ODM Correctness
Contemplative Spirituality: A belief system that uses ancient mystical practices to induce altered states of consciousness (the silence) and is rooted in mysticism and the occult but often wrapped in Christian terminology. The premise of contemplative spirituality is pantheistic (God is all) and panentheistic (God is in all).
And
Spiritual Formation: A movement that has provided a platform and a channel through which contemplative prayer is entering the church. Find spiritual formation being used, and in nearly every case you will find contemplative spirituality. In fact, contemplative spirituality is the heartbeat of the spiritual formation movement.
I am convinced that the ODM’s can be likened to the Political Correctness movement that has become so popular (and abused) in liberal circles and on college campuses. Political correctness on its good side brings awareness to the things we say and how they may affect others. On the greater down side, or the manner in which it has been abused is the manner in which it is a form of censorship. We’ve all heard the stories.
Above are two statements from Lighthouse Trails Research - an ODM site. Both of which serve as an example of ODM’s abusive tactics of PC. In the former quote, a definition of Contemplative Spirituality is offered with the stated goal of inducing an altered state of consciousness. The case seems closed - except for that fact that none on the list that I saw encourage an altered state of consciousness in the same manner as Eastern Mysticism. “Silence” is not tantamount to an altered state. It is a classical example of inserting all manner of meanings into words that were never intended thus. Are there those who employ contemplation as a way to induce an altered state? - Yes. Is it therefore axiomatic that any who encourage contemplation or contemplative methods do the same - of course not. Contrary to their definitive statement: Contemplative Spirituality MAY be pantheistic/panentheistic… to say it IS, is incorrect, sloppy, and probably misleads many who think the site inquestion site employs accurate definitions.
This leads to the second quote, which builds on the false definitions of the first – the result is to outlaw spiritual formation in the church. ODM Correctness in action.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.”
Psalm 46:10
I don’t really get what the whole ‘contemplative spirituality’ complaining thing is about. The Bible supports praying alone and in secret, and makes it clear that God does speak through dreams and visions . . . that sounds like a pretty altered state to me.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The problem is some that men openly admit they have observed, practiced, and now implemented this practice from Eastern religions. They did not approach it from Scripture as merry quoted, they borrowed it from idol worshipers. And in fact, some meditated with Eastern mystics and claimed an epiphany through that inter-religious experience.
I remember one meeting many years ago where the preacher asked everyone to close their eyse and open their ears and hear God speak. After five minutes he asked people to tell what God had spoken to them. The answers ranged from which car to buy to God said their dead uncle was in heaven.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The operative words in your post are “some” and “admit.” This a far cry from LT’s practice of listing a host of schools that have a class called “Spiritual Formation” and assuming they’re promoting Eastern Mysticism.
As for you example. The problem there is what people thought they heard, encouraging them to close their eyes and open there ears is not mysticism.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The altered state that is the goal of Eastern Mysticism is much more sinister than this. But advocating that all meditation and/or contemplation is mysticism is like saying all sex is rape.
Neil
April 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
which I think is OK except when people make that the goal, not spending time with God.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
There is a huge difference between the “Christian mystics” and eastern religions. Yet, ever a source that Ingrid quoted from, being a Puritan writer stated we can learn from the other religions… (no one seems to want to call her on that! LOL!)
It seems that if we are to take anyone who was remotely into the Christian mystics we would have quite a list.
Calvin and Luther and even Spurgeon would be on that list!
Not to mention the church father that was instrumental in putting together the canon of scripture we have today also published the first book about a desert mystic…
One of my favorites is Brother Lawrence who taught practicing the presence of God as you do your chores (he did the kitchen work) and sometimes forsook prayer time as he saw no difference between his time in the kitchen working unto God as he did in prayer time.
Spurgeon wrote a lot about the souls dark night, which is just a switching of St John of the Cross Dark Night of the Soul…
Calvin read Augustine and St Bernard both considered “Christian Mystics”.
And that is just scratching the surface as Dr. David Calhoun of Convenant Worldwide states in his lectures that the doctrines of grace were hidden in the Christian Mystics and where not widely taught elsewhere.
To cast all Christian mysticism aside is to forsake and cast our own heritage aside let alone many of these guys who attack their own historical line of theology.
iggy
April 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Lighthouse Trails Research has listed Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Assemblies of God, and the Walk to Emmaus as teaching contemplative spirituality. For example, because Dallas Seminary calls their small groups, “Spiritual Formation Groups,” they automatically assume they teach contemplative spirituality. They also sight a board that Dr. Darrell Bock sits on as proof. I am affiliated with the above three entities and have sent proof to the contrary to LTR but they maintain their rigid position merely on what these entities call their groups not the substance of the groups. GBA is a major tactic for them.
I recently saw R.C. Sproul at Pantego Bible Church for the Cross of Christ Conference. I wonder if he knows that have a Spiritual Formation Institute.
http://www.pantego.org/spanclass2ConnectbrbtoGodbspan/SpiritualFormationInstitute/tabid/124/Default.aspx
I would venture to say that the vast majority of Christian entities that use the term spiritual formation do not have anything to do with contemplative spirituality.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“Lighthouse Trails Research has listed Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Assemblies of God, and the Walk to Emmaus as teaching contemplative spirituality.”
They list EVERYONE as teaching contemplative spirituality. Even Adventures in Odyssey. Not kidding.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
“which I think is OK except when people make that the goal, not spending time with God.”
Praying and Bible reading should always come first. Godly mysticism isn’t something Christians should be obsessed with, it just isn’t a sin if it’s grounded in Scripture and doesn’t come something else, Eastern or otherwise. But Christian mysticism is only for the very spiritually mature, I think.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:37 am
The fact that any of these site use the word “research” in their names is just downright laughable. I can only guess that by “research” they mean believing lies, innuendos, and half-truths. I mean it’s evident to me that they don’t really read 95% of the books they trash.
To say someone like Dallas Willard is promoting some sort of Eastern mysticism is downright laughable. I’ve struggled to come up with a reason why these people lie, and I’ve just decided it’s out of fear. They’re afraid of losing the influence they once perceived they had. They don’t really trust God can keep the Church on track. It’s really just a power grab on their part.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Moody Bible Institute made the list!
April 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
To say that someone has a different view, or that they are overreacting, or that they are filled with unfounded anxiety is one thing, but to say it is obvious they haven’t read the book because they do not agree with you is very bad research as well. But when all else fails, call them liars which indicates a great deal of research and inside information.
Please provide documentation that substantiates that invective where you know for a fact that they have purposely told a lie, not just had a distorted view. And please provide documentation that you know for a fact they have not read the book, not just because you disagree with their conclusions.
I would be surprised to learn that the Dombroskis and Lighthouse Trails was doing shoddy research. You may not agree with their conclusions, but they should not be accused of shallow research and lying.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Rick,
LOL!
Even just superficially I have covered it above… and in doing so did better research and conclusions than they have given. All I see from them is fear mongering and pleas to buy their “DVD’s” and other stuff. One cannot rewrite and distort historical Christianity at a whim to fit their own agenda. Rick, open your eyes buddy. See them for what they are.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 8:17 am
OK, Iggy, how many of their books have you read?
April 30th, 2008 at 8:18 am
And do you agree that they purposely lie in order to promote themselves and their books?
April 30th, 2008 at 8:29 am
QFT.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Rick,
Go to their website and read their ridiculous write up on the book they are selling. That in itself is enough…
Now when someone tosses Rick Warren into the emerging church pile that is laughable!
Now I have read a few of those books and have heard many of the authors. You seem many are part of my denomination…
I reviewed Tony Jones’ book myself.
J.P. Moreland is not by far an apostate. I have heard him speak and he is part of Vineyard if I recall.
I also know enough about Dan Kimball to know what they wrote is garbage.
They seem to agree with Gary Gilley… surprise!
Thomas a Kempis is a must read and they attack it pulling it our of its historical understanding and purpose.
I have read enough and listened to enough Dallas WIllard to tell what they say their is crap.
That is just for starters… I don’t have enough time or energy to filter through their insanity to prove to you how bad their “discernment” is…
This is just what I saw in about 5 min. or less.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Rick,
Here’s LHT’s page on Dallas Willard. Notice that they don’t actually give any excerpts from the books themselves. They just picked names from the endnotes and endorsements. That’s hardly judging something based on its merits.
As far as the story they have in the sidebar where the guy says “In that space I lit candles, burned incense, hung rosaries, and listened to tapes of Benedictine monks.” I can attest that Willard doesn’t recommend doing any of this stuff. It’s kind of like blaming a driving instructor for a student who runs over someone. At some point, people are responsible for their own actions. Were the Beatles responsible for the Manson murders?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Phil - everything you just said is an acceptable viewpoint from your perspective about their research and about Willard’s book. But you have no evidence that they did not read those books, and calling them liars is unacceptable.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Let me be clear, I do not hold a person responsible for reading an entire book ang Iggy and I agree on that. I am saying you cannot make the statement someone did not because you don’t like their article.
LT will gladly reply to your question via e-mail.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Rick,
LHT did lie about Dallas Willard. They are claiming he wholeheartedly embraces Eastern mysticism when he does not. THis isn’t an argument about a judgment call, it is about the plain fact that what they’ve said about him isn’t true.
I suppose you can claim they just didn’t know, but they’re claiming to have researched the issue, they are going through footnotes on his book. Once you get down to examining footnotes, claims of ignorance are impossible to make.
LHT is lying, they need to repent.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Rick,
I’m not saying that everyone as to read every book to have an opinion on the author. I’m just saying if you’re going to write an piece that is commenting extensively on an author, not quoting his books seems a bit disingenuous to me. Perhaps I did go too far in calling lying, but I do think it’s shoddy “research”.
For example, if you look at the endnotes of many of N.T. Wright’s books, you would see he has people like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg listed. He hardly endorses them, though. In fact he pretty much refutes most of what they say. But, he would probably recommend people read some of their stuff. So this GBA game gets old after awhile.
I mean, as far as I’m concerned, if we’re going to hold people accountable for those they footnotes, those who quote Calvin have some ’splainin to do for quoting a murderer. Luther’s record isn’t much better…
April 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
When you reference someone like Crossan or Borg in a negative way and then footnote them, it is acceptable. When you reference someone in a positive way and then footnote them, it doesn’t mean you endorse them but it doesn give the distinct wrong impression to many readers.
Tim - LHT are not liars, they believe wholeheartedly in what they say. I have issued my opinion about MacLaren and Bell in some matters, since you claim my opinions are obviously not true am I a liar as well?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Did you resort to attributing the sum of works in the footnotes to those authors and pretending like the authors wrote what they did not write? If so, then yes, you lied about them.
They may “wholeheartedly” believe what they wrote, but what they wrote is obviously not true. IF it were they would have used quotes actually from teh authors they’re slandering. Although I suppose you could make the claim that LHT is so delusional they have no capacity to accurately assess reality.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“Although I suppose you could make the claim that LHT is so delusional they have no capacity to accurately assess reality.”
That disease is contagious and usually cannot be accurately diagnosed by the afflicted.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Rick,
I agree that we must be very careful before we call someone a liar. I will only offer one example of my experience with the type of research they do. LTR has stated Dallas Seminary teaches contemplative spirituality because they have spiritual formation groups. I e-mailed them and said those group have nothing to do with contemplative. Mrs. Dombrowski politely replied that one of the main reasons is because Professor Darrell Bock sits on a board with some people they consider contemplative. I replied that Dr. Bock teaches New Testament and has nothing to do with the spiritual formation groups. She replied that “we will just have to agree to disagree.” They will also sight other examples of DTS profs offering blurbs in various books.
I cannot find the original e-mails or I would provide them but the point is not so much their work on specific items, but the McCarthyistic/GBA tactics cause me, to dismiss any of their research. I know that I cannot trust them and must do my own research or trust another source.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thank you Darren for a thoughtful response. In the case you just mentioned, if accurate, they still could be classified as extremely biased and maybe seeing things under every rock. The word Liar indicates knwoledge and purpose. To know what you are saying is false is lying, to believe a lie as truth is deceived and other words.
I have not seen that same personal attacks and names on LHT either and usually they are painfully scrupulous in their footnotes and bibliographies. Liars they are not. I will admit that at times the contemplative issue seems overblown to me, however I do see some substantive issues as well.
I just object to the word liar. I consider preacher X to be a heretic and I have my reasons. You (not you) defend his statements and to me twist their obvious meaning therefore you are a liar. I do not subscribe to that and it is lazy discourse.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I guess it would be one thing if Dallas Willard were really promoting heretical teaching. I mean Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster are pretty mainstream. They’re not Reformed, which seems to be the standard LHT wants, but they’re not heretical.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Phil - the standard for heresy is completely subjective. One man’s heresy is another man’s sound doctrine. That is not the issue. To call someone a liar is not to question their views and/or research, it is to question their integrity.
Over zealousness is not lying. And to fall into a trap that parlays disagreement into lying is disingenuous.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Rick,
Well, maybe. I will try not to paint with a broad brush, but a lot of stuff on the LHT site, I just consider fear-mongering.
What do these people have against mysticism, anyways? There’s a whole book of the Bible that can only be described as someone describing his own mystical experience. The Revelation is pretty mystical. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others had what could be called mystical experience. I see that new agers are offering a sad parody of the real thing. It’s not something Christians have borrowed from new agers.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
And you have given a good description of the conversation that should be happening. Three times in Acts the word “ectasy” is used when someone fell into a trance. A young deacon went into a trance in a prayer meeting and prophesied just before the Hrebredies Revival.
There is a balance, however, and people like the Dromboski’s help keep us wary of many things even if they might overstate the case. No one has the actual divine balance on anything, that is the journey and people with whom you disagree can actually be used of God in our lives.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The problem is simple.
These people get certain definitions/ideas into their heads, lock on to them, link various words/phrases together - then become entrenched in viewing everything through a scenario they’ve concocted about people, events, and issues.
Then, they change meanings to suit their own heresy hunting needs. For example, as you pointed out, with the word silence — all of a sudden it means altered state of consciousness (absurd). It works with other words and phrases, too.
- being tolerant is equated with pluralism
- not viewing those of other faith as literal enemies to be attacked = acceptance of all religions as equally valid
- humanitarian work with non-Christians means endorsement of other religions and building a one world religion
- a desire to discuss rather than fight with non-Christians is interpreted as seeking a synthesis of religious beliefs
The list goes on and on and on. Odd and sad. Oh, and whatever you do, don’t ever, I mean do not EVER make a joke of any kind.
RAbanes
April 30th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Rick,
The only thing I really see about many of these folk is that they come from a very narrow perspective. Not only theological but historical.
The issue though of glossing over their view of the Reformation and then attacking anything they view as heretical… seems to miss that they are tossing out much of our heritage by their own will and want.
It has nothing to do with God.
In fact. I see most make a living out of attacking others and some are even reluctant to separated themselves from the more radical attackers as their ministry would suffer from the lack of people coming to their site through CRN and others. I had one person as much as say that to me in an personal email… he stated he over looks much of what Ken and others state becuase of the growth his own ministry has had while connected to them! That is not integrity at all.
I see that groups like LHT are more in it for the money than educationing others. That is what I see when I go to their site.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
An overstatement of a case doesn’t create balance it creates bias.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Well, I’m not going to ever get into motives, except for when it is painfully obvious that attacking is their desire, rather than truth.
For example, I can only throw up my hands when someone says I’m seeking to build a synthesis between Mormonism (as well as other religions) and Christianity. And as proof they pull one sentence out of my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism,” which actually refutes all major LDS doctrine.
I can only conclude these folks are living in an alternate reality and have set their mind on achieving a goal of proving me out to be a heretic, liar , deceiver, etc. etc. etc., especially when they won’t even bother reading the book or just asking ministries dedicated to Mormons what they think of my book. Really odd.
Additionally, there is a double standard. They can dedicate as much time as they want to whatever issue they feel is important, write as many articles as they wish, but when someone takes time to respond to them, then they accuse that other person of being “obsessed,” having “too much time” on their hands, not having anything else to write about, etc. etc. etc. Again, very interesting.
And here’s another fellow I just found who seems to be from the heavy Calvinist camp:
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/
I also very much find it fascinating how they all self-publish out of their own houses or Vanity Presses. Nothing wrong with that - just interesting.
RA
April 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I have to side with Rick on the issue of LHT being liars. I believe they think what they are promoting is truth - therefore by definition they should not be labeled liar.
They are, however, guilty of plenty of other crap. The engage in GBA, they redefine things to fit their own arguments, they assign meanings that are not there, etc…
You said “the Dromboski’s help keep us wary of many things even if they might overstate the case” - It’s not an issue of overstating… we all do that.
They distort what people say and do.
They create their own meanings and assign them at will.
They ignore nuances and arguments.
They assume guilt by association.
They fear-monger.
They are sloppy in their scholarship - if I can even use that word in a sentence about them…
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
>I see most make a living out of attacking others and some are even reluctant to separated themselves from the more radical attackers as their ministry would suffer from the lack of people coming to their site through CRN and others.
I saw this with Dave Hunt, who after visiting Saddleback, meeting Rick, and watching the PDL convention, had really changed his mind on his whole view of Warren. But that change was never made public it seems based on pressure to please his staff and supporters who were wildly against Warren. See my article on Hunt for what happened behind the scenes.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
RA,
I want to say that I appreciate your contribution here… not because we agree… but it helps… LOL!
I do have some concerns about Rick’s purpose driven world that some are talking about… is he really making way for the antiChrist?
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
No, they don’t at all. In fact they impede any actual warning by being so over the top that those that believe them sin against their brothers, and everyone else ignores them because they are so delusional that they can’t accurately assess reality.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Iggy,
LOL - no no no no Warren is not making the way for the AntiChrist. You silly, boy. Don’t you get it already? He IS the Antichrist. LoL.
Actually, wait a minute, that’s not too funny since all we’ll probably have to do is wait about about year, if that, and we’ll see such things popping up all over the Internet.
We already have gems like these:
“The Emergent Church is a form of paganism”
” Purpose Driven is a New Religion”
” Points to Ponder- Rick Warren, Richard Abanes, Ken Blanchard, Psychics, Yoga”
I mean, really, how far away are we from having RW named the name that must not be named — yes, I’ll say it, Voldemort.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I agree they believe the general condemnation of individuals, however, I think they lie about the particulars in order to make the case for their overall belief.
For example, they genuinely believe that Willard teaches Eastern mysticism, however, they have lied about what he states in his book.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I agree with Tim. The probably is that REAL warnings get lost in a mix of wolf wolf wolf wolf about EVERYONE!
I’ve already run into this while discussing Eckhart Tolle with his fans, who see peeps like the Dumbrowskis et al. calling everyone a heretic. You have to undo their work, first, to show that there are indeed tihnsg we have to watch out for, but going over the top is not biblical. Only THEN, will these people start listening about the real dangers posed by Tolle’s teachings. The “discerners” and “watchmen” are muddying the waters.
They treat someone like a cultists as soon as they diverge from their notion of the straight-and-narrow - i.e., one that is not based on scripture, but rather, on their own views, comfort zone, personality, lifestyles, frame of reference, and likes/dislikes.
To keep this up, they force people (like myself, Warren, and others) into molds they have created. If you don’t fit the mold/profile (e.g., of a heretic, false teacher, deceiver), then they invent stories and assign beliefs to you that you do not hold.
This is happening now with me - and mind you, in the absence of evidence from my writings that would suggest I told to ANYTHING other than rock-solid biblical beliefs. The only indication of me being a heretic and deceived is the fact that I dare to disagree with them about Rick Warren. Not really biblical but it’s sure convenient. Ahh well. Conspiracy Theories are big with them, too.
If you can get past the frustration of it all, it’s actually quite fascinating as a study in the human psyche.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Oh, and yes, it seems that they do indeed lie. I have still yet to figure out the mechanism in their minds that allows them to rationalize/justify away such things. Again, it’s kind of fascinating.
I don’t believe that they are DELIBERATELY lying, but instead I think that something going on in their thought processes wherein they actually are able to convince themselves that certain words mean certain things — so they are justified in interpreting the words out in such a way as to make them heretical sounding.
I spoke to an acquaintance once who was in the branch Davidian cult with David Koresh, and he said the members did, in fact, think A LOT about what Koresh taught about God, the world, himself, others, and all of them. But, as this person explained to me, all of their thoughts were not filtered through reality. They were filtered through an alternate-reality paradigm that had been set up for them which had certain parameters and certain presuppositions. Anything outside of those parameters and presuppositions had no affect on them or their views. Those things that conflicted with their paradigm where changed to fit the world they had created for themselves.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I see your point.
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Richard,
I was in a discussion with an anti-Foster type who claimed he advocated astral projection. His “evidence’ was the fact that in one of his books he gives as an example the exercise to imagine yourself looking down on the earth from heaven/outer-space… I forget the point of this exercise. But the person was convinced what he meant was for us to spiritually leave our bodies… blah, blah, blah…
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’d take it a step further and say - even if they were teaching contemplative spirituality (which would show how far they would have come from when I was a student) that in-and-of-itself proves nothing. Without investigating the content no dogmatic statements should be made… no matter what boards Bock sits on.
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Neil,
Interestingly I see that John states in Revelation…”On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit,”
So was John in some sort of “altered state” or “out of body” or what?
I am not advocating the eastern idea of purposely leaving ones body to fly with their animal spirit to go to see something in some planet… or what ever…
But, if God has me fall down and begins to show me things like He did with John… I would not call that Satanic…
What I do see is that these guys just toss everything through their own myopic and narrow definitions and as someone (Richard?) stated re-defined meanings… then they justify attacking anyone they want to. That is a divisive spirit and is satanic.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
According to Hal Lyndsey, John was transported to the future (our time, of course) and all the “weirdness” of Revelation was him trying to describe modern stuff with his ancient vocabulary.
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
OK. If this is not training in astral projection then what would you call it?
Richard Foster – Celebration of Discipline, 1978, pp.27-28
A fourth form of meditation has as its objective to bring you into a deep inner communion with the Father where you look at Him and He looks at you. In your imagination, picture yourself walking along a lovely forest path. Take your time, allowing the blaring noise of our modern megalopolis to be overtaken by the sound of rustling leaves and cool forest streams. After observing yourself for a bit, take the perspective of the one walking, rather than the one observed. Try to feel the breeze upon your face as if it were gently blowing away all anxiety. . . . After awhile there is a deep yearning within to go into the upper regions beyond the clouds. In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. Imagine your spiritual self, alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere. Observe your physical body, the knoll, and the forest shrink as you leave the earth. Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal creator. Rest in his presence. Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. Note carefully any instructions given . . . When it is time for you to leave, audibly thank the Lord for His goodness and return to the meadow. Walk joyfully back along the path until you return home full of new life and energy.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
neil,
A perfect example.
They seem to possess a specific body of knowledge about things in the occult or cults (e.g., astral projection, altered states of consciousness, mantras, etc.). Then, once they pick a target-heretic, they look for anything from that person (in writings, interviews, or lectures) that they can identity as one of the things they know about (e.g., astral projection, altered states of consciousness, mantras, etc.).
It’s like they have bits and pieces of information about various religious stuff — but lack the ability to tie together all the threads, discern variances in beliefs, and differentiate between terminology. And, of course, they push very hard to make links where there are no real links — as in teh example you gave.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
OK, lets take the final exam.
FROM THE NON ODM PERSPECTIVE:
ODMs = liars
FROM THE ODM PERSPECTIVE:
Emergents etc. = liars
And Richard drops by to share a tidbit about Dave Hunt’s double mindednessand integrity. That is so ODMish. I guess mirrored tactics can be defined in whatever genre suits you. Gossip can be spread among people who have no need to know as long as you couch it in victimesque language.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And a David Koresh sighting to boot! And this is from someone who complained about a Hitler reference once.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
RIck…
let’s look at it this way…
FROM THE NON ODM PERSPECTIVE:
ODMs = screwed up people but aware of just how screwed up they are and everyone else is.
FROM THE ODM PERSPECTIVE:
Emergents etc. = Screwed up but still believe they have some sort of special grace that enables them to attack others and judge and condemn them in the Name of Jesus. Setting themselves as the Holy Standard instead of Jesus being that.
It is deeper and more complicated that each of us as liars.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Rick,
It must be tiresome trying to defend the tactics of LHTs.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
And I once spoke with someone who was at Jonestown and survived and he said to watch out for preachers who emphasize humantarian efforts.
(A fiction meant to show how useless and self serving those type of personal stories usually are)
April 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“It must be tiresome trying to defend the tactics of LHTs.”
It would be tiresome if that was what I was doing. You set your own perspectives.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Rick,
Total garbage. They have made claims about Dallas Willard that are not true, and have claimed to have researched the work they are publishing untruths about.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“I will admit that at times the contemplative issue seems overblown to me, however I do see some substantive issues as well.”
I am not sure that constitutes a blanket defense. I think it might be more balanced than “liars”.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
John H,
Astral projection actually teaches that you are able to leave your body, which is different than what you’ve quoted, which is plainly a mental exercise.
To use an acting metaphor, astral projection is like Method Acting, in which one puts oneself realistically into a situation to experience how it feels. What Willard wrote is more like the Stanislavsky System of acting, in which one visualizes a situation and acts how they believe a person in that situation would act. With method acting, the experience must be real for it to be felt. With the Stanislavsky system, experience is not important.
In the same way, astral projection seeks a higher state of being through literally leaving one’s body. What Willard wrote 30 years ago (assuming it’s even being presented in correct context) is imagining a particular situation, which would then impact one’s current emotional state. (A common understanding in psychology, clearly demonstrated by John Bargh’s ‘Long Hallway’ test and priming experiments at NYU).
In short, you’re trying to make a pineapple out of an acorn.
I agree, it would be much more accurate to say that they are pathological practitioners of deception, beginning with themselves.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
To expand a little bit more, per an example in Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, you can take the Racial Implicit Association Test here (which measures your unconscious attitudes about race, gender, etc.) every day for weeks and find that your score won’t typically change all that much from day to day. However, if you read biographical accounts of folks like Martin Luther King, Jr. , Colin Powell, or other African American figures with compelling stories of success prior to taking the test, you will find that you will score much better on the test because of the mental conditioning you’ve gone through just prior to the test.
In the same way, Willard’s little exercise is not astral projection, but rather application of modern psychological observation (which is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’, but rather an observation of how God made the mind to work).
April 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
DELIBERATELY lying.” But facts are facts. if they make a statement about someone that is simply untrue, then it’s untrue. The big difference is this:
1. I am accusing them about “lying” if you will about other people.
2. The ODM’s accuse people like me of lying about……MYSELF! LoL. You don’t see a difference? They accuse Warren of lying about HIMSELF! And the Emerging peeps of lying about THEMSELVES!
The dialogue goes like this:
_____________________________________
ODM: Abanes is a lying New Ager who is deceiving others. He wants to build a one world syncretistic one world religion by blending Christianity and other faiths.
ME: No, I don’t. That’s a lie.
ODM: Yes, you do. You’re one of the new New Agers.
ME: What are you talking about? I’ve written a lot against the New Age. But just for the record, Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation. He is the one and only savior. You must repent, accept him by faith as your personal Lord and Savior, in order to be saved by grace.
ODM: You deny him by your deeds.
ME: What deeds?
ODM: You don’t believe Warren is a heretic.
ME: What does that have to do with my faith in Jesus? I just disagree with you based on what I see are terribly faulty arguments and false statements by you and others.
ODM: You attack others. If you were truly walking with the Lord, you’d see where Warren is wrong, and you’d be writing against him instead of other issues and other Christians.
ME: You attack Warren! Why is that okay?
ODM: Because he’s unbiblical.
ME: I disagree.
ODM: See, that proves your’re decieved. And you even wrote a book in which you say we need to blend Mormonism and Chrisianity called Inside Today’s Mormonism.
ME: What? That’s against Mormonism.
ODM: No, it’s not.
ME: Yes, it is! Have you read it?
ODM: I don’t have to. By supporting Warren, I know exactly what you’re trying to do. If you don’t write against him you’re compromising and deceiving. You’re not being truthful about what you really believe.
_______________________________
It’s kind of a losing battle. This quote from Dumbrowski is perfect: “we will just have to agree to disagree.” They say this about facts. Yellow is no longer yellow — it’s whatever color they say it is. Left is no longer left — it becomes right, or straightforward, or backwards. Up turns into down. This is not dealing within the confines of reality, but is an alternate reality they are creating where they are arbitrarily deciding who the bad guys are and who the good guys are — but not based on truth.
As for the word liar, if I have plainly stated that I DO NOT want to create any kind of synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity, and have books to prove that, but they insist the very opposite — then, sorry, but they are lying. There is no pretty spin to put on such false information.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
RICK: And a David Koresh sighting to boot! And this is from someone who complained about a Hitler reference once.
RA: I am referring to a mindset that is typified in the example I gave. That is hardly calling these people David Koreshites. It is a generalized thought-pattern explained by someone who saw it firsthand. On the other hand, a direct implication was made between my statements about Warren (i.e., so called “propaganda”) and the supportive propaganda for Hitler that was spewed by Josef Goebbels. Big difference.
And your Jonestown analogy is not really an analogy at all - TBH.
1. I was presenting an internal mindset and process of thinking that can be found throughout various different types of people. It is a mindset has been shown objectively to be damaging to critical thinking.
2. You picked an activity (i.e., humanitarian aid) that is not inherently bad, harmful, or dangerous at all according to any sound thinking person, and appealed to the ravings of cult members who claimed it is evil.
That’s a big difference in what we presented and it is not analogous. Sorry.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Richard…
And if you talk with them they are often fueled by Rush Limbaugh (conservative but not “Christian”) and Sean Hannity (A Mormon!) and Glenn Beck (RCC) but if we listen to Rick Warren we are listening to the Purpose Driven Pope!
If I read about Brian McLaren expounding on expanding our orthodoxy from Evangelicalism, I am denying orthodoxy… ???
I wonder who at what is acceptable and what is not! If you line up politically, then you are “in”… but if you want peace or think giving your neighbor a drink of water or food… you are a heretic!
Not to mention that they all have different “Truth” which is all absolute…. regeneration comes before salvation (Steve Camp) at the moment of salvation (Pastorboy).
If all those are truth and absolute, I am confused as I see a relativism to whatever their theological bent is.
Yet, I am a heretic for not believing both of them as right!
LOL!
Mostly I am uncertain as to the “Truth” they claim and promote.. I think they lost sight of the Person of Jesus and promote theology over relationship and God.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I used to do it, and they are different. The example you gave sounds like entering a trance like state in imagination but possibly still dangerous on certain levels.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“We will have to agree to disagree” is now something to be mocked because one party is in possession of the facts. Christians cannot even agree with what the Bible says about a myriad of things and yet we assert we have the facts. One man’s bridge building can be viewed by another as compromise without either being liars.
And the Jonestown example was an accurate analogy. People were decieved because Jones used humanitarian works as a Trojan Horse for his aberrant teachings which is exactly what many claim is happening in the emergent church. A mindset gently turned by using an activity that is not inherently bad, harmful, or dangerous.
To say you strongly disagree with the overblown conclusions of the Dombrowski’s is understandable. To say they are liars not only brings their integrity into question, it adds a juvenile element to the discussion and is counter productive to the openess of the said discussion. I have personally and publicly made this same observation to the other “side”.
I believe in a collegiate debate forum calling the other person a liar is against the parliamentary rules regardless of how outrageous some proffered opinion might have been presented. See, they make you debate it in civility and win the debate on the substance of your presentation which includes unveiling the unfactual nature of your opponent.
Therefore what Chris L. said in his comments would be allowed, but calling people liars and/or strongly suggesting they did not read the material without any evidence can be used to identify the weakness in your own stated “facts”.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Rick,
Simple questions: Can anyone ever vbe accused of lying? Is it a reality? If so, what is the criteria for making that accusation? My first two questions are rhetorical, of course, since the Bible has quite a bit to say about lying (including slander).
April 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
If one knows something to be false and presents it as true that is lying. I have in my years as a believer preached something strongly as truth and later realized it wasn’t. I was not lying even if some people were frustrated that I could not see what they saw clearly.
The lying moniker usually comes from frustration and an emotional attachment to the object of what the person considers as a lie. It is exacerbated when things are said about one’s self that are not true. However, that still does not always mean your “attacker” is a liar.
Even though the LHT people are strong and sometimes see gnats as elephants, they are not liars.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Rick,
I want your opinion, truly.
Let me give you an example of the kind of lying, half-truths, and implications I am talking about. And these are MILD examples. Very Mild compared to what I have seen.
Consider Tim Wirth, who most recently has written http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/
______BEGIN
‘Keep in mind that self proclaimed apoligist and unofficial spokesperson for Rick Warren-Richard Abanes has gone on record defending the emergent church here.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/02/hot-on-the-bl-1.html
_______END
Now, let’s look at this tiny little statement and see what it contains.
1. I am NOT a “self proclaimed” apologist. His word usage, of course, implies:
a) I have no REAL credentials,
b) I have no REAL acceptance in the professional arena, and
c) I have no REAL recognition beyond my own delusions of grandeur that would cause me to “self proclaim” myself as an apologist.
Interesting perspective from Wirth, but utterly false. He might as well call the pastor of the corner First Baptist Church a “self proclaimed” pastor; or refer to an award-winning chef at a nearby restaurant as a ’self proclaimed” chef. You get the point. So, this is not exactly a blatant lie, but it is deceptive in that it seeks to poison a readers opinion of me and what I state. Ironically, if anyone is self proclaimed it is Wirth.
2. I am NOT in any way, shape, or form an “unofficial spokesperson for Rick Warren.” Yet this is something Wirth incessantly declares, despite my protests and corrections. He continues to bill me as follows:
“Slick Ricks purpose driven Unofficial spokesman for all of Warrenanity Richie Abanes”
“Warrens minister of propoganda defending Slick Rick”
“Rick Warrens unofficial spokesman Richard Abanes disappeared”
The snide remarks go on and on. Here’s what my website states: “ATTENTION: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spokesperson (official or unofficial) for Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, or any affiliates of Saddleback Church, including Purpose Driven Ministries and pastors.com. Moroever, I have never been contracted or requested by Rick Warren, Saddleback, or any of its affiliates to publicly defend or discuss criticisms of Warren, his books, or his ministry. The comments contained in these articles are my own personal opinions expressed in response to Warren’s critics, and are based on my own investigation and research into Warren (as I have detailed in my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him).
But none of this matters. The fact is that I have spoken throughout the Internet on a wide variety of topics and on many different message board/blogs. So is Wirth spreading a lie? Hmmm, perilously close, if not over the line. I am telling him that I am not a spokesperson of any kind for Warren, and yet he keeps saying I am? Out of curiosity, what would you call that? It’s certainly not the truth. Have we come to a place now in America where we can’t voice our views without being labeled?
3. I have not “gone on record defending the emergent church.” I have gone on record stating. “The Emerging Church movement is an extremely vast, non-regulated, de-centralized and disparate collection of multi-hued churches/people/teachings. Some aspects of the movement are good. Some aspects of it are resoundingly bad/unbiblical. ”
So where does Wirth get this other assertion about me “defending” the EC?? Notice his link. This is merely the title of someone else’s blog about my postings critical of Roger Oakland, Dave Hunt, and Chuck Smith. That’s the TITLE someone else put on their blog! LoL. So what would you call this? Notice, he didn’t even quote what I actually said about the Emerging Church.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Richard - I am dealing with the LHT blod and specifically the Dombroski’s. I do not know them personally, but I do not find the same tone that you have referenced. There must be somone who strongly disagrees with you and absolutely cannot see it as you do who is not purposely lying. There are those who say things about me who are just obnoxious, but there are those who disagree strongly and misrepresent me and my opinions but are really not lying.
And the link thing? I believe the point has been made ad infinitum that we cannot be tagged with agreement when we link? The LHT blog attempts to avoid hyperbole and name calling and I find their writings, even if I’m not in total agreement, dispassionately digestible.
I have heard reports from many people who have corresponded with them and found them much more courteous that some other ODM blogs. That counts for nothing? There are many who take great issue with the ODMs who can be just as obnoxious and unreasoned and there are some with whom you can have a verbal back and forth without anticipating a personal attack on your intelligence, Biblical knowledge, integrity, and that you cannot actually believe what you are saying.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“According to Hal Lyndsey, John was transported to the future (our time, of course) and all the “weirdness” of Revelation was him trying to describe modern stuff with his ancient vocabulary.”
That actually makes so much sense to me. Except for the “transported” part. Lol. And not our time, ’cause it obviously hasn’t happened yet.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
merry - there would be many who would ascribe Revelation as mainly “history”. God does sometimes do some mysterious things with people. There have been people who have gone into trances as in Acts and some others during unusual times of revival. However, we cannot summon those times by techniques.
It is a legitimate concern, or should be.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Rick,
Ahh, I see LHT. Kewl. I won’t derail thread. np.
Here’s something about LHT, and Ms. Dombrowski. Care to give your insights on how these actions were in any way fair, Christian, or appropriate.
____BEGIN
(from my article “Lighthouse Trails: Walking in Darkness”)
My personal dealings with Lighthouse Trails came about after I posted an alert to an Internet email message network (AR-Talk). It contained criticisms of their Press Release regarding business leader Ken Blanchard (for information on the Blanchard controversy see this article and this article).
In response, Deborah Dombrowski quickly sent a rather threatening email to Harvest House publishers, which was scheduled to release my book on Warren titled Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (July, 2005).
Dombrowski apparently did not like the fact that in my post to AR-Talk, I noted the numerous errors in George Mair’s terrifically flawed biography of Warren (unauthorized) titled A Life with Purpose, which was a primary resource Dombrowski used in creating her Press Release.
In her email to Harvest House, Dombrowski first warned the publisher that I was publicly speaking negatively about Mair’s book, and then implied that Harvest House might find themselves in trouble along with me should the publisher of Mair’s book (Penguin) seek to bring any kind of legal action against me (exactly what Harvest House had to do with my personal posts on AR-Talk was never explained by Dombrowski). She also wanted Harvest House to know that she happened to know that Penguin had somehow been notified of my comments on AR-Talk, but that she had not yet heard whether or not the New York secular publishing house was going to take any legal actions. The questions are obvious:
• How did Penguin (a secular publisher) here about what I had said on Christian message forum?
• Who notified Penguin and how did Dombrowski know about it?
• Why would a “Christian” notify a secular publishing house with the apparent intention of causing trouble for a fellow believer who was simply exercising his God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed, American right to freedom of speech?
• Why would Dombrowski notify Harvest House of the comments I was making about a book that had nothing to do with Harvest House, or with my contract for an entirely different volume?
• What was Dombrowski hoping to accomplish by contacting Harvest House?
I believe the answers to all of the above questions are obvious. Nevertheless, despite what I believe was an attempt on the part of Dombrowski to silence me, I submit the following material that represents my corrections to only a small sampling of their “research” errors and baseless anti-Warren innuendos at their Lighthouse Trails Research Project [LTRP] website.
______________END
So, it seems that because Ms. Dombrowski didn’t like the fact that I had criticized/corrected Mair’s book (her primary source of material on Rick Warren), she tried to bring down the ire of Penguin Books on me (and Harvest House). This is an interesting course of action to take against a fellow believer, don’t you think?
Anyway, nufsad about DD and DD and LHT. My opinions appear in my web articles.
best to ya, bro.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Without Mrs. Dombroski’s input I would have to rely on your account of unpublished correspondence. I am not saying people, including me, do not act out of emotion and not in a Christian manner. I did not agree with her recent spat over some plagerized material with some lady. These publishing battles leave me cold and uninterested.
I still have not been presented with evidence that LHT intentionally lied about something. I am convinced that many Christians will never be able to engage others with patience and restraint, even when the opposition does not show the same courtesy.
I have not seen LHT posting about sinners and their sin either. Maybe I’ve missed it but they seem different and certainly not liars.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
fair enough, rick. fair enough. -:)
April 30th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I guess I’d call it what Foster did - using your imagination. Which, of course, by definitions is not astral projection.
Neil
April 30th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
When I was a kid I used imagine I was a space pilot and I could see myself blasting off in a rocket and traveling to a different galaxy to have battles with the Kundarian Confederation of space monsters…….I don’t think I ever left my body. But it was sure fun. ROFL.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I have a newer version and this quote is not found on pgs 28-29… but that just plays into the conspiracy theory that Foster “got caught” so he changed the book.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I have to go, I’m blasting off with Captain Video and his video rangers!
April 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Rick - just make sure you don’t use your imagination…
April 30th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Rick,
I used to practice Astro Projection.. my wife was very good at it. Both of us do not do that but I do practice “praying in the Spirit” which can include tongues. There is a type of trance but they are not the same thing. One is the Presence of the Holy Spirit and the other was a force of my own will.
The two are diametrically opposed… though in a way similar.
One is about using my will to empty myself to let “whatever” into me as i go around seeing whatever I wanted or the entity that was leading would let me see…
The other is the laying down of my will and thoughts to focus on Jesus by the Holy Spirit and to worship and find God’s presence and peace. In that I get insight to scripture. I do not claim I have some special “thing” as I see anyone can tap into God’s presence and that God desires us to.
To say that the practice of God’s presence is a doorway to the occult is ludicrous to me. As one who practiced the occult i see this a blasphemous. Having been in both worlds there is so much difference that I have to just laugh and assume that anyone that would confuse or insist such things has not rested in the active presence of God but seems to only have a head knowledge and not experience of the Living Christ who lives in us as believers.
iggy
April 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I practice astro-projection. When my wife is nagging me I go to Mars!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:46 am
I am surprised being married to you she does not practise it!
; )
love ya man…
iggy
May 1st, 2008 at 7:03 am
Chris L said - Astral projection actually teaches that you are able to leave your body, which is different than what you’ve quoted, which is plainly a mental exercise.
Chris -
Wikipedia: Astral projection (or astral travel) is a paranormal interpretation of an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation. The concept of astral projection assumes the existence of another body, separate from the physical body and capable of traveling to non-physical planes of existence. Commonly such planes are called astral, etheric, or spiritual. Astral projection is often experienced as the spirit or astral body leaving the physical body to travel in the spirit world or astral plane.
Richard Foster (not Willard, I have not read his book(s)) said: “In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body.”
Hmmm. Spiritual body leaving your physical body to later encounter a spiritual “being” during periods of deep mediation. No pineapples from acorns here. Just some common sense fruit inspection. I really have trouble seeing how, in the gross sense of the definition, that this is not, indeed, a Christianized version of astral projection.
The point gentlemen is that this, whatever it is - Astral projection or mental exercise - these techniques are ALL extra-Biblical. God in his word tells us how to approach Him (via prayer through the intersession of His Son and via meditation on His word) not through conjuring up an apparition of our own imagines to converse with and get instructions from. Astral projection or not, this also brings up an even more serious issue. Foster, here, and in his other teachings on mediation and imagining encounters with Jesus is advocating blatant idolatry.
What color is your “Jesus” hair and eyes? What is your “Jesus” wearing today? The white robe or the blue one? The obvious point is that the Jesus of your imagination is not the real Jesus, but a virtual wooden idol. And Iggy to your point, in so creating this being in your imagination, yes, there is a real, real danger of opening your mind to deceiving spiritual entities.
Foster is advocating a “Jesus on Demand” coming to you in the glorious HD of your own imagination. Please show me any where in Scripture where we as Christians are taught to use these techniques. The Jesus you visualize and create from your own imagination CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE REAL JESUS. So how is this in any way “OK”?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:10 am
“So how is this in any way “OK”?”
Oh, there will be a way. But the subject will quickly change to the ODMs.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Chris L,
Is your support of Foster because the ODM’s are against him and therefore you are for him “just because”, or have you read his works tested them against Scripture and find them “OK”?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:30 am
John Hughes
I am not totally sure what you are stating here… yet if you are saying that practicing the presence of Jesus is wrong… then I recommend you read more of the Bible’s teachings.
You seemed focused on the “occult” side of this “Christ in you” and the false teaching is dangerous.. no argument, but I am seeing the tossing out of biblical teaching of “Christ in you, the hope of glory. ” Too often out of fear (which is not of God) Christians toss out the good with the bad. Especially the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
If you are stating that we no longer practice the Lord’s presence I say that is foolish as David did it before Jesus came and even more now we should. Psalms 51: 10. “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. 11. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. 12. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.”
Psalm 89: 15. “Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, O LORD.”
The practice of the presence of the Lord is not just about meditating on God’s word but actively living out our faith.
Again this is what i am talking about so if you are saying that is wrong you need a better argument from scripture.
iggy
May 1st, 2008 at 7:48 am
Iggy - “The practice of the presence of the Lord is not just about meditating on God’s word but actively living out our faith.”
Couldn’t agree more bro! I have not read Bro Lawrence, but I have Foster and he is not on the same page as this.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:09 am
John,
So you like Brother Lawrence? But have not read him… personally he is great.
Yet, as with Foster LHT tosses the dear BL in the same pile as Brother Lawrence.
Again out with the bathwater the baby goes! LOL!
iggy
May 1st, 2008 at 8:11 am
crud I think I have been spam-manated