Thank you for your detailed response and follow up regarding the teachings of Richard Foster.  I have studied, pondered, and prayed about your response.  I thank God that you affirm that you are a “washed in the blood believer.”  It is also refreshing that I get such an email in which the writer is really thinking and using Scripture to reason, exactly as Paul did, rather than responding with feelings and ad hominim attacks.  I did not perceive that you were attacking me personally, but rather my arguments.  I will endeavor to do the same, as I too champion and hunger for the truth.  And though I still disagree with you, I do admire your articulate arguments...and think you may be a better defender of Richard Foster's teachings than Richard Foster himself.  You are such a worthy debater, I am going to try to do my utmost to recruit you...and possibly even minister to you.  I'm sure you will have a response.  Based on your statement of truly yearning for the truth, I hope you will hear me out and that I will make my case with gentleness and respect, and pray that I succeed in persuading you.

I think we can agree that Richard Foster quotes or endorses a number of Roman Catholic theologians and “masters” as Richard Foster calls them.  I think you will also agree that the intent of the book is ecumenical, as this is affirmed by D. Elton Trueblood who wrote the Foreward in which he states: “The purpose here is not sectarian but genuinely ecumenical.” (p. x) I think you will also agree that he quotes a number of Roman Catholics repeatedly, not simply anecdotally, but as spiritual resources and even giants in the faith.  And perhaps the capper that Richard Foster and Renovare are ecumenical is that both Roman Catholic Sister Thomas Bernard who actively pursues dialogue with Buddhism is Director of The Spirituality Centre, CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE of Los Angeles, and Rev. Msgr. Royale M. Vadakind Director, Commission on ecumenical & inter-religious affairs, catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles. have sat on RENOVARE'S STEERING COMMITTEE. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps you are familiar with the contents of the Council of Trent which is binding on all Roman Catholics, meaning it would be binding on every Roman Catholic teacher that Foster quotes and promotes.  It could be argued that the Desert Fathers and the Benedictine Order preceded the Council of Trent so that they are not personally responsible for doctrines that were codified and enforced by the Roman Catholic Church.  This would be only partially correct because the Roman Catholic Church had long held the views of the Council of Trent.  The Council simply codified these doctrines.  But this certainly would not excuse Ignatius Loyola.  And it would not excuse all Benedictines subsequent to the Council of Trent unless they renounced their vows.   Remember this every time Richard Foster quotes a Roman Catholic teacher or “master” or “contemplative mystic” as he some times calls them, he would have to know that they believe and are bound by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent.  As you probably know, the Council of Trent anathematizes (curses) everyone who is not Roman Catholic and who does not subscribe to the list of doctrines in that document.  For your reference here are some websites which document the authenticity of the Council of Trent as well as the fact that the current Pope still upholds the Council of Trent for ALL Catholics:

So, no matter how passionate we Protestants are in proclaiming that we are Christians,  Roman Catholicism according to the Council of Trent would still consider us cursed (eternally damned) and not saved.  And in addition to us Protestants that are cursed (according to this document), the Roman Catholic Council of Trent would anathematize Richard Foster because he is a Quaker; and George Fox, the Founder of the Quakers, whom Foster also quotes.  Ironically, this contrasts Vatican II which says all religions are manifestations of God, and thus worthy of our study and respect.  This is a glaring contradiction which has never been rectified.

Incidentally, George Fox was arrested for refusing to take an oath, believing it to be unbiblical.  Another irony is that Richard Foster (a Quaker) sets up oaths and covenants on his Renovare website.  Roman Catholicism collides with what George Fox and the original Quakers believed and it most certainly collides with the Council of Trent.  As to what Quakers believe and why we should both be concerned, I invite you to visit this site:

Violent shaking and mindless ecstasy is also at the heart of the Toronto Blessing, Alpha Course, i.e., the “Laughing (and barking like dogs) Movement.”  And trances was one of the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola, whom Foster quotes glowingly.  So it is not surprising that Richard Foster would connect and identify himself with both John Wimber (The Vineyard) and Ignatius Loyola (Jesuits).  And I can't help but be baffled that Richard Foster (a pacifist Quaker) would promote Ignatius Loyola who is historically known to have taken up arms to kill hundreds of thousands of Christians; while George Fox himself, being the Founder of Quakers, believed as one of their doctrines: “Christians should not fight with carnal weapons.”   This idea gives a whole new spin to the Scripture in Amos which states: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3  And does anyone seriously believe that the Roman Catholic Church would exempt Quakers (i.e., Richard Foster) from all of the rest of the Protestant Sects during the Reformation in their scourge to purge the church of such sects?  Christians have a case of collective amnesia, or simply not being aware of what Roman Catholicism really teaches in the still binding Council of Trent.

Seemingly in accordance with Vatican II (that all religions are manifestations of God), referenced below is a documented photo of the Pope kissing the Koran.  Richard Foster is promoting Roman Catholic teachers whose Vicar on Earth (the Pope) embraces still another daughter of Babyon (Islam), responsible for still millions of deaths of countless more martyrs for Christ.  Richard Foster should not embraces the teachings of this false religion of Roman Catholicism...and worse stumble Evangelical Christians to do the same.

In your email you contend that emptying the mind is NOT what Richard Foster teaches as his definition of Christian Meditation.  Below I explain the contradiction of  Richard Foster's two editions (the 1978 Edition vs. the 25^th Anniversary Edition).  You should be aware that emptying the mind is at the heart of the philosophy of still another Roman Catholic Jesuit monk that Richard Foster touts, and that is Jean-Pierre de Caussade.  Richard Foster promotes de Caussade in both editions of Celebration of Discipline.  I had always wondered where Richard Foster may have gotten this idea (for his 1978 Definition of Christian Meditation).  Entering into nothingness (“Etre dans le rien”) is exactly what de Caussade taught.  De Caussade also taught “annihilation of our own spirit”....a parallel idea to entering into nothingness.  The only problem is that there is no such concept of “annihilation of our own spirit” taught in the Bible.  Even for the wicked, one's spirit is eternal.  The difference is where one will spend eternity.

The idea that “entering into nothingness” or “annihilation of our own spirit” is what is meant by entering into stillness is a complete distortion of the true meaning of Biblical text which uses the term “be still” (see my commentary below on stillness).  If this what Richard Foster believes and promotes (and he does promote Jean-Pierre de Caussade's teachings both in his books and as a valuable resource on his Renovare website) as Christian, God help us! 

Christians should recognize these quotes as none other than Tibetian Buddhism which teaches that spiritual awakening and the path to enlightenment is the “realization of emptiness” and in the Zen idea of “realizing no mind.”  It is no wonder that Richard Foster would be such a devout fan of Thomas Merton who defended and practiced Buddhism and also extensively quotes Jeanne-Pierre de Caussade.  But Jesus said be sure that the light that is in you is NOT darkness!

This quote sounds a lot like another myth, circulated even among Evangelical Christians which says “never say anything about anyone unless you can say something good.”  This philosophy sounds good...and it is certainly a philosopy that seems right unto man.  But the ultimate and fair question is whether or not it is biblically grounded.  The answer is unequivocally no.  There is not one single example in Scripture where anything good was said about any individual who was determined to be a false prophet or false teacher.

Furthermore, did Jesus follow de Caussade's advice with the Pharisees whom he called “brood of vipers”, “white washed sepulchres” and “sons the of devil?”

Did Paul follow de Caussade's advice in calling the teachings of Philetus and Hymenaus “gangrene in the Body of Christ,” or “anyone teaching another gospel eternally damned” when addressing the Galatians?

Did Peter follow de Caussade's advice in calling certain men “brute beasts...slaves of depravity,” “blots and blemishs”, “accursed brood”, “springs without water...blackest darkness is reserved for them?”

Did Jude follow de Caussade's advice in calling certain men “unreasoning animals”, “clouds without rain”, “autumn trees without fruit...twice dead”, “wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame”, “wandering stars” and also calling certain men “blemishes at your feasts” and “for whom the blackest darkness has been reserved for them?”

Finally, the eschatological ramifications of de Caussade's statement are staggering, because the Apostle John marks persons as deceivers and antichrists.  How are we as responsible Christians to not correctly beware of and warn of antichrists without describing them as evil men?

In the Last Days, are we to not call evil the final Antichrist and his False Prophet when he comes on the scene in order to not be deceived into taking the mark of the beast?  Paul tells us the evil men will wax worse and worse.  Isaiah tells us “woe to them who call evil good,” while de Caussade tells us not to say anything evil about anyone.  But thank God, none of true prophets and apostles followed de Caussade's advice if they were good shepherds guarding the flock from wolves in sheep's clothing and without cease, warning them to not be deceived!

De Caussade would have had to remove all of the Scriptures identifying evil men when he preaches or teaches or counsels.  De Caussade's advice directly collides with Scripture after Scripture and reveals either his lack of knowledge of Scripture, or willfull ignorance.  This is not a matter of simply hollow and deceptive philosophy, which is damaging enough, but beyond that, de Caussade's teaching is corrupt, and corrosive to the Body of Christ.  It is not surprising that Richard Foster (and psychologist Larry Crabb) would quote de Caussade, because this philosophy of seeing Christ in everyone fits right in with the teachings of the Benedictine Order whose teachers they often quote.  And it fits right in with George Fox, the founder of Quakers, whom Foster quotes:

It is no wonder that people see the line being blurred between Eastern and Christian Meditation, if not morphing them into virtually the same thing!  Jesus Christ dwells as UNAPPROACHABLE Light, whom no man has seen or can see!  

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." I Timothy 6:16

It is obvious from this passage that Jesus Christ cannot be seen.  See an explanation on concerns about Richard Foster's teaching on this in the section below on “Astral Travel.”

Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuit Order

Richard Foster defends the teaching of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Order, which is responsible for the murder of millions of true saints, and the persecution of countless more true saints who were running for their lives.  One million poor Waldenses perished in France; nine hundred thousand orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. (SOURCE: http://www.the-highway.com/eu_Bennett.html).  For more proof that the Jesuit Order is heretical, here is part of the oath they take:

When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colours, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS. The meaning of which is:

"It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers."  SOURCE: http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Jesuit_Oath.htm

Ignatius was the first general of the Jesuit army. The Jesuit army infiltrated churches to destroy all that were not related to the mother church. One of the bloodiest times in the history of mankind, the Jesuits were probably the most cruel and fierce as they justified torture and murder for the church. Loyola's spiritual exercises were used by the Jesuits and they would put themselves into a trance and levitate. The Jesuits were responsible for the Inquisition. Loyola's JESUIT ORDER under his personal direction was responsible for the MARTYRDOM OF COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF GOD'S SAINTS who would not bow the knee to the papal demand for unconditional obedience.  Furthermore, Richard Foster's bent to ecumenism might be acceptable to many Protestants, but it would be impossible for Ignatius Loyola to desire unity and embrace the very saints he anathematized and slew, thinking he was doing God a favor.  Richard Foster should not want us to draw our inspiration from Ignatius Loyola.

Richard Foster quotes and endorses a number of what he calls “Desert Fathers.”  It is no secret that “Desert Fathers” refers to gnostic Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics.   Gnosticism is one of the first major heresies in the church, opposed by both the Apostle Paul and many early Church Fathers.  I point this out in my article on the Enneagram which is also promoted by Richard Foster.  In short, thanks to Thomas Merton (one of Foster's chief mentors), a number of other Roman Catholic teachers, and Richard Foster himself, Roman Catholicism has become the Trojan Horse in the Evangelical Church, gradually nullifying the Reformation and insulting every saint burned at the stake who could simply have affirmed unity with Roman Catholicism and saved their lives, rather than thinking and proclaiming Sola Scripture and by faith alone we are saved.  Richard Foster believes that the Holy Spirit is going to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics.  The Holy Spirit may unite individual true believers, but ecumenical unity with Roman Catholicism and its teachings can never happen at the expense of truth.  Roman Catholic teachings which place traditions over Scripture are both Apostate and Pagan...Roman Catholicism can NEVER unite with Protestantism.  Furthermore, Roman Catholicism is a religion of necromancy, in that its doctrine promotes praying to Mary and a host of other dead saints.  It collides with the Second Commandment that prohibits even having other idols (statues of saints) before you, let alone praying to them, for God is a jealous God.

Richard Foster endorses the kind of pray known as “cataphatic spirituality” which is praying before icons or images of saints (definition).  If there remains any doubt as to the great quantity of Roman Catholic teachers and ministries Richard Foster advocates, I invite you to read the index in the copy of Celebration of Discipline that you possess, check the index of all of Foster's books, and finally, go to his own Renovare website to see all of the Roman Catholic resources he promotes.  His website is: http://www.renovare.org.  Richard Foster needs to mark these teachers, not promote them!

Now, I would humbly like to address some of the points in your letter:

CHRISTIAN MEDITATION AND THE ALPHA STATE

Defender of Richard Foster's Comment:

Upon reading and re-reading Chapter 2 (The Discipline of Meditation) in Celebration of Discipline, 1998 edition (the edition that I happen to own), I find that your quote is decidedly NOT how Mr. Foster defines Christian meditation, at least in the book I own. He says on page 17, "Christian meditation, very simply, is the ability to hear God's voice and obey his word . . . . It involves no hidden mysteries, no secret mantras, no mental gymnastics, no esoteric flights into the cosmic consciousness." His continual emphasis on Christ as the focus of meditation is woven throughout the entire chapter. There is hardly a sentence that does not echo this message. Again, on page 20, "What happens in meditation is that we create the emotional and spiritual space which allows Christ to construct an inner sanctuary in the heart." You invite me to find one single verse that supports Mr. Foster's definition. According to the definition he gave on page 17, every verse that I could find touching on meditation in the Bible supports it. And yet another example of how Mr. Foster's definition of meditation is decidedly different from what you portray begins at the bottom of page 20: "Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind; Christian meditation is an attempt to fill the mind. The two ideas are quite different." The two paragraphs on page 21 directly following this quote go into further detail of the difference, and I suggest you read them again if you haven't done so lately....

I am familiar with the New Age teaching on Alpha State, and I am agreement that it should not be the goal of any truly Christian meditation. In this instance, I believe the website you reference does a gross injustice to Mr. Foster by quoting him entirely out of context. Even a casual reading of the paragraph from which this quote is taken shows beyond a doubt that Mr. Foster is NOT promoting the Alpha State. Here is the sentence referenced on that website put into its entire context (from pages 22-23): "If you feel that we live in a purely physical universe, you will view meditation as a good way to obtain a consistent alpha brain-wave pattern. But if you believe that we live in a universe created by the infinite-personal God who delights in our communion with him, you will see meditation as communication between the Lover and the one beloved. These two concepts of meditation are complete opposites. The one confines us to a totally human experience; the other catapults us into a divine-human encounter. The one talks about the exploration of the subconscious; the other speaks of 'resting in him whom we have found, who loves us, who is near to us, who comes to us to draw us to himself.' Both may sound religious and even use religious jargon, but the former can ultimately find no place for spiritual reality." (emphasis mine) How much clearer could Mr. Foster be that he is NOT advocating the alpha state as the goal but is instead refuting it (along with the pursuit of the subconscious)?

James Response:

The passage you present above does make it appear that Richard Foster distances himself from the “alpha state” and the “unconscious.”  I agree with you that the website you refer to (Lighthouse Trails Research) should have explained the greater context of the quote they list, because that quote in isolation (and even in the surrounding paragraphs), as you have noted above, is not what indicts Richard Foster on this issue.  Below I indicate why Richard Foster in other passages seems to be sympathetic to inducing the Alpha State.  On a side note, Alpha Brain Waves in and of themselves are not heretical, as they can be measured by equipment known as electroencephalography which accompany the relaxation state we experience when we first wake up in the morning, and are used by psychiatrists. Alpha Brain Wave patterns can be printed out, showing frequencies of a person's brain similar to what an Electrocardiagram does with heartbeats.  But the issue at hand is whether or not there is a Biblical precedent for trying to induce this Alpha State, let alone for the purpose of better communion or union with God.  If anything the writer of Psalm 119, in describing at length true meditation, was trying to keep from going to sleep in order to remain fully awake because he was on guard duty at night that he might better concentrate on the statutes and ordinances of the Lord.

Furthermore, the Alpha State is a passive state.  There is not biblical precedent for being passive while we meditate but quite the opposite, that we gird up the loins of our mind, we concentrate, focus, become vigilant, become as alert and circumspect as we can possibly be.   Are we to devote our best for the Lord by practicing a form of Christian meditation in which we are half-awake/half asleep?...for that is what you are medically when you are in an Alpha State. Was Jesus half-awake/half-asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane when he performed the highest form of Christian Meditation known to man for all history?  In fact, Jesus rebuked his disciples that they were sleeping and not watching with him.  Watching meant like when a guard is on his night watch...fully alert...not half asleep!  The reason the Lord want us to NOT be passive, at least in great part, is because that may open the doors to demonic entrance.  And though not necessarily spiritual at its onset, being passive certainly becomes very spiritual when one become possessed by a demonic spirit or opens the door to given heed to such seducing spirits.

Again, there are contradictions throughout Richard Foster's book on what he means by meditation and contrary to what he asserts, blurs the line between Eastern Meditation and Biblical Meditation.  Richard Foster on one hand acknowledges that the Alpha State is purely a medical state of relaxation and helpful, yet on the other hand seems to tells that it is not desirable for Christians...why not if it just a perfectly normal cycle of our lives.  So  is the Alpha State good for non-Christians and bad for Christians?  But the fact is he does not think it is bad for Christians as we see in his promotion of other teachers who do promote the Alpha State.  (I hope someday to prepare a chart outlining these contradictions for the sake of clarity).  The problem is that Richard Foster continues to promote Morton Kelsey, a certified Jungian analyst who is totally submerged in the teaching of the “unconscious” and says this about the alpha state in suggesting that Christian and other meditative practices may “go along with alpha and theta wave activity in the brain...“Alpha waves are apparently induced in the brain.”  Kelsey further states that “these capacities are often found among Hindu gurus, Zen masters, or anyone who uses deep meditation, as well as among Christian saints.”  Foster can't have it both ways!  It is impossible for a non-Christian or non-believer to meditate in a Biblical sense, because the natural man understands NOT the things of the spirit.  And Christians have no business meditating like Hindus and Zen masters.  In other words, in terms of physiology, the techniques that Richard Foster and the teachers he quotes suggest we use to meditate are identical...just that Christians are supposed to commune with God in this altered state of consciousness, whereas non-Christians simply achieve the Alpha State.  This is ridiculous.  And Richard Foster's definition is not as biblical as it might appear.  Both forms of meditation, Christian and Eastern, according to Foster, still produce an altered state of consciousness.  It is certain he means this, or he would not refer to the examples of Peter's visions and Paul's trip to the Third Heaven.  Richard Foster alleges that the difference with Eastern meditation is that it produces that Alpha State (for non-Christians) and the Western version produces communion with the Lord.   So does this mean the minute a person becomes a Christian they no longer enter the Alpha State when they meditate?  I am certainly not very comforted by Foster's new definition to receive counsel from him.  My counselor is the Mighty Counselor whose counsel in immutable (UNCHANGING) in definitions!

I would like to address the other quote of Richard Foster you refer to in which he states: "What happens in meditation is that we create the emotional and spiritual space which allows Christ to construct an inner sanctuary in the heart."   Once again, chapter and verse for a biblical precedent for creating an emotional and spiritual space?  Are you suggesting that during times we aren't meditation that an emotional and spiritual space does not already exist?  And that until we create such a space that Christ's hands are tied to construct an inner sanctuary of the heart?  Well there are two major problems with this theology.  One, every human whether born naturally or born again already has an emotional and spiritual space...that comes from human nature and in great part what separates us from animals. i.e., God created us with body, soul, and spirit.  And whatever space is there, if that is what you choose to call it is already there, and was made by the Lord, not us!  Secondly, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit already, so Christ already created the sanctuary.  The difference for Christians is that the temple is occupied by the Holy Spirit the minute they become believers.  Christ does not construct anything in a believer, he simply occupies what he already created.  There is not a new sanctuary created, except in the sense that as Christians we are New Creations.  For Richard Foster to teach  this idea of a new sanctuary created when we meditates is once again adding to what is written in Scripture.

Then you quote Richard Foster: “Both may sound religious and even use religious jargon, but the former can ultimately find no place for spiritual reality." This statement is simply not correct.  Both Biblical meditation and Eastern meditation involve “spiritual reality.”  The difference is that the former is in fact the spiritual reality of communion with God, while the latter is spiritual reality of communion with devils (divination or sorcery). But Christ does not have communion with anyone who is in an altered state of consciousness, unless initiated by Christ himself (not us) as in the case of Peter's vision and Paul being transported to the Third Heaven.

You have asked me to re-read Foster's page 21 which I have happily done.  Reciprocally, I invite you to read the second paragraph on Page 15 of his 1978 Edition of Celebration of Discipline and ask yourself why he has contradicted his own earlier definition of Christian Meditation (which you ought to be able to find at your local public or university library).  His in-depth definition, according to the 25^th Anniversary Edition, from which you quote, includes a need for detachments and even going beyond detachment (Page 21).  And even though there is no Scriptural support for detachment, Foster invokes Peter of Celles, a Roman Catholic Benedictine monk, in defending it as Christian meditation...Benedictines who say that Christ is in everyone (universalism).  So if the Benedictines are correct, then all meditation would be the same...no distinction between Eastern and Biblical Meditation....because Christ is already in EVERYONE.  This would mean all who practice it would produce an altered state of consciousness, or the Alpha State.  So, Foster in invoking the authority of the Benedictine Order (which he often does) refutes his own definition that there are two kinds of meditation.

Richard Foster should not anchor his definition of Christian Meditation on a Benedictine monk, for the Benedictine Order, being Roman Catholic is somewhat of an oxymoron.  Official Roman Catholic Doctrine anathematizes all Christians who are not Roman Catholic while contradictory teaching of Benedictine Roman Catholics see Jesus Christ in everyone.  This implies that they see Jesus Christ in those whom the Roman Catholic Church  has cursed.

Peter of Celles (Peter Cellensis)

Richard Foster tells us that part of Christian meditation is obedience (to Scripture) yet he invokes Peter of Celles (Peter Cellensis) who taught that the Apocrypha was part of the Canon of Scripture.  These books which are full of errors certainly would not qualify as the texts or traditions Paul would be using when he reasoned from Scripture.

Peter of Celles (and thus Richard Foster) is even wrong about his idea of detachment.  Peter of Celles refers to “emptying of evil” to describe Christian meditation.  But the example he gives is the demoniac that Christ delivered from evil spirits.  Now it is true that this is one case where I would agree that emptying the mind could be biblically defended.  But there are two major problems with Foster (quoting Peter of Celles) using this as an example of Christian Meditation.  One, the demoniac was not meditating to empty himself of the demons, it was Christ initiating it and performing the miracle of deliverance.  Two, if this is Christian meditation, then Christians would be exorcising their own demons and this would assume that they can be possessed.  Show me just one Scripture in the New Testament where a Christian was ever possessed by a demon!  Christians would have already replaced the demon(s) with Christ to occupy the house, so that seven other spirits more evil than the first could NOT return.

Even though Richard Foster seems to have altered his original view of “emptying the mind in order to fill it...” from his 1978 edition, he again contradicts himself by promoting Peter of Celles' idea of “emptying of evil” by the very example he gives regarding the demoniac.  Christians may, in fact, be detached from evil spirits when we are delivered from darkness into light and become saved, and at that point become attached to Jesus (though that is a peculiar term to use).  But once we are attached, we are permanently attached to Jesus.  We don't “attach” ourselves to him every time we perform Christian meditation.

Karen Mains

Karen Mains is a member of the Board of Renovare (Richard Foster) and promotes mysticism and the teachings of occultist Carl Jung. The books of Jennifer Westwood (whom Karen Mains quotes below) are sold in Insight Metaphysical Bookstore and her publisher is Gaia (as in earth goddess).

If there remains any doubt that Karen Mains promotes Carl Jung and inculcates her own teaching with Carl Jung, here is a quote from rapidnet:

" Her "spiritual director," a Catholic nun and Jungian psychotherapist, confirms what her evangelical, inner-healing therapist friend and "unofficial spiritual mentor" told her: "Your male-self is certainly wooing you." Karen Mains explains, "... this indeed is my male-self, the animus that I need to complement my female being, the anima. This psychological concept of the male-within-the-female and the female-within-the-male was developed by Carl Jung, but it has always seemed exceptionally scriptural to me." Mrs. Mains notes Jung's perspective "that for spiritual and psychological health a person must have a harmonious and friendly relationship with his or her unconscious" and adds, "Through the insistent initiation of the Holy Spirit, I am being forcefully guided to make rapprochement with my inner, deepest self." [What incredible self-delusion! The Holy Spirit's work and Jung's anti-Biblical concepts couldn't be more contrary to each other. Much of what Jung taught was derived from his own personal spirit guide, a demon named Philemon. (See  America: The Sorcerer's New Apprentice for Jung's heavily demonized background.)]

In a later Jungian session with her "spiritual director" at Cenacle, a Catholic contemplative retreat center, Mrs. Mains tells of a drastic change in the entity which has been appearing in her mind. In graphic detail, she describes an "idiot-child sitting at a table with other people ... totally bald head lolled to one side ... drooling ... six, seven or eight years of age ... emaciated and malnourished ... sad, huge eyes ... This is my idiot-child, the idiot-self of my self." Her "spiritual director" has her close her eyes and "see the child again." She does so and begins to communicate with the image who surprises them both by revealing that it is the "Christ child." [!!] (This is right out of the book, The Occult Christ, by Ted Andrews.) Mrs. Mains ponders the thought that the young man and the idiot-child are both Jesus Christ who has "been attempting to woo me because an essential part of my identity in Him has been expelled from my adult development." We find that this "Christ child," whom she is instructed to always take with her, is her "spiritual authority" [classic New Age terminology for "spirit guide"] which she is "afraid of having" and has "rejected not only [as] a part of myself, but a part of myself that is Christ."

There are three possibilities concerning Karen Mains and her spirit guide: (1) What she has written is the promotion of her own agenda through a vehicle which she self-characterizes: "Mains, you have a wacko creative imagination"; (2) Her penchant for introspection and symbolism have swept her into the delusionary world of the experiential and hopelessly subjective. This is pure Jungian hokum, nothing more; or (3) One and two have led her down the path to New Age shamanism, where, under the guise of psychological concepts and symbolism and through the occult practice of guided imagery, she has been in communication with a spirit guide -- in fact a demon appearing as an angel of light! From what she writes in this book, it appears that the third possibility is the reality in the life of Karen Mains. Indeed, with Jung's "christ" come Jung's demons. (Reported in/excerpted from the 3/94 The Berean Call and/or Media Spotlight, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 5-7. For another independent review of Lonely No More, see Michele Witchell's article in the July/August 1994, Contender's Journal: "The Fruit of a Psychological Gospel.") [Lonely No More was also advertised as a gift-giving book in Chapel of the Air 's 1994, 50-Day Spiritual Adventure Journal booklet.]" SOURCE: 

Here are two quotes from Karen Main's own website hungrysouls.org, in case there is any doubt about her ecumenical eastern meditation, New Age centering, and mystical leanings:

 "Sacred journeys are as old as human cultures. They evolved from the ritual paths of tribal societies; from the sacred ways of classical Greece, Egypt, and the East; and from the flowering in the Middle Ages of the great religious pilgrimages that still flourish."

"Travel to distant places has a way of opening a path inward, to possibility, to memory, even. After a while, the physical experience of travel somehow becomes less significant than the inner transformations we undergo when, by moving through space, bumping against strangeness and being changed by it, we somehow become more of who we are meant to be." - Abigail Seymour

One of Richard Foster's greatest champions is Agnes Sanford, whose book is laced with Carl Jung theology.  All of these teachers are inextricably tied to depth psychology and the “unconscious”   So for you to say that Richard Foster is opposed to the “subconscious”  is factually untenable.  I would also like to add this about Richard Foster and Roman Catholic mystic Thomas Merton, whom Richard Foster holds in the highest regard, which I have included in my book on Rick Warren entitled “Who's Driving the Purpose Driven Church?” (available in November 2004):

Richard Foster opens his 25th Anniversary Edition chapter on meditation with a quote from Carl Jung, a known occultist whose ideas are also promoted in Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life book. Richard Foster still promotes the same false teachers in his current edition as he does in his 1978 edition. These include Carl Jung disciples Agnes Sanford and Morton Kelsey (a trained Jung analyst). Richard Foster also quotes and/or lists as valuable contemplatives such universalists as George Fox and Thomas Kelly, as well as pantheists such as Julian of Norwich, John of the Cross, Madame Guyon, and Meister Eckhart. Finally, Richard Foster promotes Shalem Prayer Institute founder Tilden Edwards who states: “This mystical stream [contemplative prayer] is the Western bridge to Far Eastern spirituality.” Rick Warren should not knowingly give five stars to Richard Foster’s book as a good spiritual resource on his pastors.com website. For a more complete study on Richard Foster’s teaching that Rick Warren promotes, please refer to a documentary I wrote, “Spiritual Formation, Richard Foster, and Renovare: Renovare Analyzed for Biblical Soundness and Found Wanting”

informative article which discusses Richard Foster, entitled “Contemporary Christian Divination” (July/August 2004) which can be

Here is another quote from Thomas Merton, one of Richard Foster most quoted “masters”:

“I believe that our renewal consists precisely in deepening this understanding and this grasp of that which is most real. And I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own traditions, because they have gone, from the natural point of view, so much deeper into this than we have. The combination of the natural techniques and graces and the other things that have been manifested in Asia and the Christian liberty of the gospel should bring us all at last to the full and transcendental liberty which is beyond mere cultural differences and mere externals -- and mere this or that.”

- Thomas Merton, Polonnaruwa.

I would also like to point out that Richard Foster does teach “mantras.”  That is what prayer centering entails in terms of technique.  And why it is “hidden” is because it professes to provide information only available through these experiences and techniques and vain repetitions. 

Madeleine L'Engle

Regarding your quote of Foster: “no esoteric flights into the cosmic consciousness”....no cosmic consciousness?  Again we have another contradiction, because Richard Foster quotes and secures the endorsement of his friend Madeleine L'Engle who states on Page 205 of the same 25^th Anniversary Edition of Celebration of Discipline that you quote: “If everybody in this country could read—and heed---this book, what a difference it would make to the planet---nay, to the cosmos”?

So let's look a little deeper into what Madeleine L'Engle believes and teaches to see if she is a valuable resource for Christian spirituality...let alone be a candidate for being a Spiritual Director:

Madeleine L'Engle:

In her endorsement of Foster's book, L'Engle writes on page 205: "'Celebration of Discipline' won me when it was first published ... Indeed, his offerings to us of the joy of discipline will help us to seek the kingdom of God in a more joyous and less moralistic way..." 

Note: She must have overlooked Matt.6:33 - But seek ye first the kingdom of God AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS...

"From her feminist perch, she takes aim at the male gender of God,        calling Him 'the paternalistic male chauvinist pig Old Testament God'." (Smith, p. ix, quoting L'Engle, 'The Irrational Season', p.159) [emphasis mine]

"Moralism belongs to the old law and old covenant. Jesus Christ ... overturned the laws of moralism." (Smith, p.169, quoting L'Engle, "The Irrational Season", p. 102)

So what does Madeleine L'Engle think of the Da Vinci Code book which tries to refute the truth of Christ and Biblical teaching?

“I just read “The Da Vinci Code," which had some fascinating things in it. I liked that whole central section about Christianity when it postulates that Jesus was a very strong character and that he and Mary Magdalene were lovers and had a child.” [emphasis mine]

“That’s silly. It takes too much energy to be against something unless it’s really important... .”

What are you against?
“Narrow-mindedness. I’m against people taking the Bible absolutely literally, rather than letting some of it be real fantasy, like Jonah. You know, the whole story of David is a novel … Faith is best expressed in story.” [emphasis mine]

“Well, the Fundalets [fundamentalist Christians] want a closed system, and I want an open system.” [emphasis mine]

Now just in case you might be thinking that Richard Foster is simply quoting Madeleine L'Engle's endorsement of his book, but that he does not endorse her as a teacher, I invite you to read where Renovare quotes L’Engle very positively [Renovare’s Perspective magazine, April 1997 - Vol. 7, No. 2 - page 4] Source: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/index31.htm

http://www.renovare.org/readings_perspective_07_2_pg_4.htm (primary source)

This is just the beginning of the abominable and heretical statements she makes about and in her book Wrinkle in Time. The Church of Saint John the Divine is an appropriate place for her.  But she has no place in Evangelical Christianity who doesn't even view the Bible as history but simply stories.  Madeleine L'Engle wants an “open system”.... she is one more false teacher that Richard Foster promotes!

***************

Richard Foster claims the “masters” in the Traditions of Christianity practiced Foster's version of contemplative prayer methods.  But certainly none of the Apostles did, nor did they advocate that we do.  Certainly Jesus even forbade vain repetitions.  And to say that Christians in the last hundreds of years have missed out is an insult to every Christian who simply obtained everything God had for them by the normal cognitive process of reading and obeying Scripture, and praying.  Scripture is sufficient; there is not some mystical technique we have to learn from masters whose teachings were laced with false teaching.  Secondly, Foster promotes a host of teachers that, in fact, DO teach what Foster says Christian meditation is not.  Finally, if Christian mediation is exactly how Richard Foster defines it in his latest definition, which is: “Christian meditation, very simply, is the ability to hear God's voice and obey his word...” well I can do that by simply reading and obey God's word....and so could every Christian in the last several hundred years without Richard Foster and without any of the “masters” he promotes who are mostly dead; he says we need their help to facilitate disciplines (page xiii in the Introduction of Celebration of Discipline).  Why isn't Richard Foster obeying God's word which forbids promoting false teachers?

ON IMAGINATION

Defender of Richard Foster's Comment:

In regards to the place imagination plays in meditation, you'll have to forgive me for once again disagreeing with your stance. If you look up the Hebrew word that is predominantly used for meditate in the Old Testament (hagah) you will find (ironically enough, perhaps) that one of its primary translations is "to imagine". And in reference to a verse that you quote quite frequently to combat Mr. Foster's use of imagination (2 Corinthians 10:5), it is also helpful to go back to the original wording. The word translated "imagination" in the King James Version in that verse is the word logismos in Greek. When you look at the meaning of that word, it actually means computation, reasoning, or thought. It is the word from which we derive our English word for logic. It's pretty clear by an examination of the exact word that God inspired in that verse that the verse doesn't really fit your usage of it.

James' Response

I am not opposed to imagination; it is one of God's gifts to mankind.  Once again, it is quite ironic that if “imagination” in Greek means computation, reasoning, or thought, that Richard Foster would publish a definition of Christian Meditation in his 1978 Edition of Celebration of Discipline that tells us to empty our mind in order to fill it.  It is further ironic that he would quote Jean-Pierre de Caussade (25^th Anniversary Edition) in developing his idea of Christian Meditation who tells also tells us to empty our mind and enter into nothingness.  But imagination has God-ordained boundaries and makes vain strongholds of imagination off limits, when exercised as divination (an abomination to the Lord).  So let's see if Richard Foster crosses those boundaries, rendering him a false teacher in going beyond what is written.

ASTRAL TRAVEL

So, can't we call Jesus down from Heaven and even go visit him in Heaven?

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ must remain in Heaven UNTIL the restoration of all things.  Here is the proof in Christ's own words:

“A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves,” John 16:16

In other words, Jesus' Disciples would not see him while he was in the grave, and then a little while between His Resurrection and His Ascension (40 Days).  Then when Jesus ascended, they would not see him.  That seems crystal clear to me.

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.  Behold, I have told you before.  Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not.  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”  Matthew 24:23-27  KJV

&

The Apostle Peter:

“He (Jesus Christ) must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” Acts 3:21 NIV (emphasis, underline and parenthesis added)

So the only way Jesus Christ can no longer be in heaven, but on the earth, is when he has restored everything.  So my question for Richard Foster is “has Jesus Christ restored everything yet?”  Of course, not.  So, he can't have returned yet! That can't happen until his glorious return when he sets up his Father's Millenial Kingdom.

Paul warned the very first Christians about false teachers saying the Jesus Christ has ALREADY come.  This could refer to either gnosticism in which Jesus Christ did not bodily resurrect or ascend into Heaven but only spiritually.  But it would also apply to his returning only spiritually...that he would never return physically.  But the truth is that EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM WHEN HE RETURNS...the whole earth being engulfed in white light...even the dark side of the earth will be lit up like day time in that day.  (See Zechariah 14:6)

It could not be made more abundantly clear that Christ cannot return to the earth, unless HE initiates it as he did with the Apostle Paul, and will not return until the last day.  The Apostle Peter confirms this when he says: “And though you have NOT seen Him, you love Him, and though you do NOT see Him now,”  I Peter 1:8. 

Jesus Christ himself tells us:

“In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also. “John 14:2-3

So until that place is prepared AND PRESENTED to the Bride of Christ or the Church (The New Jerusalem, see Revelation Chapter 20), Jesus makes it perfectly clear that he can be there in that place, BUT WE CAN'T, yet!  Right?

But according to Richard Foster:

“As you enter the story, not as a passive observer but as an active participant, remember that since Jesus lives in the Eternal Now and is not bound by time, this even in the past is a living present tense experience for Him.  Hence, you can actually encounter the living Christ in the event, be addressed by His voice and be touched by His healing power.  It can be more than an exercise of the imagination; it can be a genuine confrontation.  Jesus Christ will actually come to you.”  Source: Richard Foster: “Celebration of Discipline”, 1978, Page 26. [emphasis mine]

Now defenders of Richard Foster say that Foster was not really calling Christ down to the earth, but only in his (our) imagination.  But if Christ is not bound by time or space, then Christ would not be restricted from showing up literally.  So when we call Christ down, does Jesus then decide whether or not it will simply be in our imagination, or literally?  Well Jesus did decide.  IT WILL NOT BE LITERALLY....UNTIL THE PLACE HE GOES TO PREPARE FOR US IS BROUGHT TO US WHEN HE RETURNS!!!!  BUT THAT WILL NOT BE UNTIL THE END OF THIS PRESENT AGE!

Richard Foster has removed this passage from his current 25^th Anniversary Edition (the one you have).  From what I read Richard Foster has given no explanation as to why he removed the above passage, except a rather vague reference towards the beginning of the book (Acknowledgements, page vii:  “Over the years numerous persons have written to encourage, challenge, correct, and stimulate my thinking.  In addition, many have talked with me in person about their own strivings, learnings, and growings.  All of these people and more have taught me much about the spiritual life and have contributed to this revision.”)  Richard Foster needs to specifically clarify and renounce the above concept, if in fact he has changed his views.

Jesus Christ also tells us:

“Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and [then] I go unto him that sent me.  Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come.  Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What [manner of] saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]: and where I am, [thither] ye cannot come?”  John 7:33-36 [emphases mine]

The Jews could not find him and Jesus said no one could find him.  Then remember what Jesus said at the Last Supper?

“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”  Matthew 26:29

When Jesus said “I will not drink with you again until my Father's Kingdom,”  there is no way we could summon him down.  But I haven't seen him do this and there is no recorded event in history since he ascended where anyone else has been seen “drinking anew with Christ.”  And it is very simple why.  HE IS NOT HERE YET!

So if Richard Foster originally wrote that we could conjure down a physical Jesus at our will who will literally talk to us in a literal encounter, why not also drink of the fruit of the vine with him also?  Well the answer is simply “that day” has not arrived and can not arrive until Jesus Christ set's up his Father's kingdom.  Jesus also tells us that we would fast while the Bridegroom is away.  So isn't he still away?  Richard Foster gives biblical examples of fasting, but I can't help but wonder why he didn't include that quote from Jesus.  Because if Richard Foster could call down the Bridegroom at will and have the incarnate Jesus in his presence, you would NOT be fasting, because Jesus is PRESENT and there is no need to mourn!

So, let's look at Scripture once again:

“And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.  Matthew 9:15  [emphasis mine]

“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.”  Matthew 21:1

Richard Foster suggested that he can usher down the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) when Richard Foster decided are the appropriate times.  But there is only ONE time that will occur, and that day and hour is in the Father's hands and known only to Him (NOT US). 

Jesus said:

“I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”  Luke 18:8 [emphasis mine]

Now this is a clear reference to Christ's coming in glory at the end of the age...he does not come down before then as Richard Foster postulates...and that is at least two thousand years.

Jesus also said in reference to that day:

“But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”  Matthew 24:36 See also Mark 13:32

But Richard Foster knows when Jesus comes down and often through Christian meditation?  From the above Scriptures it doesn't sound a whole lot like Jesus is leaving the door open for myriads of visitations from him until the end of the Age.  Now Richard Foster would concede that there is a final return of Jesus Christ in the flesh.  The question is how many times he believes we can induce a trance to make him appear prior to His final return.

Richard Foster suggested not only that we could summon Christ down, but we could rapture ourselves from Earth to Heaven at will over and over to meet Christ and return to the earth:

“In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body (in other words..astral travel)....Imagine your spiritual self alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere.  Observe your physical body (out of body experience), 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...With time you will be able to distinguish readily between mere human though that may bubble up to the conscious mind (i.e., from the unconscious...I thought you said Foster opposed the unconscious)....when is it time for you to leave, audibly thank the Lord for His goodness and return to the meadow.”Source: Richard Foster: Celebration of Discipline, 1978, Page 27-28  [parenthesis and emphasis added]
 

The only example of anything like this happening was with the Apostle Paul, which some use to defend astral travel.  But whether Paul was taken away whether in body or spirit, HE DID NOT KNOW.  And this was only at the Lord's initiative, NOT Paul's.  Not once does Scripture record that we can astral travel at our own initiative.  So what Richard Foster wrote went WAY beyond what is written...the very thing the Bible warns against!

In our culture we have been saturated with UFO and Out of Body Experiences in cults, but I never dreamed that a professed Christian would be teaching these kinds of ideas!  Since Jesus Christ cannot be summoned in the manner Richard Foster described, the Jesus he would summon would not be Jesus Christ, but another Jesus.

Richard Foster is usurping the authority of the Father and authority not given to him.  Richard Foster turns eschatology completely on its ear with his subjective experience-based ideas of moving us and Jesus forwards and backwards in time without any of the critical boundaries prescribed by Jesus Christ himself as well as his Apostles, truly rendering Scripture a backseat, if any seat in the car, to his Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Christ Consciousness combined.

**************************

POWER OF IMAGINATION AND THE SUBCONSCIOUS

Here are some more statements in Richard Foster's 1978 Edition of Celebration of Discipline:

Chapter and verse for that idea please?  If Scripture is our source for the content of our Meditation, which is the law of the Lord, his statutes, and his ordinances...already clearly recorded for all to see and read, why do you need your imagination to determine what they might be saying.  I don't have to imagine one single statute of the Lord, I have but to simply read them!

If Foster is denouncing Eastern Meditation and only promoting Biblical Meditation, then why does he say it can provide us with meaningful insights and help us get in touch with our subconscious?  Eastern meditation is divination and prohibited in Scripture, so how could insights gained by practicing it be meaningful?  Christians should not practice both Eastern and Biblical Meditation.  And why would you want to get in touch with your subconscious, unless you believe there is such a thing, as Freud and Jung believed....and a host of their disciples that Foster does promote and quote?

Well the Quakers are a very recent sect or stream of Christianity...that is if you can even presume their doctrine is Orthodox Christianity.  So for almost eighteen hundred years, Richard Foster seems to imply that Christian group or denomination has taught and stressed this allegedly Christian doctrine.  Again this is assuming that “listening silences” is even taught in Scripture...which I will address below your commentary on silence.

Really?  Isn't the Bible a book?  Isn't Psalm 119 a book (or scroll) which defines meditation?  Without this book (the Bible) we would not have a clue how to meditate.  We not only learn how to meditate from Psalm 119 and the rest of Scripture, but we meditate on Psalm 119.  Besides this, the Scriptures that talk about meditation say to meditate on his laws and statutes.  But laws and statutes were written down in a book. So this statement by Richard Foster is nonsense as well as contradictory to his own advocacy of telling us to, in fact, use Scripture to meditate. 

It would be a stumbling block to others if they saw us imitating pagans in terms of posture.  Following the same techniques of vain repetitions will still produce the same altered alpha-state of consciousness.

“The inner world of meditation is most easily entered through the door of imagination.   The imagination is stronger than conceptual thought and stronger than will.”  Page 22

Where in Scripture does it say that imagination is stronger than will?  Using your logic, when you state:

“(2 Corinthians 10:5), it is also helpful to go back to the original wording. The word translated "imagination" in the King James Version in that verse is the word logismos in Greek. When you look at the meaning of that word, it actually means computation, reasoning, or thought.”

that Foster really means reasoning or thought, then plug that into his sentence above it would then read “reasoning and thought are stronger than will”...but this becomes absurd and nonsensical, because reasoning and thought are what produce the will.  Foster has it backwards.  Fantasy or imagination does not rule the will, the will rules the imagination.  But irrespective of which definition Richard Foster means as a method to perform Christian meditation, it is the false teachings inherent in his imagination and the false teachers he cites to justify it that we must cast down.  Don't we use our will to cast down vain strongholds of imagination?  Isn't conceptual thought required to have the mind of Christ?   When Richard Foster published his first edition defining Christian Meditation as emptying the mind in order to fill it, did he seriously believe that Christ emptied his mind in order to fill it when he meditated?  And if we are to have the mind of Christ, likewise, that we are to empty our minds in order to fill them? Isn't girding up the loins of our minds the greater power to contain the dam of imagination?  What power to you suggest we use to hold every thought captive...yes even thoughts of imagination?

This sounds like Foster is a Jung disciple.  Once again, chapter and verse.

“Having practiced for some weeks with two kinds of meditation listed above (centering down and breath prayers), you will want to add the meditation upon Scripture.”  Page 25

Well first of all, centering down and breath prayers are found nowhere in the Bible.  Secondly, even if they were you don't add meditation, YOU BEGIN WITH MEDITATION UPON SCRIPTURE..not add it later.

Defender of Richard Foster's Comment:

ON ENTERING SILENCE:

“Revelation 3:20 and Psalm 46:10 ("Be still and know that I am God.") specifically support the above-quoted sentence from page 20, especially if you look at the meaning of the Hebrew word that is translated in English as "be still" (to uproot or remove [by implication, opposing thoughts and feelings]).”

James' Response:

What you are referring to in your defense of being “still” is Richard Foster's teaching (and many other mystics) on “Silence.”  So I would like to now refer to my article and debate with Dr. John Stoll in which I address and oppose the teachings of Thomas Keating, Basil Pennington and Brennan Manning...three more teachers that Foster quotes and integrates into his own teaching on meditation.

"God speaks through the prophets, but he speaks better in silence."

No, that is not Scriptural. In fact it contradicts this Scripture, as the Apostle Paul would beg to disagree with Thomas Keating:

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So you can't even obtain faith in silence; it is impossible to please God until you first hear. You can not hear if it is silent, that is an oxymoron!

Here is a quote from Basil Pennington and Thomas Keating in their book Finding Grace at the Center:

We should not hesitate to take the fruit of the age-old wisdom of the East and “capture” it for Christ. Indeed, those of us who are in ministry should make the necessary effort to acquaint ourselves with as many of these Easter techniques as possible...Many Christian who take their prayer life seriously have been greatly helped by Yoga, Zen, TM and similar practices...” pp.5-6

“In order to guide persons having this experience [divineoneness], Christian spiritual directors many need to dialogue with Eastern teachers in order to get a fuller understanding.”

Now this is quite an amazing statement considering that you (David Muyskens) state: “It would be tragic if some Christians were held back from receiving the gift of contemplative prayer because they were frightened that it was New Age.” David Muyskens, January 27, 2004

Yoga, Zen, and TM are not New Age? So much for light not having fellowship with darkness, so much for coming out from among them, so much for you can not simultaneously drink from cup of demons and the cup of the Lord, so much for the Scripture “if it does not speak to the law and the prophets there is no light in them,” so much for Jesus Christ's own words that a thornbush can not produce figs!

More quotes from Thomas Keating:

"For the centering prayer practitioner, regular practice of "contemplative" prayer sets in motion a dynamism of "divine psychotherapy, organically designed for each of us, to empty out our unconscious and free us from the obstacles to the free flow of grace in our minds, emotions, and bodies." 1 As this false self is dismantled, we come to see our true Self, the center of which, so say proponents, is God-"God and our true Self are not separate. Though we are not God, God and our true Self are the same thing." 2