Buddhist Prayer @ Lifeway's M-fuge

You read "clearing the mind of distrations" as turning off your mind. This is a misinterpretation on your part. The practice of closing our eyes when we pray is also a clearing of the visual mind.

I would be amazed if anyone were able to turn off their mind. Their heart would continue beating but their lungs would have a hard time breathing.

 

I notice that Bishop is Quaker -- so it's not surprising he's supporting pomo thinking. He also recommends a book by McLaren. Didn't you say you thought McLaren was unorthodox, or was that someone else?

I used to attend Quaker meetings when I was a New Ager because their silent meetings were like the Eastern meditations I was doing and their view that "there is that of God in every man" appealed to me. Quaker House sponsored a workshop called "Inner Light Consciousness" during which I was introduced to my spirit guide via guided meditation. He stuck around for 14 yrs. Quaker meetings were also where I met a clairvoyant who became one of my astrological clients and it is where I was introduced to some of the ideas, language, and thinkers of the increasingly popular New Age movement.

I am not saying that Bishop would endorse those things, but Richard Foster, another Quaker, is also promoting these mystical practices. The point I'm making with this is that Quakers are more open to the mystical. If you read some of the early Quaker writers, as I did, you will see that they do not believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God but subordinate to the leading of "the Spirit of God."

So an inner leading takes precedence over the Bible. This is one reason I do not trust Quaker theology.

 

That was Kiffen. Yes I know Bishop is a Quaker. There are a lot of Quakers I respect and a lot in Quaker theology that I admire.

I would hope that if the Spirit of God were leading, that we would submit to it over our errant and fallible interpretations of Scripture. The question is discerning whether it is the Spirit of God leading and that is scary territory for modernists.

I think it is great that some Quakers are more open to the mystical.

 

This is from the essay Golden Dragon posted:

The flaw here is that pomo advocates are ignoring the fact that people can have experiences that are not absolute truth but they are convinced that it is. All people do not experience absolute truth and counterfeits are experienced every day. As I said earlier, the descriptions of New Agers about how they experience their concept of God in meditation are the same as the descriptions the Christians give.

If we do things to offer people experiences, they will be convinced by the experiences even if those experiences are based on falsehood. The danger is that these pomo advocates don't realize that false things can be felt as real and true.

The dividing line between the New Ager and the Christian is not experience but the objective truth of who God is.

 

So you never pray in any other way than the Lord's prayer? Are you equaly critical of every technique and prayer out there that doesn't follow the Lord's prayer?

The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. The same can be said for prayer.

Are you equally critical of all methods that we use that aren't described in the Bible? Or just the ones you don't use yourself?

 

You read "clearing the mind of distrations" as turning off your mind. This is a misinterpretation on your part. The practice of closing our eyes when we pray is also a clearing of the visual mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]I should have said turning off one's thinking. This is what Keating and Pennington, the leaders of the modern Contemplative Prayer movement advocate. I have read books by them. I also heard Keating speak this past May for 3 hrs. (to celebrate the 20 yrs. of the CP Movement) and I can't even begin to desribe all the errors of his teachings. I also went and spoke to him personally. I have a write up on that but it's not on my site.

They believe that silence is the most "advanced" form of prayer, but what they mean by prayer is getting into a Buddhist type state of meditation. They even teach some of the same techniques of Buddhist meditation.

Interestingly, New Ager Marianne Williamson says in her book, Illuminata that silence is the "highest" level of prayer and is how we have union with God (p. 55).

 

How is an experience not truth? It happened didn't it? How we explain our experiences and what we derive from them may not be true.

[sarcasm]
New Agers also probably describe how a dish tastes in similar ways to the way Christians describe hot a dish tastes. The Christian must be wrong about how the dish tastes since New Agers are wrong about everything.[/sarcasm]

Some experience may have falsehood in them. Some experience may not. In fact, I would say there is truth and falsehood in every experience. Just like there is truth and falsehood in every rational thought.

 

I believe that Christ is not only addressing the Sabbath here but all attempts to turn God's instruction and things meant to bring blessing into something that enslaves his children. This is supported throughout the Gospels in Christ's approach to the teaching of the Pharisees and Paul's teaching on Christian liberty.

 

I do not consider prayer to be a technique nor do I think the Lord's Prayer was a technique. It was simply said by Jesus that this is the way to pray. It is a model of prayer. Even if you want to say it's a technique, it certainly is not a technique to evoke a mystical experience. It is a prayer that uses words and addresses God to thank him, to honor him, to petition him, and to ask forgiveness. In fact, this prayer is a good example of what Contemplative Prayer is not.

The mystical techniques advocate this as way to have union -- real union -- with God without Christ being necessary. The only mediator is Jesus Christ, correct? Keating told me that one could practice CP without knowing Christ and experience God. He only said that it would not be "to the same degree" as a Christian. CP is taught to non-Christians.

Christians already have union with God through Christ, in the sense of being reconciled with Him. We can't have ontological union with him.

I think they are seeking a god who makes them comfortable. They don't want judgment on sin. But even if I agree they are seeking the truth of God, then let's not give them a pacifier that makes them think they have God when they don't.

I think that this is a straw man and a red herring. I actually don't think Christians think enough.

And even if this were the major problem in the church today, that does not make these techniques okay or the answer.

 

No where in scripture does it say that there is only one way to pray. Christ give us one model but there are many other ways to pray evidenced in the scriptural text itself.

 

Maybe, maybe not. God also looks at the heart which is way more important to him than outside of the cup that the Pharisees made sure was clean. If what he sees inside is pleasing to him, I believe he will honour it.

 

Yes, it's true the experience happened but what the person thinks the experience may be revealing can be false. I thought I was experiencing the truth when I did Eastern and New Age meditation; I thought my spirit guide was a benevolent, spiritual being. These New Agers/mystics think they are experiencing God but they reject the biblical God and they reject the biblical Christ. But they feel wonderful, peaceful, and happy. You can feel at one with God and everyone through a mystical experience and so you don't think you need anything else because you think you have truth. I would have gone on like this the rest of my life if Christians had not been praying for me and if God had not intervened directly.

I merit two sarcasms, GD? I was speaking specifically of their experience of God. It's the same as the Christians acc. to the descriptions. My point was that these mystical techniques do not necessarily lead to the true God.

This is deceptive and dangerous. When you tell someone they can experience God by praacticing this and this and this, you are potentially leading that person into experiences that will convince them that the false is true.

 

And they do not necessarily NOT lead to the true God.

I would say there are many atheists who rationally study the bible with great hermeneutics, and it doesn't necessarily lead to the truth either. But sometimes the athiest is more right than the Christian in their interpretation.

 

And they do not necessarily NOT lead to the true God.
</font>[/QUOTE]Really? So one can have union with God without Christ?

Once you evoke or seek an experience, you will undoubtedly have one. And since some of these mystical techniques induce a light trance state, you feel good. So you think you are in the presence of God.

 

I think it is equally dangerous to suggest that rationally studying the bible with good hermeneutics will also always lead to the truth. Many honest Christians are convinced that falsehoods are true in this way too.

Whether rational or mystical, biblcal or experiential, discernment and faith God are needed.

 

I'm not sure where this came from. But since I believe in the Trinity that Christ is God, no.

Isn't God omnipresent? Isn't he able to be present in all our experiences? We should use spiritual discernment in the midst of our experiences and be cautious of falsehood in both experiences and rational thoughts.