Responding To A Nazarene Pastor’s Attempt To Discredit Bible Believers

Rev. Ulmet,

This letter is in response to your article (“I Am A ConcernedNazarene”) in the March/April edition of Holiness Today, the premier publication of the Church of the Nazarene which reaches Nazarenes across the world, in print and on the internet.  After reading it several times, I hardly knew where to begin to respond.  I do not especially like to correct a pastor who is in error.  It is not the first time I have had to do this, and it is never enjoyable.  A pastor is charged with the responsibility to lead and teach his flock as an undershepherd of the Great Shepherd.  But undershepherds are not perfect, they are susceptible to error like anyone else, and must be corrected when necessary, even by a layman without a theology degree.  (I recall the Bereans who were commended by Paul for making sure he was in line with Scripture, even though from the viewpoint of men, he was of greater stature then they).

You posted your article publicly, therefore this response must be public.  Please understand that this is intended for the purpose of correction, for reproof, to help you see the errors of what you have written to many Christians.  I have no animosity towards you, but many Nazarenes believe that what you and other pastors and college professors are promoting is very dangerous and unbiblical.  You have only succeeded in attacking and questioning the integrity and sincerity of many more than you know, but you have not succeeded in destroying their integrity.

There is no Matthew 18 imperative here to confront you in private.  When serious error is put forth publicly to Christians, it must be refuted publicly for the benefit of all, and for reproof and correction of the one who is in error.  Paul the apostle saw the need to correct Peter in public, because Peter had been promulgating incorrect teaching to other Christians.  Paul did not concern himself with Peter’s credentials as an original apostle of Jesus Christ; he did not worry about what others would say about him criticizing such a great man as Peter; he was only concerned with the truth, and correcting any false teaching, no matter who it came from.  And as I recall, Peter humbly took this public rebuke, and learned from it.  I pray that you do the same.

You said that you are a fourth generation Nazarene born into a Nazarene pastor’s family, the son of a district superintendent, and you have a BS and MS from Nazarene institutions.  I’m a second generation son of a Nazarene pastor who was rescued from the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church and who preached holiness for 50 years, and I have a BS and MS from non-Nazarene institutions.  But it really does not matter, does it, our heritage or educational pedigree?  Whatever credentials or background you or I have are irrelevant to any of these issues; let’s judge them only by the word of God.

There are a few areas I wish to address:

1. The Personal Nature of Your Attacks Against Many Nazarenes

This was I believe the most irresponsible thing you did, and for a pastor who is charged with greater responsibilities, it was doubly shameful.   What was worse was that not one of these words you used had one ounce of substantiation and had no documented information and proof.  Here are just some of the words you used to characterize a lot of Nazarenes:

“driven by categorization, guilt-by-association”;  “gotcha” tactics that more represent radical politics than anything remotely biblical, Christian, or certainly holiness”;  “Internet rumormongers”; “Salem-witch-hunt”; “Inquisition-type atmosphere”; “Our presidents…  are under direct and often slanderous attacks from various sources”;  “full of self-righteous piety”; “great derision and mistrust in the scurrilous E-mail exchanges”; “mistrust and gossip”; “no regard whatsoever to biblical conflict resolution principles”; “inflaming the emotions of the faithful”; “unjustly and manipulatively ratcheted up by the fully-aware bloggers”; “special-interest-political-action-group thinking”.

May I suggest that if you have even read the things we all have been saying, that you have simply ignored the substance, and resorted to your only strategy available: demonize those who disagree!  You said all these words simply because we are speaking out against what we believe to be false teachings according to God’s word?   With these words and more, what you have done is not only vilified the obvious and more visible “Concerned Nazarenes”, but you have attacked the integrity, honesty, and sincerity of the many Nazarenes who you do not know, and who have sent me many testimonies.  “These people”, as you refer to them, have written to me many times to tell me of the heartbreak they have experienced as they have watched their denomination of many generations slowly being infiltrated from within with false teachings like a cancer.  Some have told me of being demonized, of being called the divisive ones, and forced to leave their churches of many years, simply for daring to be Bereans and questioning the “new” teachings of their pastors.  Others have left the denomination because they could not find another Bible believing Nazarene church to go to.  Some still struggle on in their church, hoping that they can still make a difference.

These are the very people you speak of when you use those words.  Some of these godly and saintly people have served the Lord faithfully long before you were born, and for you to paint them all like this is an insult to them and their faithful testimony.  Most of them have risked a lot more than I have risked, including pastors who have stood up for the truth.  You have no idea what kind of destruction has occurred because of those who promulgate a theology of emergent openness to everything under the sun, which is doing nothing but watering down the Gospel, and is destroying our churches and our Christian universities.  You owe these people a sincere apology for the false words that were uttered in your attack piece, and you need to repent to God for painting them all in this light.

I quote here a former Holiness Today editor, the late Rev. William McCumber, who wrote in his book This Jesus:

“… I am troubled by “emergent theory” that is moving toward an “emergent church.” Leaders of this “conversation” or “movement” call themselves “post-modern” and I guess if you need a tag that one is about as good as another. My concern about them springs from their distortions of Scripture and their diminishing of Jesus …. More disturbing to me is the fact that the Jesus they talk about is not the Jesus of Scripture … Only the Jesus disclosed to us in the New Testament is relevant to our times and adequate for our salvation. To diminish Him is to destroy ourselves.”

I could give you further examples and quotes from God-fearing, Jesus-loving men and women of God in the Nazarene denomination, as well as other denominations who have rejected the godless ideology of the emergent church.  Perhaps someday, with their permission, I will publish their testimonies, as a witness to those who are siding with God’s word, not man’s word.  I prefer to be on their side of the issue, not yours.  I ask you, who then has been led by the Holy Spirit, and who has not? It can’t be both, can it? (See point #3).

After some people read your article at the Holiness Today FaceBook site, I was amazed at what some of them said, in spite of the caustic words you used to describe so many Nazarenes.  I have attached a running dialogue of that Holiness Today Facebook Discussion. Here are some of their words:

“ Excellent, Kevin!”
“ It was such a well-thought out, even-handed look at the whole issue. If anything could bring about true and charitable conversation, it would be this.”

“ Thank you for this timely article.”

“ This article is a needed statement that has been long in coming. I commend the editors of Holiness Today for the courage to publish what they knew would be a controversial article. The way in which many in the church have had to suffer under unfounded attacks often based on second hand information or on ignorance has been heartbreaking. I know that on my own district one church was divided by these unfounded attacks and a young pastoral couple suffered greatly because of it.”

“ I agree with you, David, an article meant to reconcile and bring civility has brought out such animosity, anger and personal attacks.”

“ Best article I have ever read in H.T. Maybe there is hope!”

“ No longer only saddened, now I am outraged that good pastors are being subjected to attacks such as this. I don’t even have words to express my disgust. It’s not a defense of truth or correct doctrine, but an outright assault on those who do not kowtow to a narrow interpretation. Pastor Ulmet, HT, thank you for the article. I might otherwise have never known the vitriol many of our pastors and professors are facing. Pastor Brickley is correct in that we have a way to settle differences. This is not it.”

And finally, Rev. Ulmet.  These are your words:

“We can handle these challenges in biblical ways. We can sit down and reason together.” (K. Ulmet)

You call this diatribe that you wrote a biblical way of handling these challenges?  This is how you like to sit down and reason together?  Have you actually taken up anyone on their offer to sit down and discuss these issues with you, in front of others, and let them decide for themselves?  I know others have accepted your offer, so let me do the same.  I would travel to a venue of your choice, let you select whomever you wish to help you, and bring the same number of people with me.  Sure, let’s sit down and not necessarily just reason together, but compare our ideologies and let others decide which is biblical.  Would you accept this challenge from someone who has no theology degree?

There have been quite a few “Likes” for your article on the HT FaceBook page.   It was more than 100 the last time I looked.  (There have been over 2,000 on the Holiness Today website).  And yet, these folks who complimented you somehow looked past the vitriol that flowed from your pen, and complimented you on how kind and loving and wonderful your words were.  They thought that this was a great example for others to see.  Yet, they switched on the condemnation immediately upon any Nazarene who dares to say a word against the ungodly movement called the emergent church.  Is this where our denomination is heading, that discernment is thrown out the window, and the ones who are insisting that we stand for biblical truth, and believe in the Bible, have become the enemy of the church?

It is no wonder that I truly believe that we are in the last days, and that satan has already started sending a great delusion into the minds of many Christians.

2. The Sol Alinsky-Like Tactics Of Diversion From The Facts

That being said, I want to also point out that this is no surprise to us.  This is a tactic that my friend John Henderson spoke of in his response, which is the tactic of personalizing the issue against your opponent, much like Sol Alinsky promotes in his book Rules For Radicals.  If you have no substantive argument against your opponent, just go after him personally, and divert the attention of your readers from the core issues, like the facts of the matter, and how they hold up to scripture.  Rev. Ulmet, I believe you are guilty of that tactic, but it’s no surprise, because I have yet to see one person who promotes this emergent foolishness defend his positions and beliefs using Holy Scripture, which is the ONLY source of authority for our Christian faith.  Our infallible authority is not the Church Manual, nor a professors’ theological musings; it’s nothing else but the word of God, and if the Church Manual goes against God’s word; we ought to correct it, not hold allegiance to it.

This diversionary tactic I have no doubt will fail, because the truth of God’s word will overcome the false attacks against those who love God and respect His word.

3. You Said That The Holy Spirit Prompted You To Write Your Words

You said in a posting to your congregation:

“This article was prompted by the Holy Spirit some months ago after observing for some time the tactics and approaches of a few who are critical of our denomination, our pastors and leaders, our Universities and other entities.”

And now compare this quote:

“After the truth was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit to be in obedience to God’s word, I went out determined to refute the emergent church and its’ false teachers in our denomination, exposing their tactics and approaches to as many Nazarenes as I could, in order to keep many from being deceived.” (A concerned Nazarene)

Rev. Ulmet, the prompting of the Holy Spirit never leads a man to error, because the Holy Spirit always leads a trusting believer into truth, and will never contradict the Scriptures.  If it does lead to error, then it is not the Holy Spirit.  It is another spirit that leads a man to say two opposites in one breath: that the Bible is God’s inspired word, BUT that it is also only inerrant in “matters that pertain to salvation.”

The implication from your “Holy Spirit” statement is obvious: since the “Holy Spirit” guided you to write what you did, then everyone should accept that all those who do not agree with you are wrong.  If that is the case, we ought to all repent of what we are doing, and join your “side.”  But wait, how does one determine who is correct, when two people claim the Holy Spirit prompted them to opposite conclusions?  One must compare what they claim with the word of God.  I will leave it to informed readers to make up their minds as to which statement is Holy Spirit inspired.

4. Your Own Words Tell Us That You Do Not Trust All Of Scripture

Quotes:  “To those who would deny full inspiration of all 66 books or dispute inerrancy “in all things necessary to our salvation” we must lovingly but firmly respond with our deep conviction of this Word being God’s Word!”  and  “We subscribe to God as Creator, the Bible as the fully-inspired and with regard to all things salvific the inerrant Word of God.”

I find it incredible that you start out with an affirmation of the inspiration of Scripture and that it should be defended firmly; but then you weaken that very affirmation by qualifying inerrancy as being only in regards to those things necessary to our salvation!  First, I reject that revision of our official statement because it reveals your distrust in all of Holy Scripture.  Secondly, who or what has given you or anyone else the authority to declare that Scripture is inerrant ONLY in matters of salvation?  And thirdly, who or what is the arbiter of what is or is not necessary for salvation?

You also seem to have an unusually high esteem of the Church Manual, perhaps too high.  You said: “our precious Articles of Faith”, and “”we must boldly declare our allegiance to Article IV of the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene.”  Perhaps that is the problem today in our church.  We are almost holding up the Church Manual as equal to Holy Scripture, and that surely we must hold allegiance to it, in spite of the fact that we fallible Nazarenes seem to change the meaning of that very Manual every four years!  So our final allegiance should only be to one set of words, and that would be the Holy Bible, not the Church Manual.

 5. Your High And Misguided View Of What Our Schools Should Teach Our Students

This I really had to address, because one of the major problems with our schools today, including our seminaries, is the reckless and careless teaching (all documented by the way) of unbiblical practices and ideas.  These are not taught as things to avoid, but as good things, and this is destroying the solid foundations these schools once had.  It is troubling what you said:

“But we must also remember that higher education requires exploration of many ideas and various traditions. Our professors must be supportive and encouraging of our theological and doctrinal positions, while also carefully leading students through a necessary and healthy process of critical evaluation, as well as personal growth and maturity.”

Unfortunately, the way you phrase this is not the way it is being done.  You and many of your colleagues instead promote and encourage an “anything goes philosophy under the guise of “we are a liberal arts institution.”  A Nazarene school should not be claiming to be a Nazarene school, if it does not reflect and teach its students the core values that the denomination says that it holds and teaches.  Under this excuse, our schools have introduced our students to dangerous teachings by Tony Campolo, Tom Oord, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and many others.  Instead of promoting the equipping of our students to combat and refute the false teachers, you promote the indoctrination of our students with these false teachings.

This pastor’s words reflect the same philosophy, which is what is coming out every year from our seminaries as they are being themselves indoctrinated with emergent (aka missional) ideology:

“A fine quality Christian Liberal Arts Education like the one you will find at Eastern Nazarene College, Northwest Nazarene University, Nazarene Theological Seminary… operate with an educational philosophy that equips the next generation of nurses, doctors, lawyers, ministers, business men and women, musicians etc. to engage our post-modern world as effective and exceptional young Christians.  The fact of the matter is that neither the world nor the church of the Nazarene operates under this closed system of thought that you have chosen for yourself and continue to promote with your e-mails and blog.  Some denominations and many bible colleges find it their purpose to operate within these strict confines and that is fine for them.  I believe they have a valuable place in God’s Kingdom.  But a liberal arts education and a missional church do not operate that that way”

That is exactly what is wrong today with many of our pastors and professors today, captivated by liberal post-modern thinking, in exchange for the simple truth of God’s word.

6. You Seem To Have An Aversion To “Test All Things, Prove That Which Is Right”

Quotes:
“Our ability to historically separate the biblical from the unbiblical-while at the same time loving the person and leaving the judgment to God…”
“Under the guise of protecting the church from ‘emergent ideas and concepts, whatever those are…”

“We can sit down and reason together.”

“Even when we disagree, we can do so agreeably without casting dispersion and eternal damnation on someone else.”

“discourage others from division…”

These are things that jumped out at me, so I ask you: as a pastor, do you not wish to preach the whole council of God?  I think we all know that at some point in time any Bible believing pastor is going to confront error filled beliefs or false teaching.  Are you saying that we should always just simply agree to disagree?  If so, you have an incorrect understanding of the many passages in Scripture that command us to reprove, rebuke, to even shun and cast out of the church, those who would cause divisions by their false teaching.  You see, the dividers are not those who are trying to keep God’s word pure.  The real dividers are the very people Concerned Nazarenes are fighting to either correct and lead to repentance, or if not, to make them leave the church so as not to cause any further harm to God’s people!

Another concerned Nazarene read your article and here is what he said about a few of your thoughts:

“Apparently the author considers ”emergents” mavericks that God has raised up to be used by God for His Glory and the advancement of His kingdom.  Really?  It is my opinion that none of the emergent leaders are in the class of those the author cited and I cannot believe the author includes the “emergent” leaders in his reference to “God’s servants” that are responsible for the “explosion of new and creative ideas” today.”

I assume also that is what you meant in your reference to mavericks, and if so, I believe that the “mavericks” of today do not come close to being called God’s servants.  In fact, in most of these mavericks’ cases, you will find a real disdain for the Bible, and a pick and choose attitude as to what is relevant.  They all ignore many parts, and particularly the passages that warn of false teachers, which is no surprise.

If you refuse to obey the Scriptural commands to expose and refute false teaching, you would be just as guilty as those who promote false teaching.  The only question left is, are you simply in error, or are you purposely and knowingly promoting the false teachings of the emergent church?  And so, your plea for Christians to stop using words such as “heretic” and “unorthodox” and “emergent” and “threat” should be ignored by Bible believers in exposing the dangers to the church.  We will not accede to this request to keep silent, for we will be as guilty as the watchman on the wall who fails to blow his trumpet at the sign of danger.

You were so correct when you said “our Wesleyan-Arminian and Holiness Movement history that have guided us well for over a century are under attack. Not from those outside our Christian faith, but from those inside.”  How right you were, but little did you know that this “inside attack” is coming from folks who are redefining John Wesley in ways that fit their emergent ideas.  This attack comes from those of you who reject true holiness and invent one that is based on social good deeds.  This attack is from those who reject the Bible as fully God’s word, instead qualifying it as “containing” God’s word.

My prayer is that those who are reading this will have a better understanding of what we are fighting.  I am fighting your ideas, not you personally.  However, since you are promoting these ideas, I have a responsibility to respond when these ideas run contrary to Scripture.  If you truly want to help out in these situations, then I suggest that the next time you write something, please use specific quotes and specific documented information if you are going to accuse a bunch of Bible believing Christians of such things that you have.  It is only fair, because what we strive to do is document everything, state what the person is saying or teaching- and make our opinion known based on the Bible only.

I conclude with these quotes of Dave Hunt, which reflect solid biblical doctrine and teaching:

“The Bible allows for no compromise, no discussion, no dialogue with the world’s religions (emergent) in search for common ground. Remember, Christianity is not a religion but distinct from all of them.

Jesus didn’t say, “Go into all the world and dialogue about faith. He said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.

A reasonable and genuine faith must take very seriously what Jesus said – not what somebody says about what Jesus said, but His very words as recorded in the Bible.”
(Dave Hunt, The Berean Call)

Manny Silva

Responding To Dr. Leth’s Open Letter To Manny Silva

[Dr. Carl Leth recently wrote “An Open Letter To Manny Silva” in response to my post about Olivet Nazarene University promoting contemplative spirituality. My response to that is below, followed after by the full text of his letter.]

Summary Statement:

Dear Dr. Leth,

1. Instead of attacking the stated facts in my article, you wrongly attacked the integrity and honesty of Stand For Truth Ministries (me) and of Lighthouse Trails Research. You attacked the messenger, but not the message!  I think you could have done better.

2. You did not give a biblical defense for Olivet allowing false teachers like Tony Campolo to speak to students unchallenged.

3. You did not give a biblical defense for Olivet using books by authors like Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster.

4. You demonstrated no Scriptural defense of “spiritual formation.”  Ironically, the only passage you used, Romans 12:2, is actually a reason for not allowing Tony Campolo to speak to the students at Olivet.  He is part of the world!

5. You wrongly accused Lighthouse Trails of some kind of deception.  You said: “But I do object to anonymous critique from people without identity or accountability. They operate – by choice – in the shadows.”  Well, you obviously missed the easy-to-find “Contact Us” section that lists David and Deb Dombrowski as the editors.  And you can further read their doctrinal statement, including the opening statement that the Bible is inerrant and historically accurate- a belief that is sadly lacking amongst many Nazarenes today, including many of our college theologians.

6.  John Wesley was not someone who promoted contemplative spirituality. (Although if he did, I would have called him out on it).

7. From your letter, I can only conclude that Olivet Nazarene University has at this time no intention of seriously looking at the implications of what it is doing by promoting contemplative spirituality (via “spiritual formation programs”).  That is why, unless their is a serious change, I do not recommend Olivet for any Bible believing Christian, as I do not recommend any of the other Nazarene schools and the seminary and Bible college as well.

8. I have no problem accepting your invitation to come and visit Olivet.  You can read my answer at the end.

Full Response:

Dr. Leth, although I still have serious disagreement with you on these issues, at least you have responded publicly, and I commend you for that.  Too many leaders in our denomination today are “operating in the shadows.”  The church needs to know the facts of where you and other leaders stand at all the colleges and seminaries, and make their decisions based on the answers.

You stated, “What you failed to mention was our exchange of multiple e-mails and an extended phone conversation discussing Dr. Campolo. You also neglected to mention the multiple page assessment of Dr. Campolo which I sent to you (and which I also shared with our University chaplain), discussing points of disagreement – and agreement – with your concerns.”

Any “omission” of our communications was done out of consideration for your statement of confidentiality, and certainly not to hide anything.  All your emails you sent me marked as confidential, including the one which had your assessment of Dr. Campolo attached.  Your disclaimer says: “This message is from the Office of Carl M. Leth at Olivet Nazarene University and is intended only for the recipient to whom it is addressed.  Please do not share or forward this e-mail without the permission of the sender.”

 So I honored that disclaimer.  If you wish, I would be glad to publicize all those emails that you stated were confidential, as well as your assessment of Dr. Campolo.  There was no failure or dishonest omission on my part, as is implied.

Secondly, I stand by my statement in which I said that you have no problem with Dr. Campolo.  Yes, you did write an assessment of Dr. Campolo that included some criticism, but the bottom line is this.  In allowing Dr. Campolo to come to Olivet, you (and the leadership) are okay with a false teacher coming to the Olivet campus and speaking unchallenged.  You know by now that Dr. Campolo promotes a whole lot of unbiblical ideologies, including contemplative mysticism, mantra prayers, and tacit support of the homosexual agenda.  By allowing him to speak, you (the leaders of Olivet) potentially allow him to poison the minds of your students.  That is irresponsible, and at least says that you and others are willing to tolerate the appearance of a false teacher on campus without giving anyone a chance to refute him at the same time.  I’ll let others decide for themselves whether that is wise or not.

Thirdly, you also said, “that “standing for truth” does not require basic courtesy, not to mention following biblical principles for dealing with matters of disagreement.”  I am not aware of any biblical principles I violated.  Surely you do not mean Matthew 18, which does not apply here.  You are a public figure, whose words are read by hundreds of students at a time at Olivet.  A public response to you or any other public figure is absolutely appropriate.  We warn you and the leadership of what your school is allowing.  I am duty bound by God’s word to point out the errors publicly, for the sake of the students who attend your school, and for those who may attend.  I see no biblical basis for keeping my mouth shut publicly.  On the other hand, it would be reckless for me to not give out any warning as Olivet continues on this course.

You Question My Integrity, and That Of Lighthouse Trails

In spite of my serious disagreements with you, I had not (until now) questioned your integrity because I have not had any concrete reason to do so.  I do question your ideas.  I know that you sincerely believe in what you do, although I believe you are sincerely wrong.  A person can be in error and still be a person of integrity.  Yet you are questioning my integrity and my honesty, as well as that of the Lighthouse Trails writers.  That is a disappointment to me, and I believe it is an improper unscriptural judgment of me, Lighthouse Trails, and anyone else who has an opinion of what Olivet is teaching.  And it results , intentionally or otherwise, in trying to deflect away from the facts, which you never refuted.

You said:  “standing for truth” does not require speaking truthfully” …. “It revealed that “standing for truth” does not require a very high standard for truth. The critique of Olivet in a broad, sweeping stroke, was based on the posting of “Lighthouse Trails Research” which you trust and “commend.” 

 I commend and stand by Lighthouse Trails and the work they do, and I stand by my work as well. We bring facts out in the open, and we give our opinion.  Were these facts inaccurate about Olivet?  If so, which stated facts are in error, and why?  Frankly, what you object to is not the facts, but my conclusion as well as LHT’s conclusion, that Olivet is promoting contemplative spirituality.

And it does not matter whether LHT has a Wesleyan background!  John Wesley did not write the Bible!  What matters is if what they post is the truth, and there has been no refutation of any facts, and no biblical justification given for allowing these false teachers to influence our students.  I have no formal theological training, but God has given me the discernment to see what is false, and what is truth.

So I am very disappointed at your accusation that both Lighthouse Trails and myself are lacking in integrity and honesty.  This reminds me of the same technique used by my former pastor, when he did not like hearing the truth from me and could not refute a single thing I wrote.  I’ve seen this often.  When some people can’t refute the truth, they simply try to destroy the integrity of the messenger!  I am not perfect, but my conscience is clear before God.  Is yours?

I suspect that not one theology professor at Olivet, nor any other Christian university, can defend in a biblical manner the ideology of such writers as Henri Nouwen, Richard Foster, Tony Campolo, and many others.  They all share one thing in common, and that is the rapidly growing phenomenon of “spiritual formation.”  I would challenge your professors to come up with a biblical defense for the use of Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster books.  If not, they ought to throw it all out.  Sadly, those who are on the spiritual formation bandwagon are using contemplative practices that are unbiblical and that teach Christians that if they are quiet enough, the voice of God will speak to them; that if they practice “the silence” they will get closer to God.

Dr. Leth, you and some of your colleagues including some at our seminaries, are trying to justify the positive use of books by men who promote doctrines of demons.   We should not be trying to confuse people by saying we can take the good from these men, and throw out the bad.  That is not biblical at all.  You are trying to justify contemplative spirituality, and denying that it is what you call spiritual formation.  Spiritual formation programs are a Trojan horse bringing in contemplative mysticism. You say mystical expressions are okay.  I would ask, how does one know that any of those mystical expressions are from God, or from Satan?  How do I tell which is it? You seem to be pretty much on the same page as Tony Campolo, who said:

 “We must pay serious attention to mystical happenings, and discern, in the context of biblical understanding in Christian community, whether or not we believe they are of God. Discernment is crucial to mystical spirituality. Without it, anything goes. On the other hand, we must learn to doubt our doubts if we are going to be open to the work of the Spirit in our lives” (The God of Intimacy and Action, p. 11).

Finally, you said: “And I categorically reject the position attributed to Nouwen suggesting that there could be any other way to God.” 

How can it be clearer?  In his own words, Nouwen said:

“Today I personally believe that while Jesus came to open the door to God’s house, all human beings can walk through that door, whether they know about Jesus or not. Today I see it as my call to help every person claim his or her own way to God” (Sabbatical Journey, New York: Crossroad, 1998, p. 51).

Dr. Leth, let me make it clear: I have nothing personal against you or anyone at Olivet or any of the other colleges.  I believe you and your colleagues have good intentions.  God has long ago removed any personal resentments from my heart.  But I am saddened that the current position of Olivet leadership seems to be one of either denial, or refusal to repent.  I call on you and the leaders of the school to reject the use of these false teachers as good resources, to reject the spiritual formation which is a trojan horse for contemplative spirituality, and to get back to the Bible and nothing else as your source of truth.  It is a call for repentance from what is slowly destroying the Nazarene denomination.  It is a call to turn back to obedience to the inerrant word of God.

Your Invitation to Visit:

Regarding your invitation to come to Olivet.  I would be glad to come sometime with a colleague and have a dialogue with two of your best theologians, in front of all the students in chapel, on the merits of contemplative spirituality (spiritual formation).  I think something like that would be very interesting, and would allow someone like me, who is not seminary trained, to make my case.  I would only be armed with my knowledge of Scripture, my knowledge of those who promote contemplative spirituality, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Besides, would this not reflect the spirit of academic discourse and freedom, and sharing of ideas?

So consider this reply a Yes to your offer for me to visit the campus and speak to your students.  After all, if Tony Campolo, a non-Nazarene, can speak to them, why not a lifelong Nazarene like me?

Sincerely,

Manny Silva

* Additional comments have been added in red within your letter below:

ORIGINAL LETTER FROM DR. LETH

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:29:47 -0800
Subject: An Open Letter to Manny Silva

An Open Letter to Manny Silva

(Please note: This letter will also be published on EpworthPulpit.com)

Dear Manny,

You recently issued a sweeping online critique of Olivet Nazarene University which you sent to Dr. Bowling and myself.  I was saddened and disappointed to receive it. But not by what it had to say about Olivet. It was what it revealed about Stand for Truth Ministries.

It revealed that “standing for truth” does not require speaking truthfully, or at the very least, is not averse to misleading statements. You wrote, concerning Tony Campolo’s visit to speak in chapel, “I sent my concerns to Dr. Carl Leth, dean of the School of Theology, but apparently he has no problem in having Dr. Campolo speak there.” What you failed to mention was our exchange of multiple e-mails and an extended phone conversation discussing Dr. Campolo. You also neglected to mention the multiple page assessment of Dr. Campolo which I sent to you (and which I also shared with our University chaplain), discussing points of disagreement – and agreement – with your concerns. In the end, our differences were less about the areas where Dr. Campolo is on questionable grounds than the severity of that critique. I shared your concerns about several positions Dr. Campolo advocates but I did not conclude that they disqualify him from speaking at all. That is a different conclusion from yours but hardly constitutes having “no problem” with Campolo.

It revealed that “standing for truth” does not require basic courtesy, not to mention following biblical principles for dealing with matters of disagreement.  In my multiple exchanges of communication with you I have tried to understand your concerns and respond to them in a serious manner. While we do not agree on every issue I want to honor your concerns and perspective. In those multiple (and wholly congenial) exchanges I repeatedly asked you to contact me if you had any concerns about what we were doing at Olivet. “If you have a concern please let me know.” I extended my personal invitation to Olivet to communicate your concerns directly, offering to personally serve as your host. You have my e-mail address and my personal phone number, both of which you were invited to use freely. Yet this latest, sweeping, critique came without any prior contact from you. Perhaps any explanation I would have made would have been unsatisfactory to you. But it would have been a gesture of simple courtesy to give me that opportunity.

It revealed that “standing for truth” does not require a very high standard for truth. The critique of Olivet in a broad, sweeping stroke, was based on the posting of “Lighthouse Trails Research” which you trust and “commend.”  So I went to Lighthouse Trails to learn a bit more about my accuser. What I learned was almost nothing. The editors of Lighthouse ministry shine a bright light on folks they disagree with but remain, themselves, in the shadows. The site includes a tab “about us” but it does not include any names, credentials, or church affiliation. Instead, the site freely identifies their purpose as for-profit book sales. I have no objections to free enterprise or book sales. But I do object to anonymous critique from people without identity or accountability. Do they have any meaningful theological training? Are they from the Wesleyan Holiness tradition? Are they active in a local church? Is there an accountability community that can vouch for their character and integrity? I am not presuming negative answers to any of these questions. I am simply noting that I have no basis on which to offer any kind of answer to them. The writers of Lighthouse Trails may be well-trained churchmen, deeply grounded in the Wesleyan holiness tradition and their understanding of our tradition, and persons of high personal, spiritual and moral character. I simply have no way to know. They operate – by choice – in the shadows.

Nevertheless, they have been installed as the authoritative theological source for assessment of the Church of the Nazarene and Olivet Nazarene University whose judgment is accepted without question by Stand for Truth Ministries.
Dr. Leth, I have many reliable sources of information that I use, besides LHT, and I also do my own research and also verify the information.  But how would you know I accept LHTs words without question?  And please tell me, which facts that they reported were incorrect?  Did they not use Richard Foster’s book, and Nouwen’s books, in some courses?  Did not the VP of SPiritual Life favorably quote Nouwen?  Which facts were incorrect?

Among the faculty of Olivet’s School of Theology and Christian Ministry we have over 200 years of ministry experience – on the mission field, as pastors, in local ministry staff positions. I have, myself, over 25 years of pastoral service, including four years in Missions. I have been entrusted with leadership roles on districts where I have served – District Advisor Board, chairman of the district Finance Committee, chairman of the Ministerial Credential’s Board. You can read what I have written, identified by name, in multiple publications easily available to the public (including EpworthPulpit.com). You can hear me preach any Sunday at the multi-cultural church I pastor (as a bi-vocational pastor) in downtown Kankakee. My credentials, experience and service are readily available for public assessment. But for Stand for Truth Ministries none of that matters the moment an anonymous, for-profit, online bookseller makes a condemning critique. That is the standard of truth.  No sir, the standard of truth is Jesus Christ, and His word, the word of God!

LHT is NOT anonymous, and you should correct that and apologize for saying that.  They even explain why they are for-profit, but even so, what s wrong with for profit?  Can they make a living, just as a pastor needs to get some income as well?  Do you earn income for what you do?

As far as your credentials, they look really good to me.  But is that the standard for Christians before they can discern what is right and what is wrong?  Does that mean no one is qualified to discern unless they have gone to theological school and received a degree?  Please read Psalm 119:99 and you will know that is not necessarily the case.

About Olivet

So much for what this reveals about Stand for Truth Ministries. Let me respond to the substance of your expressed concern. The general concern about “spiritual formation” reflects a misunderstanding about what spiritual formation is. You assume that anything identified as spiritual formation must be, or lead to, inappropriate forms of mysticism or non-Christian spirituality. This is simply mistaken. The disciplines of spiritual formation have been a part of the Christian community from its beginning. They reflect the intentional formation of practices and patterns of life to reflect and honor Christ’s lordship. They include practices of prayer, reading Scripture, worship, giving, and service. John Wesley did not use the term “spiritual formation” but emphasized the practices of spiritual formation as “means of grace.”

John Wesley, as far as I know, would not be involved with the kind of spiritual formation being promoted in the universities today, in many of our churches.  But… if he did, I suppose I would have to call him out on it as well.  The attempt to re-write the history of John Wesley, such as the claims of some that he was the first emergent, is outrageous!

The Wesleyan holiness understanding of God’s work of salvation has always included an emphatic insistence that this must include a radical change of life. Justification cannot be the experience of the believer without regeneration, newness of life, or initial sanctification. This means that life change is part and parcel of the New Birth. We must live in a new way. And this includes learning new habits and patterns of life. We need to learn to read the Word, spend time in prayer, spend time just listening to God, learn to act in new and different ways – like learning to serve others and spending time in the fellowship of the church.

All we need is the instructions God has given us in scripture.  We MUST NOT use “new and different ways” if they contradict God’s word.  But your examples certainly are not new.  Serving others, fellowship in the church- those are nothing new, although they are biblical.  Practicing the silence is not.  Using books by heretical authors as good resources are not.   Placing ashes on the forehead are not.

It is the expression of living worship. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will.” (Romans 12:2)

That is one of the points I have been trying to make!  Do not conform to the world!  Henri Nouwen, Richard Foster are part of the world!  Run away from them- don’t embrace them!

This work of life transformation is God’s work, a gift of grace, but it is not done without us. We are called to participate with God’s gracious work in us. And just because it is grace does not mean that the work is not sometimes hard work on our part. We emerge from lives of sin and the powerful influence of this world with deeply ingrained patterns of thinking and habits of life. We have to re-learn how to think of ourselves, what we value, how to use our resources, how to work through our hurts and grievances. All of this is part of God’s work in our lives to make us holy. All the “work” we do is participating in God’s sanctifying work in our lives. This is what “spiritual formation” must always be about – being made holy, reflecting the image and character of the Christ to whom we belong.

This is the work we are purposing to do. No mystic spiritualism. No inner divinity. Richard Foster claims that EVERY human being can be a portable sanctuary for contact with God.  EVERY human being, not just Christians. No universal spiritual being. Just forming hearts and lives around the heart and life of the One who gave himself for me. He alone is our life. He alone is our hope. He alone is the One we seek.

Let me add a word about the language of mysticism. It is easy for someone to misunderstood what is being said when calling for a movement from “moral” to “mystical” Christian experience. There are Christian traditions that see the Christian life as primarily a kind of moral living. Being Christian is, essentially, following the moral standards found in Scripture or expressed by the church. The life of the Christian is a life of compliance with the Law or the Church. “Mystical” expressions of Christianity have called people to a personal experience of God, a living personal relationship that does not require the mediation of a priest or the institutional church.

How is “Mystical” expressions biblical?  Please explain how mysticism is encouraged or taught in Scripture.  Nouwen said this:  “Through the discipline of contemplative prayer, Christian leaders have to learn to listen to the voice of love. … For Christian leadership to be truly fruitful in the future, a movement from the moral to the mystical is required” (In the Name of Jesus, pp. 6, 31, 32).  How is this scriptural?

In this sense, we of the Wesleyan holiness tradition have always been “mystical.” We have never believed that being Christian is, essentially, about the Law.  Dr. Leth, let me explain what being a Christian means.  Being a Christian is this: someone who has repented of his sins, and placed his faith in Jesus Christ.  He has turned away form his sinful path, and now turns to obedience to Christ.  How do you obey Christ?  Simply by following His word, His law if you will.  Jesus said it Himself: if you love me, keep my commandments.  He did not say, if you love me, become a mystic and experience by practicing the silence.

It is about a personal encounter with the living God. It is what every altar in every church calls out. God, Himself, may be met here.

This is a description of the experiential philosophy of the emergent church and the mystics of today.  That you can “experience” God.   However, this is very subjective, and there is not clear way for us to discern whether someone’s “persona” experience is genuine or not, or if it is demonic.

In this sense I am glad to be called “mystical.” In fact, I refuse to be anything else. As I write this response I am listening to the song that asks, “Does Jesus care when my heart is pained too deeply for mirth and song, as the burdens press, and the cares distress, and the way grows weary and long?” And my heart is encouraged by the ringing refrain, “O yes, He cares; I know He cares!…I know my Saviour cares.”  I know because I have met Him, I know Him. The Christian life is to follow Him and to know Him. This is the “mysticism” we value here at Olivet.

We follow and know Him by knowing His word.  Otherwise, your mysticism and my mysticism can be totally different, and again, how can I tell whether your experience is valid or not?  Or whether the “mystical experience” of 1000 different students at Olivet is valid or not.

That is not to say that any mysticism will do. Absolutely not! Only a life grounded in the life of Christ has found Life. And I categorically reject the position attributed to Nouwen suggesting that there could be any other way to God. There is no other Way, no other Truth, no other Life.

Where is any scriptural support for mystical experiences that can somehow be achieved by our efforts?  All the mystical experiences documented in the New Testament were initiated by God- not by Paul or anyone else going through some kind of procedure or ritual.

Moving Forward

I want to take you and your concerns seriously – as I have tried to do from the beginning. I will ask our faculty who are using Nouwen to carefully consider the texts they are using. I will ask them, specifically, to explore the suggested pluralism in the source you attribute to Nouwen.

They know what Henri Nouwen believed and taught.  There should be no question but that they should immediately remove his material, as well as Richard Foster’s, from the curriculum.  However, I do not fault Olivet alone on this.  I was ashamed to see Richard Foster’s book at General Assembly, AND in a prayer room, which was doubly shameful.

We want to avoid any suggestion that we affirm mystical spirituality or hope of salvation that is not grounded in the life of Christ alone.

But that is what the Nazarene denomination is doing right now, seeking “experiences” instead of remaining int he word of God.  It is no longer sufficient for them.  They must seek more new ways of getting close to God.  That is an insult to the sufficiency of placing our faith in Christ, and relying on His word.

We will not, however, abandon the enterprise of spiritual formation as I have described it. To do so would be to fail to be faithful stewards of the responsibility entrusted to us.

I’m sorry to hear that.  May the Lord bring conviction to you all and repentance from this path that Olivet seemingly has chosen.  It is the wrong way to go.

Nonetheless, I want to repeat my earlier offer to you. You are welcome to visit Olivet at any time as my guest. I will personally serve as your host and we will work to arrange meaningful opportunities for dialogue with you. If you are unable to visit the campus but have concerns you would like to express please communicate them to me and I will try to address them. In whatever we do let us try to honor Christ and be honoring to each other for his sake.

I’ll be glad to come, if I will be allowed to speak to the students in chapel, just as Tony Campolo was.

Ashes To Fire: Baby Step To Apostasy And Spiritual Damage

Ashes To Fire is another baby step to apostasy.  If Christians are waiting for Satan to get right in their face and say, “here is the false teaching I am spreading, here are the evil doctrines that I want you to believe” – they don’t understand Scripture.  What Satan does is mix 99% good with 1% evil, and so he appears as an angel of light to the unsuspecting, undiscerning Christian who has not been grounded in the word of God, or has lost his grounding.  He hooks you in with something that looks good. It’s no wonder that even some of the most well known and once solid, doctrinally sound preachers and teachers that we know, have now themselves been corrupted by doctrines of demons.

The infiltration of heresy is so much clearer to me now, looking back.  I was taken in by it.  I became highly aware of it after leading a small group study of the Purpose Driven Life book.  After the group ended, some things just did not sit right with me about Rick Warren’s book.  Soon I discovered the book was full of scripture twisting gymnastics, quoting of New Agers, and convenient use of verses from The Message, a paraphrase (not a translation) of the Bible with its own occultic references.  I remember apologizing later to a fellow employee to whom who I had given the book.

Darkness and Gloom

But it had already started a few years back.  Now I can see what was happening.  Have you ever been to a Maundy Thursday service?  Well, the one I attended at my church was held almost in total darkness, with a few candles, and loud banging noises to simulate the crucifixion, to get you in the right “mood”.  And you were told that as soon as the service ended, you were to walk out solemnly in total silence.  I remember some folks scolding others for whispering; they took it quite seriously, as if it was a biblical mandate.  That was Maundy Thursday.  Never saw it before in my many years as a Nazarene, certainly never experiences such a dark, somber event, and I hope I never do.  But I went along with it, even though it seemed a bit strange.  I remember my father-in-law was not at all comfortable with it, describing it as Roman Catholic-like.  His discernment antennae were already up a long time ago, as I found out later.

“In the emerging culture, darkness represents spirituality. We see this in Buddhist temples, as well as Catholic and Orthodox churches. Darkness communicates that something serious is happening.”  Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church, p. 127

Rituals and “Experiencing God”

Then came the rest over the next several years, a little at a time; the new emphasis on Advent services, Lent, Ash Wednesday, the lighting of candles again.  I guess it seemed okay to me at first.  Then there were the books given out to church leaders.  For example,  “Experiencing God” by Henry Blackaby.  Turned out he is a mystic who promotes contemplative prayer. Then I spotted the Henri Nouwen books, and many of his sayings were written in several Advent booklets.  Nouwen was a universalistic Roman Catholic monk who in his final book wrote that his desire was to help everyone find their own way to God.  So why is his book being given away by pastors?  Then the Rob Bell and Richard Foster material and videos that were used for Wednesday night “Bible” study.  Whatever happened to real Bible study?

“This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true.”  Rob Bell

A Full Stomach, A Clean Planet, But Empty Souls

Then there is the increased involvement in community service such as food banks, with little focus on feeding the gospel to the people.  Then there is the new terminology being used, like the “Eucharist” instead of communion.  And then there are the ecumenical services with Roman Catholic or Episcopal churches that still continue with my old church.  I attended one of them initially, but it did not feel right, not for me or my wife.  She said how could she sit there in the service and be praying to Jesus, while the woman next to her is perhaps praying to “Mother Mary?”   Why do we do this now in even more Nazarene churches, where we fellowship with folks who are in darkness, and then just simply walk away after the service, leaving them still in darkness?  Are we not to be a light to them?  What is wrong with us?  Is this how we show our love for people who are in serious error?

“My sense is that “what is trying to be born” in the pregnant Christian faith will involve a convergence of Roman Catholic, Evangelical/Charismatic, and Mainline Protestant Christians (along with, I hope, some Eastern Orthodox as well).” Brian McLaren, from his website

And how can I forget the worst District Assembly service (in 2009) my brother and I ever attended, when we heard two songs that were more fit for a Wiccan service, or perhaps an environmental conference, than for a worship service; we saw video advertisements for cleaning up the environment; packets called “I’m A Naz-a-Green” passed out to the youth; and the District Superintendent recommended a heretical novel, The Shack, as a great missional book for pastors.

We “ought to read Revelation through environmental eyes.”  Dan Boone, M7 Conference.

Looking back, I see how it all was coming together.  It’s all part of the road to Rome.  Come back to the Mother Church, and many Nazarenes are tripping over themselves falling for this.  And I did for a while, but I am thankful for the grace of God and His mercy in opening my eyes.  And He did not speak to me directly in an audible voice while I practiced the silence.  He simply told me in His word, guiding me to the truth through the Holy Spirit.

Ashes To Fire: The Latest Tool Of  The “Angel of Light”
 Ashes to Fire is in its second year, and fits in nicely with the big plan to join with Rome. Most will fall for its allure and not see the big picture.  It is just a matter of time when at your local Nazarene church (unless it is led by a pastor who does not bow the knee to Baal) you may have to decide whether to go up and get ashes put on your forehead, or to flee, or worst yet- sit there and say nothing.

This year’s Ashes To Fire YouTube video, from Beacon Press, omits any reference to ashes on the forehead, which is seen on last year’s video promo that was created by Nazarene Publishing House.  From their website, you can download instructions (Planning Resources) on how to set up a prayer walk at your church.  Perhaps your church will do that this year.  Will you follow along with it, just to get along with what your pastor wants?  Will you be drawn in to seek that EXPERIENCE?

Ashes to Fire is just another of the many feel-good EXPERIENCES you now can have, courtesy of the compromisers who have invaded the church.  And so, with all the other “new ways”, you now may have the opportunity as a Nazarene to:

- Do a prayer walk (labyrinth),

- Walk a prayer labyrinth (same as prayer walk)

- Do a prayer station (Stations of the Cross),

- Use prayer beads (rosary),

- Light a lot of candles,

- Sit in darkness more often,

- Proclaim the bread and wine as the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation),

- Repeat scripture over and over without gaining understanding (mantra),

- Join with priests and nuns in a retreat to practice the silence,

- Put ashes on your forehead,

- Replace the Bible with Love Wins by Rob Bell,

- Sit in silence while waiting for the voice of God,

- Pray alongside someone who trusts in works for their salvation,

- Feel like you did something good after you prayed alongside someone who trusts in works for their salvation,

- Work at the community food bank and not once give the gospel to the poor empty soul with the full stomach who is heading straight to hell.  But you will feel good.

The Apostates Among Us

THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED APOSTASY.  This is a small portion of what has been ushered into the church.  Some of these people were not compromisers before, but they have been seduced by “deceiving spirits”. Some of them are leaders in our universities and in our pulpits who have facilitated this deception to our youth.  And they wonder why we are so “divisive?”   The answer is simple: they are the real dividers who are damaging the body of Christ, and they need to repent, or to be expelled from our fellowship.  The other thing we need to do is pray that even now, those being introduced to these things for the first time, will have the discernment, and will heed the warnings we are sending out.

Additional resources:

Prayer Stations, Dark Sanctuaries, and Multi-Sensory “Worship” (Lighthouse Trails Research)

The Emerging Church: Another Road To Rome  (Roger Oakland)

NPH Endorses Catholic Practice Of Ashes On Forehead

No Resurrection? False Doctrines? No Big Deal To Emergent Nazarenes

The following are a few excerpts from a recent thread on NazNet, a Nazarene website for theology discussions.  There are quite a few pastors as well as professors there.  The founder of the site, Dave McClung, is chairman of the Commission on the Nazarene Future, and a former president of Eastern Nazarene College.  It seems he has no problem allowing just about anything to be promoted on this site.  I found much of what I was reading to be unbelievable, so here are some of their thoughts on several subjects. If they are proud of what they write, I’m happy to help the rest of the Nazarene community know it more widely and let them make up their minds about these teachers.   The first topic was a discussion about theologian and writer Marcus Borg. 

 

Part 1: From the Marcus Borg discussion:

Dennis Bratcher, professor of theology at Point Loma Nazarene University:

“What is really irksome about people like Marcus Borg (TIC), is that correct belief is not a condition of being Christian. Of course they ought to be more “orthodox” (generally meaning that they believe like I do). We just have a hard time getting past the idea that someone who does not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus can still be a recipient of God’s redeeming grace and live in relationship with God. It’s a good thing, too, I think, since I have heard at least two prominent Nazarene theologians say basically the same thing as Marcus Borg, as well as a couple of pastors.”

I wonder if Dr. Bratcher would care to name names?  If that is true, these theologians have no business being theologians, and they would also be heretics on a par with Marcus Borg.  And if Dr. Bratcher agrees with them, he has no business being a theology professor at a Christian school.  And those couple of pastors should also give up their credentials.  I find it amusing yet also sad that statements such as this are always given a pass, but if an ordination candidate makes the claim that he believes in scriptural inerrancy (such as at least one in my New England District) he is told he would not be ordained).  The world is turned upside down yet again.

Bratcher again:

“And before we are too quick to quote 1 Cor 15:14 as the final proof, perhaps we should also think of other passages like John 20:31, 1 John 5:1, and dozens of other passages that point to Jesus himself as the object of saving Faith, not to a set of propositions no matter how true.

Now, let me be clear. I think Marcus Borg is wrong about a lot of things. But as Wesley pointed out, most of us are just as guilty of believing faulty notions. That is why, even though we strive to grow and mature in the Faith, correctness of belief cannot be the judge of salvation no matter where we set the bar or how important the doctrines are that we define as essential. Salvation is by grace through faith, and the object of that Faith is Jesus who is the Christ. That is much different than drawing the boundaries of Christianity, as important as that is. Of course we must define Christianity theologically. But we cannot use those definitions as arbiters of people’s relationship with God. If we do, we all might have a lot about which to be concerned.”

A typical thing that these folks do is to say, “well, I don’t agree with much of what he teaches…”, but they rarely give examples.   Dennis Bratcher knows that Marcus Borg does not believe in the physical resurrection of our Lord Jesus, but he seems to think that this is not important.  He rejects the clear statement of 1 Cor 15:14, apparently.  The next step in unbelief perhaps is to then not believe Jesus existed other than in the minds of the early Christians.  Perhaps Jesus is just a metaphor, as Marcus Borg often uses this kind of argument regarding historical accounts in scripture regarding the resurrection and the events around it.

But, “just believe in Jesus, and don’t worry about obedience to Him, don’t worry about doctrine”, is their mantra.  These false teachers make the standard argument over and over: all you have to do is say you believe in Jesus.   Don’t worry about right doctrine.  It’s not important!  That way, they can make up their own theology and their own doctrine!  Talk about freedom.

Mr. Bratcher should be reminded that even the demons believe, and yet they tremble.  (James 2:19).  He claims to believe, and then says, in effect, doctrine means nothing.

Another NazNetter, also an ordained elder, says:

“Borg is a world class scholar, and Wright – though vocal about his disagreements with him – will say over and over again that he has the utmost respect for Borg as a scholar. Same with Dom Crossan… Personally, I absolutely love Borg. I also think that his work with the Resurrection as myth is better than any other…”

Who is Dom Crossan?  John Dominick Crossan is a member of the infamous Jesus Seminar, as is Borg, and he believes that our Lord Jesus Christ was probably eaten by wild dogs and buried in a shallow grave.  For an ordained Nazarene elder to admire a heretic like Marcus Borg who was part of a disgraceful bunch of unbelievers as the Jesus Seminar, instead of warning about him and exhorting others to stay away from him, is also shameful.

For more on Marcus Borg and The Jesus Seminar:
Marcus Borg Attacks the Inerrancy, Historicity and Inspiration of the Bible

Marcus Borg: A Critique

Who Does The Jesus Seminar Really Speak For?

 

Part 2: From the Roman Catholicism Discussion:

In this discussion, the initial commentator mentions problems he sees with some of the Roman Catholic Church beliefs, and he asks: “How do we see their theology, can there be any sort of coming together doctrinally?”

Some responses from other NazNetters follow, keep in mind again many of them are ordained elders in the COTN.  Some who are very familiar with the Roman Catholic Church and its history, have also pointed out to me how these NazNetters do not even have an accurate understanding of RCC history, and it makes me wonder if they are deliberately lying about the factual statements that some made in contradicting their claims that the RCC can be considered a Christian group.

“As long as Catholics affirm the historic creeds of the church, I think we would have a hard time saying they aren’t Christian.”

“Penance is one of the seven sacraments, a means of grace, preparing for receiving the Eucharist.”

 “Scripture is tradition. Therefore, I would say the RCC is right – tradition and scripture are equal. Also, Scripture is contradictory. Why should that be a problem in the tradition?”

“Christ gives to the Church the power to forgive, and the authority to withhold forgiveness.”

“All Priests, RCC, EOC, Protestant, whatever… as representatives of Christ to the people of God have the authority and power to forgive, and likewise the authority to withhold forgiveness – to a certain degree – per John 20:23.”

“Thus when we pray our prayers of confession in each of our regular services, we as Ministers “acting in a priestly role” can offer a general absolution to the people based upon the assurance of Christ’s atonement and God’s subsequent forgiveness of the truly penitent.”

“The RCC is absolutely a blessing to the Body of Christ, as one of the largest parts of that Body. Genuine Christians should consider it a blessing to be a part of the RCC, just as they should in many other streams of our faith.”

The discussion on this topic has now been closed by the admin.  Perhaps there was just much too much opposition to Rome within their own group.

Naznet continues to be a breeding ground for emergent heresy and promotion of fellowship with an apostate church (the RCC). Sadly, leaders in our universities and pulpits are pushing for the same kinds of changes this group is generally advocating. And some folks wonder why many of us worry about all the Roman Catholic rituals and traditions continuing to come into the Church of the Nazarene now.  It’s no coincidence.

=========================================

Addendum:  Following is a list of beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church which are clearly against Scriptural teaching.  Perhaps any of the NazNetters will publicly profess that there are no problems with these lies.  It is from Jackie Alnor’s Apostasy Alert blog.

 

95 Specious Lies of Rome

 

1. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus.

2. Mary is the mother of God.

3. There is a place sinners go after death called Purgatory.

4. The RCC has the Melchizedek priesthood.

5. Catholic priests are Christ as they offer mass.

6. The pope’s authority is from apostolic succession.

7. Bones, hair and fingernails of dead saints are worthy of veneration.

8. The pope is the Vicar of Christ and the head of Christ’s church.

9. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

10 Priests turn bread and wine into the body, blood, soul & divinity of Christ.

11 The communion elements are to be worshipped as God.

12 The RCC has the authority to determine what dead people are saints.

13 Saints are to be prayed to & sought after for miracles.

14 Access to Jesus is thru Mary.

15 Sins must be confessed to a priest for absolution.

16 Penance, not repentance, is required for forgiveness.

17 Indulgences to get dead ones a reduced sentence in Purgatory is still taught.

18 No person can know for sure they are saved; that’s the sin of presumption.

19 The higher the clerical position, the closer to God.

20 Making the sign of the cross has spiritual benefits.

21 Clerical vestments are holy.

22 Kissing the pope’s feet shows honor to Christ.

23 Priests should be addressed as Father.

24 The pope is the Holy Father.

25 The Commandment not to make any graven image is not in the RCC’s list.

26 Holy water is beneficial in sanctifying people and objects.

27 Statues of saints can be bowed to.

28 Self-flagellation is accepted by God for penance.

30 The host is to be adored as it passes in a bejeweled monstrance.

31 Priests must take a vow of celibacy and not to marry.

32 Some sins send you to hell, some to Purgatory – mortal & venial.

33 Catholics must refrain from eating meats during Fridays in Lent.

34 Mass cards can be bought to help spring loved ones from Purgatory.

35 Some hosts have miraculously turned into actual human flesh.

36 Some chalices of wine have miraculously turned into human blood.

37 Chanting the Rosary is a form of legitimate prayer.

38 Reciting the Hail Mary gives one grace with Mary.

39 Mary can hear all prayers just as God can.

40 Meditation by making a mind blank brings one closer to God.

41 Keeping the RCC sacraments is necessary to get to heaven.

42 All other Christian denominations are inferior and the separated brethren.

43 Ex-Catholics are lost until they come back to Rome

44 The scapular gives spiritual protection to the one who wears it.

45 The miraculous medal of Mary will spring the dead person out of purgatory.

46 Mary never died, but was transported to heaven alive in the Assumption.

47 Mary’s apparition has appeared and is appearing with miraculous signs.

48 Seminarians must obey those above them even if they ask them to sin.

49 Mary stayed perpetually a virgin and had no other children.

50 Joseph never consummated his marriage to Mary.

51 Mary was born without original sin and never sinned.

52 Dead saints, like pagan gods, rule over a particular life’s need or position.

53 The Roman Catholic Church is Christian.

54 The Reformers are heretics, worthy of the executions the RCC put on them.

55 The unity of all religions under Rome is a Catholic goal, i.e. Assisi.

56 The RCC has replaced Israel.

57 Rome has replaced Jerusalem as God’s holy city.

58 The RCC is the Mother Church.

59 God recognizes all annulled marriages as if they were never joined.

60 The RCC can change truth with the authority to bind on earth as it is in heaven.

61 The RCC has the right to cover up the sins of their pedophile priests.

62 Baptizing babies makes them part of Christ’s Church.

63 Drinking blood during the mass is A-OK.

64 The faithful received Christ into their stomachs, not their hearts.

65 Rats can eat God.

66 Unbaptized babies do not enter into heaven.

67 Church tradition is equal to the Bible in faith and practice.

68 Peter, a married man, was the first pope.

69 Levitation is a miracle that many saints have engaged in.

70 Grace is not unearned favor, but a special blessing one can earn thru works.

71 The archangel Michael is a saint.

72 To be a saint, miracles have to be attributed to the person after death.

73 Dead loved ones can be present among their families.

74 Exorcisms are performed with the use of the crucifix and holy water.

75 Eucharist adoration keeps Jesus company while he’s stranded in the tabernacle.

76 Jews have no biblical right to the Holy Land.

77 Communion cup forbidden to laity.

78 Jesus’ sacrifice needs to be reoffered daily in a bloodless manner.

79 Vows of silence earns grace with God.

80 The Magisterium holds the mysteries of Christ.

81 The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

82 Mary is a co-mediatrix between God and man.

83 Jesus died so we can all become gods.

84 Incense and candles create a holy atmosphere.

85 Icons and religious art can be venerated.

86 Mary statues that cry or bleed are holy signs.

87 The stigmata wounds cause saints to suffer like Christ for the sins of others.

88 The infant Jesus is an entity that can be addressed in prayer.

89 Stoicism and deprivation of the needs of the body are acts of holiness.

90 Jesus cannot turn down requests from his mother.

91 OK to pray to body parts such as the sacred heart or immaculate heart.

92 The RCC is the guardian of salvation – they hold the keys to the kingdom.

93 Doctrine and truth evolve.

94 Christ’s payment for sin is insufficient; we must suffer for our own sins.

95 The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church.

(Originally posted at http://rrrapostasyalert.blogspot.com/2011/11/95-specious-lies-of-rome.html)

Salvation And End-Times Apostasy

(August 3, 2011- from David Cloud at Way of Life (www.wayoflife.org)

A fundamental reason why so many professing Christians are embracing the false god of end-times apostasy (e.g., the non-judgmental, no-obligations god of The Shack) is the absence of biblical salvation.

A genuine experience of salvation is foundational to spiritual protection, because it is impossible to understand the truth properly apart from the new birth.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Further, those who are not saved are still under the power of the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:1-2). It is only the truly regenerate individual who can claim the precious promise of 1 John 4:4, “greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.”

Yet confusion about salvation is rampant.

I began to understand this many decades ago when I sat in the office of the head of the Bible Society in Calcutta, India, and talked with him about salvation. I told him how I was converted at age 23, and then I asked, “How were you saved?” He sort of chuckled and said, “I’m a third generation Christian.”

According to Scripture, there is no such thing. Jesus said that each individual must be born again. I can’t go to heaven on the coattails of the faith of my parents or grandparents.

On that same trip to India I sat in the office of the head of the theological seminary at Serampore University. When I asked him how a person becomes a Christian he replied: “There are a number of ways. You can be born into a Christian home; you can be baptized; you can be catechized; you can have a conversion experience.”

A few years ago I attended Rick Warren’s church in California and as I was waiting for the service to begin I talked to the man sitting next to me. I asked if he was a member of the church, and he said yes. I then asked when he was born again, and he replied that he had always been a Christian.

Again, that is not possible.

Consider the Charismatic Movement

Consider the charismatic movement with its radical ecumenism. While there are saved people in the movement, there are countless people who are not saved. They have had an emotional mystical experience of some sort; they have prayed a prayer and been “baptized by the Spirit”; they have fallen down, spoken in tongues, danced, been captivated by powerful music. But they haven’t repented of their sin and put their complete trust in the once for all atonement of Jesus Christ. At the massive New Orleans ’87 conference, which had roughly 35,000 attendees, half of the people raised their hands one evening to indicate that they didn’t know for sure if they were saved, and this was after these same people had spent two or three days in enthusiastic charismatic worship.

At a press conference the next day, Dennis Costella of Foundation magazine asked why the conference didn’t address the matter of salvation plainly and publicly in order to clear up the obvious confusion. A Pentecostal leader replied, “We don’t have time for that.” The more honest answer would have been as follows:

“We are a mixed multitude and there is widespread confusion about salvation in our midst. This conference represents 40 different denominations, and we have different ideas about the gospel itself. Our Catholic brethren have one idea and our Lutheran brethren another and there are differences of opinion even among us Pentecostals. In the context of the ecumenical aspect of the charismatic movement, some believe baptism is necessary for salvation; some believe you can’t be saved without tongues; some believe baptism regenerates; some believe cooing infants can be saved; some believe salvation must be nurtured through sacraments; some believe you can lose your salvation; some believe salvation is a mere sinner’s prayer; some believe in ‘Four Spiritual Laws,’ etc. So it is impossible to be doctrinally precise on that or practically any other issue and still keep our unity. As you know, doctrine divides; love unites, and love is what really matters. We can’t judge someone else, you know.”

That is the situation that exists within the broad worldwide charismatic movement.

Consider the Emerging Church

There is the same problem in the emerging church. In my research into the emerging church I have been amazed at the widespread confusion about the issue of salvation itself.

In fact, Brian McLaren, one of the most prominent names in the movement, says:

“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be ‘saved’? When I read the Bible, I don’t see it meaning, ‘I’m going to heaven after I die.’ Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner’s prayer. I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (“The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, Nov. 2004, p. 40).

In fact, it is rare to find a clear biblical testimony of salvation in the writings of emerging church leaders.

Scot McKnight says that “conversion” can be through liturgy (referring to sacraments such as baptism), or through socialization (growing up in a Christian home), or through personal decisional faith in Christ (Turning to Jesus: The Sociology of Conversion in the Gospels).

This statement reflects a deep confusion about salvation.

Robert Webber, who grew up in a Baptist pastor’s home, argued that salvation does not have to be a dramatic conversion experience and admitted that he didn’t have such an experience. He said that repentance “can have a dramatic beginning or can come as a result of a process over time” (The Divine Embrace, p. 149). He saw salvation as a sacramental process that begins at baptism, and this is one reason why he left the Baptists and joined the Episcopalians and was also perfectly comfortable with Roman Catholicism.

Tony Campolo has a similar testimony. In Letters to a Young Evangelical Campolo described his own experience in the following words:

When I was a boy growing up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in West Philadelphia, MY MOTHER, a convert to Evangelical Christianity from a Catholic Italian immigrant family, HOPED I WOULD HAVE ONE OF THOSE DRAMATIC ‘BORN-AGAIN’ EXPERIENCES. That was the way she had come into a personal relationship with Christ. She took me to hear one evangelist after another, praying that I would go to the altar and come away ‘converted.’ BUT IT NEVER WORKED FOR ME. I would go down the aisle as the people around me sang ‘the invitation hymn,’ but I just didn’t feel as if anything happened to me. For a while I despaired, wondering if I would ever get ‘saved.’ It took me quite some time to realize that entering into a personal relationship with Christ DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT WAY. …

In my case INTIMACY WITH CHRIST WAS DEVELOPED GRADUALLY OVER THE YEARS, primarily through what Catholic mystics call ‘centering prayer.’ Each morning, as soon as I wake up, I take time–sometimes as much as a half hour–to center myself on Jesus. I say his name over and over again to drive back the 101 things that begin to clutter up my mind the minute I open my eyes. Jesus is my mantra, as some would say. …

I LEARNED ABOUT THIS WAY OF HAVING A BORN-AGAIN EXPERIENCE FROM READING THE CATHOLIC MYSTICS, especially The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (Letters to a Young Evangelical, 2006, pp. 25, 26, 30).

This is very frightful testimony. Campolo does not have a biblical testimony of salvation. He plainly admits that he is not “born again” in the way that his mother was, through a biblical-style conversion. Instead, he describes his “intimacy with Christ” as something that has developed gradually through the practice of Catholic mysticism.

For one thing, this is to confuse the issue of salvation with that of spiritual growth. All of the conversions that are recorded in the New Testament are of the instantaneous, dramatic variety. We think of the woman at the well (John 4), Zacchaeus (Luke 19), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), Paul (Acts 9), Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16), to name a few. The Lord Jesus Christ said that salvation is a birth (John 3:3). That is not a gradual thing that happens throughout one’s life; it is an event!

Further, Catholic mysticism itself is deeply unscriptural. Jesus forbad repetitious prayers (Mat. 6:7). He taught us to pray in a verbal, conscious manner, talking with God as with a Father, addressing God the Father external to us, not searching for a mystical oneness with God in the center of our being through meditation (Mat. 6:9-13). The Catholic mystics did not have a biblical testimony of salvation. They trusted in Christ PLUS baptism and the other Catholic sacraments, which is a false gospel.

Jim Wallis, one of the most influential of emergents, defines “born again” as follows:

“Being born again was not meant to be a private religious experience that is hard to communicate … but rather the prerequisite for joining a new and very public movement – the Jesus and kingdom of God movement” (The Great Awakening, p. 60).

Wallis claims that salvation isn’t a personal religious experience, but that is exactly what it was in the case of the salvations recorded in the New Testament.

The book Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger contains the testimonies of about 50 emerging church leaders in Appendix A, and only a couple of them even come close to a biblical testimony. Some of them don’t mention a personal salvation testimony, merely saying that they grew up in some type of church.

And remember that these are emerging church LEADERS.

Ben Edson of Sanctus1 in Manchester, England, says:

“After a painful breakup with my girlfriend, I gave God another chance. I cried out to God at my point of need, and God met me in a profound and life-changing way” (p. 266).

Is salvation a matter of giving God a chance, of God meeting my needs and having a “profound” experience of some sort? Many people have life-changing experiences through psychology, 12-Step programs, New Age mysticism, and goddess worship.

Kester Brewin of Vaux in London, England, said:

“I can point to a Billy Graham rally in 1984 as a conversion, but that was really more of a moment of STRENGTHENING A FAITH THAT HAD ALWAYS been there” (Emerging Churches, 2005, p. 248).

Ephesians 2:1-2 says there is a time before salvation and a time after salvation. Before salvation we are dead in trespasses and sins and controlled by the devil. After salvation we have new life in Christ and belong to God. It is sometimes the case with a child who grows up in church that he does not remember the exact time that he put his faith in Christ, but true salvation is always a life-changing event and one should never say that he has always had faith.

David Cloud
(for the complete article, got to:  www.wayoflife.org    (http://www.wayoflife.org/files/082552246a2247df89f143e5e672338a-843.html)

 

SFT Notes: Details coming soon for the Defending Biblical Inerrancy In A Post-Modern World conference, Oct. 14-15 in Ashford, CT.  This conference will address the attempts being made today to erode complete trust in the word of God.  Our keynote speaker will be Eric Barger.  Our other speakers will be Ken Silva (no relation), Tim Wirth, and Jason Bjerke.  The website of the New England Apologetic & Theology Council is online if you wish to see our preliminary details and register.  Our schedule of topics will be finalized soon and you will get a complete conference flyer soon.  Lodging will be available for those who want to stay overnight.  For those who support our ministry, please consider a donation if you cannot attend the conference.