Magic Circles Taught by Zondervan & Seeker pastor Mark Batterson

[OnceWasLost]

Umm, it isn't so much the "problems" with Mark Batterson and his latest "product" or "project" as you will. Rather, it is about the way the "criticism" has been engaged in. Not via actual criticism but my making pronouncements with nothing to back it up. It is logically stating a premise and providing no logic proofs for the premise. The only support "proofs" of anything has come from my own examination.

I think part of the problem is you are trying to persuade me, yet I am not looking to be persuade of anything. If the concerns are valid it should be easy enough to document and provide sound delination of the same. I recognize it takes time, yet no one will be persuaded if all you do is simply make statement. Here is part of the problem. Simply making statements, with heavy use of pejoratives does nothing to convince those who may be going down that road and really just gets you good vibes and such from those who have seen and agree. In other words it does nothing to shed light to the bling. It is pointing to those seeing and saying, hey that over there is pretty crappy, don't you agree. And others and can, yes, you are right that is awful. Then can sit there and point there is "another" one and soon it is just a contest to see who can spot first or be the first to get out information on how bad something is, with no real concern for the lost, the deceived, just a chance to have the "gotcha" quotient. There even at some level can exist, okay, good we pointed that one out, lets move on to the next, hurry up lets find it.

Note I am not saying do not criticize or examine. All I am saying is doing so soundly, with full care and for consideration for those caught up in the varied webs of deception. In other words, I advocate the kind of approach outlined in the stickies and am stating that posts such as this one do not seem to match. There is something off.

let me ask you this, is such behavior of God? Now, it is entirely possible that my reactions and read here can be off the mark. odds are will just generate anger, but these words need to be said. Read and pray over them, seek God over matters.

If all you are seeing is me "making statements" then as I said earlier I will suspend the attempt. As I have repeatedly stated objectified prayer gimmicks are what contemplatives always pursue. Perhaps I was mistaken when I used the term contemplative as you assumed I meant contemplate.

Are you familiar with Spiritual Formation as a methodology for things spiritual? Are you familiar with the likes of richard foster and dallas willard, for instance? If not then perhaps we have stumbled upon our problem, and the terminology is likely the disconnect for you.

as for the rest of your post you grossly misrepresent our reason for calling people's attention to dangers in our midst. You make value jugements against those here that are unwarrented and going forward will no longer be tolerated I put the offensive examples in bold above.

[peacebringer]

If all you are seeing is me "making statements" then as I said earlier I will suspend the attempt. As I have repeatedly stated objectified prayer gimmicks are what contemplatives always pursue. Perhaps I was mistaken when I used the term contemplative as you assumed I meant contemplate.

Are you familiar with Spiritual Formation as a methodology for things spiritual? Are you familiar with the likes of richard foster and dallas willard, for instance? If not then perhaps we have stumbled upon our problem, and the terminology is likely the disconnect for you.

You are m aking your assertion and even doing it here. Your statement here is another example. You state "objectified prayer gimmicks" are "what contemplatives" always pursue. You state that as fact. Basically if that statement were true, than anything anyone does to give a structure to prayer, or to give language to understand can become an "objectified prayer gimmick." Let me turn a question around on you for a second to get the point. Can a person perhaps walk one of the "labryrinths" and be engaging in real prayer? Can some walk a city, and be engaging in real prayer? Can someone simply pray for a person over and over without adding any more than the persons name be engaging in real prayer? Where is your line there? I repeat all you have stated is a premise and offered no proof. Let's say I was someone who 100% backed all that Mark Batterson said, and ran across these statements, what kind of response is most likely? Is wisdom, truth, and love to be found in the engagement? Or is would someone simplely leave shaking there head?
No the terminology is the problem. Yes, I am well familar with "foster, willard" and so on. Your making a difference between "contemplative" and "contemplate" as if there is a difference other than the "contemplative" lable that easily paints with broad brush strokes and does nothing other then lable. There are broader meanings to both. See, you keep trying to put me in the box of a naive and blind person who you have to get it through thick skull about evils and get frustrated that I am "not getting it." I know all to well the varied threads and webs of deception that exist. I have had to confront some individuals sternly, usually to see them end up rejecting the confrontation and going deeper into error. Here, simply engaged to encourage careful and thought out engagement.

[OnceWasLost]

You are m aking your assertion and even doing it here. Your statement here is another example. You state "objectified prayer gimmicks" are "what contemplatives" always pursue. You state that as fact. Basically if that statement were true, than anything anyone does to give a structure to prayer, or to give language to understand can become an "objectified prayer gimmick." Let me turn a question around on you for a second to get the point. Can a person perhaps walk one of the "labryrinths" and be engaging in real prayer? Can some walk a city, and be engaging in real prayer? Can someone simply pray for a person over and over without adding any more than the persons name be engaging in real prayer? Where is your line there? I repeat all you have stated is a premise and offered no proof. Let's say I was someone who 100% backed all that Mark Batterson said, and ran across these statements, what kind of response is most likely? Is wisdom, truth, and love to be found in the engagement? Or is would someone simplely leave shaking there head?
No the terminology is the problem. Yes, I am well familar with "foster, willard" and so on. Your making a difference between "contemplative" and "contemplate" as if there is a difference other than the "contemplative" lable that easily paints with broad brush strokes and does nothing other then lable. There are broader meanings to both. See, you keep trying to put me in the box of a naive and blind person who you have to get it through thick skull about evils and get frustrated that I am "not getting it." I know all to well the varied threads and webs of deception that exist. I have had to confront some individuals sternly, usually to see them end up rejecting the confrontation and going deeper into error. Here, simply engaged to encourage careful and thought out engagement.

Walking a labyrinth for the reason of "prayer" is pointless as it is intended to desensitize, that is the objective. Anyone really wanting to "pray" would focus on that prayer and not on whether they are staying in the lines.

If someone was a fan of batterson I would look to do the same as I have tried to do with you. But for fear of goring someone's ox should we remain silent, really?

I have no problem with Biblical contemplation, as David did for instance, but that is light years from the contemplative methodology espoused by the celebration of disciplines crowd.

Anyway this is pointless.

[peacebringer]

Walking a labyrinth for the reason of "prayer" is pointless as it is intended to desensitize, that is the objective. Anyone really wanting to "pray" would focus on that prayer and not on whether they are staying in the lines.

If someone was a fan of batterson I would look to do the same as I have tried to do with you. But for fear of goring someone's ox should we remain silent, really?

I have no problem with Biblical contemplation, as David did for instance, but that is light years from the contemplative methodology espoused by the celebration of disciplines crowd.

Anyway this is pointless.

My question was not about the "intent" of the labyrinth, but rather is it possible whether someone can genuinely pray. So your answer is no? If so, then you do not believe that God responds to those who geuinely seek him, even if do so in flawed ways? So would you then say "seek and will find" only applies to a certain right "way" of seeking?
I am well aware of the "passive" approah that what you labels as "contemplatives" take and nothing about our relationship with God is passive, other than our engaging in surrender. Again, though you have made a statement "David's contemplation" was light years different with no even brief summary as to what that difference was.

Sorry you feel the discussion is "pointless." I can sit here and make same comment over frustration of the failure to grasp the point I am making.

You made some more rather strange statements here. "fear of gorring someone's ox, should we remain silent?" Please tell me and show me anything I have said that can be taken that way. I can tell you if your approach to a "batterson" fan is the same as me, with frequent references to one being stubborn, naive, dense, blind, "pointless" and other such "shame" filled statments. Nothing you would say would get through to them. Not a whit. Now perhaps the Holy Spirit can take something said and keep bringing it to them, but that attitude and approach lacks both an approach of full truthful examination and loving response. When I say that I don't mean there is no truth in what you say, it just lacks the full soundness of explanation.

Now, to give you another comment you will find as odd. As I was sitting here, throwing up a prayer for wisdom and direction, God brought to mind "Thought shalt have no graven images before me." Now, perhaps your premise may be really related to that, about our human propensity to take something and make it an objetified approach to relating to God. Batterson's book and "concept" seems to be actually more of that. Taking a human made "metaphor" to make a point about God and fashioning it to own liking, even marketing it. Now, that being said, there are and willl be people drawn in to sincere and persistent prayer with geunine requests and pulled into daily talking to God when there are none. God can bring His Spirit and His purpose out of our works and deeds of flesh and lust. God even uses those things that are meant for purposeful deception.

[OnceWasLost]

My question was not about the "intent" of the labyrinth, but rather is it possible whether someone can genuinely pray. So your answer is no? If so, then you do not believe that God responds to those who geuinely seek him, even if do so in flawed ways? So would you then say "seek and will find" only applies to a certain right "way" of seeking?
I am well aware of the "passive" approah that what you labels as "contemplatives" take and nothing about our relationship with God is passive, other than our engaging in surrender. Again, though you have made a statement "David's contemplation" was light years different with no even brief summary as to what that difference was.

Sorry you feel the discussion is "pointless." I can sit here and make same comment over frustration of the failure to grasp the point I am making.

You made some more rather strange statements here. "fear of gorring someone's ox, should we remain silent?" Please tell me and show me anything I have said that can be taken that way. I can tell you if your approach to a "batterson" fan is the same as me, with frequent references to one being stubborn, naive, dense, blind, "pointless" and other such "shame" filled statments. Nothing you would say would get through to them. Not a whit. Now perhaps the Holy Spirit can take something said and keep bringing it to them, but that attitude and approach lacks both an approach of full truthful examination and loving response. When I say that I don't mean there is no truth in what you say, it just lacks the full soundness of explanation.

Now, to give you another comment you will find as odd. As I was sitting here, throwing up a prayer for wisdom and direction, God brought to mind "Thought shalt have no graven images before me." Now, perhaps your premise may be really related to that, about our human propensity to take something and make it an objetified approach to relating to God. Batterson's book and "concept" seems to be actually more of that. Taking a human made "metaphor" to make a point about God and fashioning it to own liking, even marketing it. Now, that being said, there are and willl be people drawn in to sincere and persistent prayer with geunine requests and pulled into daily talking to God when there are none. God can bring His Spirit and His purpose out of our works and deeds of flesh and lust. God even uses those things that are meant for purposeful deception.

Nope it's not about graven images, if it was I would have said so.

The gored ox would be batterson in the event one of his followers were to stumble upon this thread.

[mattfivefour]

Peacebringer, with respect—and I mean that—the persistence in your contrarian point of view is wearing this discussion thin for the rest of us. You have made your point ... and it is a finely sharpened one. But the simple fact is that contemplative prayer as a methodology for approaching spiritual growth is extremely dangerous. It is employing an occult technique in the apprehension of a Christian goal. In like manner so are centering prayer, labyrinths, incense, candles, silence, inner balance, channeling energy, visualization and imaging etc, etc. These are ALL occultic in origin. And what makes matters worse is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to practice any of them in the first place! These occultically-patterned spiritual practices are merely man's attempts at shortcuts to spiritual growth. And they appeal strongly to the flesh because they make the practitioner feel more spiritual by engaging in the practices.

In His Word God is very specific about how we are to approach Him. And He warns us that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. According to His Word if we want to grow spiritually we need only surrender daily and obey. The Holy Spirit within us, operating within the parameters of the finished work of Christ on the Cross and the completed revelation of God in Bible, provides us with ALL that we need. Unfortunately, the flesh would rather go any other way than to allow itself to be mortified by the Spirit. Thus the occultic practices noted above are beginning to flourish .. and flourishing more and more as more and more pastors who should know better introduce them to their flocks. This makes me recoil in horror and speak as loudly as I can against them. Such practices open the practitioner up to deception and Satanic control. And ignorance of that fact is no protection. God does not look beyond disobedience to His Word and accept the result because the person was trying. But the issue here is not individual members of the flock but pastors and teachers who should no better. Pastors and teachers who accept these practices are actually delivering their flocks to wolves.

Brother, just as there is no justification for engaging in such practices, there is no justification for defending those who teach them. As pastors we are under-shepherds and are responsible before God for the feeding and the protection of that part of His flock which He has placed into our care. I am sure your desire is to try and bring peace by trying to see all sides of the issue and be scrupulously fair. But in doing so you are unwittingly giving tacit acceptance to some degree of error. There is no, I repeat, NO justification for any practice such as those discussed above. None! Not even a hint of such a practice can be condoned. They are against God's Word and we either stand ON God's Word ... or we stand against it.

Please accept our assurance that your desire to not see someone wrongly accused of something has been noted; but also please accept our instruction that there be no more argument in defense of anyone who promotes in any way—no matter how slight—the use of such practices by Christians.

Thanks, bro.

[peacebringer]

Peacebringer, with respect—and I mean that—the persistence in your contrarian point of view is wearing this discussion thin for the rest of us. You have made your point ... and it is a finely sharpened one. But the simple fact is that contemplative prayer as a methodology for approaching spiritual growth is extremely dangerous. It is employing an occult technique in the apprehension of a Christian goal. In like manner so are centering prayer, labyrinths, incense, candles, silence, inner balance, channeling energy, visualization and imaging etc, etc. These are ALL occultic in origin. And what makes matters worse is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to practice any of them in the first place! These occultically-patterned spiritual practices are merely man's attempts at shortcuts to spiritual growth. And they appeal strongly to the flesh because they make the practitioner feel more spiritual by engaging in the practices.

In His Word God is very specific about how we are to approach Him. And He warns us that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. According to His Word if we want to grow spiritually we need only surrender daily and obey. The Holy Spirit within us, operating within the parameters of the finished work of Christ on the Cross and the completed revelation of God in Bible, provides us with ALL that we need. Unfortunately, the flesh would rather go any other way than to allow itself to be mortified by the Spirit. Thus the occultic practices noted above are beginning to flourish .. and flourishing more and more as more and more pastors who should know better introduce them to their flocks. This makes me recoil in horror and speak as loudly as I can against them. Such practices open the practitioner up to deception and Satanic control. And ignorance of that fact is no protection. God does not look beyond disobedience to His Word and accept the result because the person was trying. But the issue here is not individual members of the flock but pastors and teachers who should no better. Pastors and teachers who accept these practices are actually delivering their flocks to wolves.

Brother, just as there is no justification for engaging in such practices, there is no justification for defending those who teach them. As pastors we are under-shepherds and are responsible before God for the feeding and the protection of that part of His flock which He has placed into our care. I am sure your desire is to try and bring peace by trying to see all sides of the issue and be scrupulously fair. But in doing so you are unwittingly giving tacit acceptance to some degree of error. There is no, I repeat, NO justification for any practice such as those discussed above. None! Not even a hint of such a practice can be condoned. They are against God's Word and we either stand ON God's Word ... or we stand against it.

Please accept our assurance that your desire to not see someone wrongly accused of something has been noted; but also please accept our instruction that there be no more argument in defense of anyone who promotes in any way—no matter how slight—the use of such practices by Christians.

Thanks, bro.

First of all thanks for the "respect" Matt, and since you set for an instruction and this is your place, will submit to your request. As you stated, my point has been made and it would just be a matter of going back and forth trying to make sure heard. For me it is not a matter of defending that which is wrong but assuring "sound discernment" and standing for what is right in both truth and love. And yes, teachers are to be "judged" more harshly. That being said, painting with broad brush strokes is not something that fits for me and will not convince others, but that point is made. May God's peace and strength fill you.


OWL- Um, I wasn't saying you were saying it was graven image, those were my thoughts, not yours.

[OnceWasLost]

First of all thanks for the "respect" Matt, and since you set for an instruction and this is your place, will submit to your request. As you stated, my point has been made and it would just be a matter of going back and forth trying to make sure heard. For me it is not a matter of defending that which is wrong but assuring "sound discernment" and standing for what is right in both truth and love. And yes, teachers are to be "judged" more harshly. That being said, painting with broad brush strokes is not something that fits for me and will not convince others, but that point is made. May God's peace and strength fill you.


OWL- Um, I wasn't saying you were saying it was graven image, those were my thoughts, not yours.

I have lost count how many times you have said we are painting with broad brush strokes. (or similar phrases) Whether you accept our position or not we have specifically shown where his program fits into a contemplative mold. This will be the last post where you make the assertion, might I suggest a re-read of the thread and you will see specifics were given, perhaps not using terms you prefer, but specifics nonetheless. You could accuse others of broad strokes who have not come back to the thread to add content, but the thread as a whole is not broad.

In the event that someone comes in here genuinely wanting to know what contemplative is as a methodology, we will give the same specifics we have done in thread, and links for further examination if desired, but we won't keep going in circles.

[OnceWasLost]

Maybe it's a good time to post this for the lurkers. Rather than try to reinvent the wheel and type lots of info, a couple links may prove helpful.

Contemplative Spirituality.

What is contemplative spirituality?

Contemplative Prayer.

What is contemplative prayer?

Whether it is prayer circles, prayer beads, breath prayers, labyrinths, centering prayer, lectio divina, prayer reading etc. They all share this in common, objectifying the process of spiritual contact with God. These same practices are used by religious traditions all over the world who do not acknowledge the existence of Jehovah God. So it begs the question, who then is the author? If not God then who? Obviously, only one answer remains.

[peacebringer]

I have lost count how many times you have said we are painting with broad brush strokes. (or similar phrases) Whether you accept our position or not we have specifically shown where his program fits into a contemplative mold. This will be the last post where you make the assertion, might I suggest a re-read of the thread and you will see specifics were given, perhaps not using terms you prefer, but specifics nonetheless. You could accuse others of broad strokes who have not come back to the thread to add content, but the thread as a whole is not broad.

In the event that someone comes in here genuinely wanting to know what contemplative is as a methodology, we will give the same specifics we have done in thread, and links for further examination if desired, but we won't keep going in circles.

I am dropping the conversation based on Matt's comment in thread.

[mattfivefour]

That said, I see no purpose in continuing. Thread closed. If somebody believes there is a valid reason to re-open it, please PM me.

Thanks, folks.