down one corner of his mouth and his eyes were bugging out?
3. If he did it either way, are we any more or less obligated by God to repent if we are engaged in that error?
4. When we put unbiblical requirements on the man who loves his brother enough to reprove his brother, are we not like the Pharisees, making requirements that are not God's requirements, and then judging a man by an unbiblical standard for the mere purpose of proving him wrong and swelling our own pride?
Name one prophet or apostle that didn't tell of the anger of God. You can't. All of them showed his anger, too.
When we focus on the manner of the prophet instead of his message, we lie to avoid the truth. When we lie like that, we follow in the foot steps of the Pharisees who hated John for being too austere and Jesus for being to gregarious.
Shame on us for judging a speck we cannot see (the heart of the prophet) and leaving the log (our unrepented-of error) in our own eye! Shame on us for being so man-centered (ungodly, not God-centered) that we look for any excuse to excoriate the reprover, while excusing the properly reproved! Where in Scripture are we told not to obey the truth if we are offended by the manner of the prophet? NO PLACE!
Read Deuteronomy 18. There was only one criterion for evaluating the man of God--ACCURACY. NOT manner. And there was only one proper response of the people if the prophet was accurate, without regard to his manner--OBEDIENCE.
Is God not angry with sin? Is God not angry with the compromise and heresy in the church? Do you dislike the prophet if he is angry also? Then are you not also angry with God since He, too, burns with the zeal for righteousness?
I ten thousand times prefer an angry, sad, happy, or weeping man who tells the truth, than a coward parading as a man of God rubbing the syruppy sap of Evangelical "love" all over so as to cover up the sin in the Evangelical church today. Any man that can sit in today's Evangelicalism and be happy as a clam is a Laodicean blind man.
If sin does not anger you, you are not godly, you do not love God, and you do not love God's people or His kingdom.
"By this thing we know if we are loving the children of God, if God we are loving and His commandments we are doing. For this is the love of God to keep His commandments. And His commandments are not harsh."
I John 5:2-3.
And, yes, that was vitriolic.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Kenny,
Just something I got from Pyro. Thought you might enjoy it privately or otherwise.
We do not in any degree apologize because the shock,
like that of a cold bath early in the morning, will do the
people good, and strengthen their constitutions. We can
assure them that they cannot be one-half so much as
shocked by our ridicule of error
as we are by the error itself.
We do not make the evil, we only expose it;
and if we use words and symbols which strike and stick,
and even offend, we believe that they are necessary,
and ought to be used far more frequently.
We are not going to handle the abominations
of the present American establishment with kid gloves;
and if we judge sarcasm and ridicule to be deserved,
we shall give the Lord’s enemies their full quota of scorn.
Excerpt from The Sword and the Trowel, Vol 2'Rough Words for Great Evils'
In Christ,
Phil Perkins
The reason why Adventures in Odessy's episode is so serious, Hank and others, is because of the severe warnings from Jesus, recored in three of the gospels, as follows:
Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Instead of dancing around the real issue at hand, we need to be serious, direct and clear about the potential dangers of allowing our young to be misled into error!
-KCO
Kenny,
You have certainly hit a nerve. In answer to anon about my convictions on the Catholic Church. I will address his rhetorical question. I don't believe any Church visible is what the Catholic Church thinks it is. I certainly DO NOT believe that any man can assist God in saving his soul and I do not believe the Pope is Christ’s Vicar. I am inclined to believe the Assembly that calls itself Rome may indeed be the whore of Revelations because they have granted man glory that can only go to God. They have bowed in worship to Saints (Mary included) and for some reason have granted by their understanding of Scripture divine authority to other than Scripture. I pray only to God through Christ asking His Holy Spirit to grant me insight into even what to pray for although my prayer life I fear is abysmal and my understanding no more. Christ is the head of His Church as Paul writes to the Ephesians chapter 1 verse 15-23 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things (may I be so bold as to insert persons and places) under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church (Eklesia or assembly), which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Jesus defines His body, institutions and councils do not. Truly He calls His body to convene as He did in Acts 15 as Mr. Noble points out, to prayerfully address the hard questions and although I will not grant that bloggers have the place the councils do I am inclined to believe they have a place to (hopefully) prayerfully and respectfully reason together as a part of that beautiful Body that is Christ's. I am not so convinced of my wisdom and insight that I wish to pontificate but if there is a hill to die on, it is Calvary and it is done. I am in agreement with you Kenny that Focus on the Family’s story about going to a monastery was less than wise. But I am not convinced that it is unbiblical to set silently before the Almighty after asking him for wisdom. I am certainly apposed to any attempt to manipulate God rather than seek is face.
HK
HK,
You said, "Jesus defines His body, institutions and councils do not." He does so through Scripture, not mystically.
Here is the biblical problem with what FOF did: Telling someone to go be quiet before the Lord is fine if it is understood that it is to be done in an intelligent, thoughtful way and all experience is subject to Scripture. In today's culture, however, when you tell someone to go be quiet or to meditate, it is likely to be assumed that an Eastern style meditation with the minded emptied or perhaps even with chanting is the intent. FOF did not give any counter to this possibility.
AND they changed it from a possibility to a probability with the monastary. At the very least, they gave a mental snapshot to the kids that depicted Catholic monastic life and practice as good. THAT's just awful.
Scriptures makes clear that the practices of other religions should not be practiced among the assembly--Deut 12:29-31.
HK, this is important. I know--until recently I taught in a Bible college. I was let go because I opposed the Emergent. While there I was asked to use text books that push feminism, eco-paganism, and gender altered translations. While I was there, I know that some teachers dabbled in the mystical--Richard Foster was an author of the text book used in the spiritual disciplines class. This is not a generally accurate picture of the school, but it was seeping in. In many schools it's a flood.
SO--mysticism IS coming in. I wish I could put my arm over your shoulder when I ask, "Whose side will you be on, HK?" "He who is not with Me is against Me." "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels."
Conflicts like this will come. Each time, the true stay true, the false fall away, and the crowd takes the side that seems safest to them at the time.
Whatever each of us does at a time like this, that is likely to be on our hands when we see Jesus. Think about that carefully, my Brother. God bless.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
-
Phil,
What you said about practices and teachings from religions counter to the one true religion of the one true triune God is well stated and very helpful in clarifying things.
However, don't worry about HK (Hank) he IS on the Lord's side. Don't get the wrong impression of Hank. He walks the walk unashamedly and he talks the talk accurately and uncompromisingly as well. We know him personally and have seen it demonstrated in real life. But your overall point is understood. Thanks.
-KCO
HK and Keith,
I apologize. I misunderstood. (I'm old, remember?)
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Post a Comment
<< Home