as “part of the ‘I AM’ that we are”
An excerpt from Tamara Hartzell’s new online book:
“Reimagining” God: Turning the Light off to Look for “Truth” in the Corner of a Dark Round Room
A few years ago we ran a series of excerpts from Tamara Hartzell’s excellent online book, In the Name of Purpose: Sacrificing Truth on the Altar of Unity posted for a free download at http://www.inthenameofpurpose.org.
In the past month, she has published another excellent online book,
also available as a free download. She had given us permission to
re-post sections of her book. Below is a relevant discussion of the “new
gospel” taught by Leonard Sweet and other evangelical and New Age
leaders. Today’s excerpt is from Chapter 5, p. 117.
“New Lights’ mission in life, if they
choose to accept it, is to continue the
work of Scripture.…
choose to accept it, is to continue the
work of Scripture.…
“The challenge
of the church in the twenty-first century is to become … a seedbed in which the texts and traditions of the faith recreate themselves in and through the body until its molecular
imagination
is awakened by a living God.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[i]
of the church in the twenty-first century is to become … a seedbed in which the texts and traditions of the faith recreate themselves in and through the body until its molecular
imagination
is awakened by a living God.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[i]
“How do ye say,
We are wise, and the law of the Lord
is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in
vain.”
(Jeremiah 8:8)
We are wise, and the law of the Lord
is with us?
Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in
vain.”
(Jeremiah 8:8)
“Every word of
God is pure:
He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.
Add thou not
unto His words,
lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
(Proverbs
30:5-6)
God is pure:
He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.
Add thou not
unto His words,
lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
(Proverbs
30:5-6)
|
A
|
mission that seeks to
“continue the work of Scripture” and even “recreate” it is astounding. And yet
it shouldn’t be surprising at all given that people in today’s shifting
Christianity quite openly would rather make it up as they go along instead of
believe and obey God and His Word. If they just make up “scripture” as they go
along then they can thus justify today’s preferred “make-it-up-as-you-go-along
process” of self-regulation, right?
“continue the work of Scripture” and even “recreate” it is astounding. And yet
it shouldn’t be surprising at all given that people in today’s shifting
Christianity quite openly would rather make it up as they go along instead of
believe and obey God and His Word. If they just make up “scripture” as they go
along then they can thus justify today’s preferred “make-it-up-as-you-go-along
process” of self-regulation, right?
“… for, behold, ye walk every one after the
imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me.”
(Jeremiah 16:12)
imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me.”
(Jeremiah 16:12)
Unabashedly preferring man’s imagination over God’s Word of truth,
many people now want a fictitious “truth” and a fictitious “revelation.” And “to think
connectness rather than correctness”
is quite obviously today’s preferred new way of thinking. So to those in this
emerging faith of intentional fictitiousness
and incorrectness it will clearly be irrelevant that any creation of new
“scripture” and “truth” is fictitious and incorrect.
many people now want a fictitious “truth” and a fictitious “revelation.” And “to think
connectness rather than correctness”
is quite obviously today’s preferred new way of thinking. So to those in this
emerging faith of intentional fictitiousness
and incorrectness it will clearly be irrelevant that any creation of new
“scripture” and “truth” is fictitious and incorrect.
“What if we were
to think connectness rather than
correctness?” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[ii]
to think connectness rather than
correctness?” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[ii]
“We were not put here to ‘keep commandments’ but to conceive beauty, truth, and goodness. We were not put here to ‘take a stand’ but to
walk in the light for the greater glory of God. Biblical truth doesn’t feast on
fact. It feasts on relationship and revelation, which is why eternal truth is
better communicated by the fictions of
parables and narratives than the facts of science and philosophy.” (Leonard
Sweet; emphasis added)[iii]
walk in the light for the greater glory of God. Biblical truth doesn’t feast on
fact. It feasts on relationship and revelation, which is why eternal truth is
better communicated by the fictions of
parables and narratives than the facts of science and philosophy.” (Leonard
Sweet; emphasis added)[iii]
“Authoritarian stances of … ‘The Bible says it: That settles it!’
… are resented.… Instead of rational
argumentation over what is ‘truth’ and
‘falsehood,’ authoritarian directives over what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ … storytelling
is the postmodern means of governance …” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[iv]
… are resented.… Instead of rational
argumentation over what is ‘truth’ and
‘falsehood,’ authoritarian directives over what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ … storytelling
is the postmodern means of governance …” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[iv]
“Your life and your community are living organisms: That word organism means they are
by definition self-organizing, complex, adaptive, self-regulating systems. An organic system makes it up as it goes along.” (Leonard Sweet; bold added)[v]
by definition self-organizing, complex, adaptive, self-regulating systems. An organic system makes it up as it goes along.” (Leonard Sweet; bold added)[v]
Since people
today prefer storytelling over believing and obeying God’s Word, they might as
well just tell one big made-up story and call it “Scripture.” After all, in
their unbelief they have already even reduced God’s Word itself to merely a
“story” with “changeable” and “debatable” “metaphor” that can be interpreted
and retold however anyone chooses. So what would be the difference?
today prefer storytelling over believing and obeying God’s Word, they might as
well just tell one big made-up story and call it “Scripture.” After all, in
their unbelief they have already even reduced God’s Word itself to merely a
“story” with “changeable” and “debatable” “metaphor” that can be interpreted
and retold however anyone chooses. So what would be the difference?
Either Scripture
is God’s Word of absolute truth or it is man’s word
of relative “truth.” All we have to do is simply
read the Holy Scriptures to plainly see that it expects to be believed and
obeyed as the absolute truth
of God. So, no, Scripture is not
God’s Word of relative
“truth,” as that would therefore make God out to be a liar. But, of course,
that is precisely what today’s shifting Christianity is doing. And, along with
choosing to believe that Scripture is relative
rather than absolute, a
growing number of people also do in fact believe that Scripture is man’s word rather than God’s Word. So to them there would be
little to no difference between true Scripture and “truth” that is
created/conceived/imagined/ invented/made up by man today.
is God’s Word of absolute truth or it is man’s word
of relative “truth.” All we have to do is simply
read the Holy Scriptures to plainly see that it expects to be believed and
obeyed as the absolute truth
of God. So, no, Scripture is not
God’s Word of relative
“truth,” as that would therefore make God out to be a liar. But, of course,
that is precisely what today’s shifting Christianity is doing. And, along with
choosing to believe that Scripture is relative
rather than absolute, a
growing number of people also do in fact believe that Scripture is man’s word rather than God’s Word. So to them there would be
little to no difference between true Scripture and “truth” that is
created/conceived/imagined/ invented/made up by man today.
This is especially so since they also absurdly choose to imagine
that the word of man is the word of God. Accordingly, as mentioned earlier,
the outpouring of high praise for The
Shack actually includes: the book is
one long Bible study; inspired
writing from God Himself; the words
spoken by God in this book are full of life; find the truth about God in The Shack; and so on. And its praise
now even also includes—“this book could
essentially serve as the quintessential ‘starter bible’”!
that the word of man is the word of God. Accordingly, as mentioned earlier,
the outpouring of high praise for The
Shack actually includes: the book is
one long Bible study; inspired
writing from God Himself; the words
spoken by God in this book are full of life; find the truth about God in The Shack; and so on. And its praise
now even also includes—“this book could
essentially serve as the quintessential ‘starter bible’”!
If fiction, not to
mention blasphemous fiction, is seen
as a starter Bible and as one long Bible study that is inspired writing from God Himself then why would anyone think twice
about creating and producing new
“Scripture” or new “truths of God”? The Shack is a prime example that they
won’t, and they don’t. Besides, God’s Word of linear truth that divides true
and false and right and wrong is “a stumbling block in the way” of today’s
emerging faith of Oneness and its desired all-encompassing circle of
relationship. So a mission that seeks to “create” and “conceive” a “new account of everything old” to
replace the resented final answers of
God’s absolute truth shouldn’t be
surprising. This way people can “create” a new kind of “Scripture” to go along
with today’s new kind of “Christian” and new kind of “Christianity” that are
purposely emerging outside the
resented “box”—i.e., outside the
resented absolute truth—of God’s “old” Scripture. And, no, this “mission” to “create” and “conceive” a
“Third Testament” that is “everything new about the old, old story”[vi] is not the “mission” of God—at least not the true God, that is.
mention blasphemous fiction, is seen
as a starter Bible and as one long Bible study that is inspired writing from God Himself then why would anyone think twice
about creating and producing new
“Scripture” or new “truths of God”? The Shack is a prime example that they
won’t, and they don’t. Besides, God’s Word of linear truth that divides true
and false and right and wrong is “a stumbling block in the way” of today’s
emerging faith of Oneness and its desired all-encompassing circle of
relationship. So a mission that seeks to “create” and “conceive” a “new account of everything old” to
replace the resented final answers of
God’s absolute truth shouldn’t be
surprising. This way people can “create” a new kind of “Scripture” to go along
with today’s new kind of “Christian” and new kind of “Christianity” that are
purposely emerging outside the
resented “box”—i.e., outside the
resented absolute truth—of God’s “old” Scripture. And, no, this “mission” to “create” and “conceive” a
“Third Testament” that is “everything new about the old, old story”[vi] is not the “mission” of God—at least not the true God, that is.
“The ultimate
story of the Bible, the metanarrative that unlocks the whole story, is that God
is on a mission, and we are summoned to
participate with God in that mission.
The impulse to create, to conceive,
is what lies at the heart of the missional.” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[vii]
story of the Bible, the metanarrative that unlocks the whole story, is that God
is on a mission, and we are summoned to
participate with God in that mission.
The impulse to create, to conceive,
is what lies at the heart of the missional.” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[vii]
“We were not put here to ‘keep commandments’ but to conceive beauty, truth,
and goodness.” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[viii]
and goodness.” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[viii]
“MRI [Missional, Relational,
Incarnational] is the operating software on which human life and faith were
designed to run: Version 1.0 is known as
the First Testament; Version 2.0 is known as the New Testament; Version 3.0 is the Third Testament, the
Gospel According to … you.” (Leonard Sweet; ellipsis dots in the
original; emphasis added)[ix]
Incarnational] is the operating software on which human life and faith were
designed to run: Version 1.0 is known as
the First Testament; Version 2.0 is known as the New Testament; Version 3.0 is the Third Testament, the
Gospel According to … you.” (Leonard Sweet; ellipsis dots in the
original; emphasis added)[ix]
“God the Creator worked through men and women of old to produce
the First Testament. God the Redeemer worked through men and women of the first
century to produce the Second Testament … God the Spirit and Sustainer wants to
work through New Lights of the twenty-first century to produce the Third Testament–our ‘new account of everything old.’
the First Testament. God the Redeemer worked through men and women of the first
century to produce the Second Testament … God the Spirit and Sustainer wants to
work through New Lights of the twenty-first century to produce the Third Testament–our ‘new account of everything old.’
“New
Lights’ mission in life, if they
choose to accept it, is to continue the work of Scripture.…
Lights’ mission in life, if they
choose to accept it, is to continue the work of Scripture.…
“The challenge
of the church in the twenty-first century is to become … a seedbed in which the texts and traditions of the faith recreate themselves in and through the body until its molecular
imagination
is awakened by a living God.
of the church in the twenty-first century is to become … a seedbed in which the texts and traditions of the faith recreate themselves in and through the body until its molecular
imagination
is awakened by a living God.
“Every believer,
every body of Christ is called to become the
Third Testament. Philosophical theologian/science watcher Philip Hefner
captures wonderfully our simultaneous status as dependent creatures and free
agents in his recommendation that human beings be thought of as ‘created co-creators.’
God has chosen to work in partnership
with us in the ongoing drama of creation.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[x]
every body of Christ is called to become the
Third Testament. Philosophical theologian/science watcher Philip Hefner
captures wonderfully our simultaneous status as dependent creatures and free
agents in his recommendation that human beings be thought of as ‘created co-creators.’
God has chosen to work in partnership
with us in the ongoing drama of creation.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[x]
“As co-creators with God, inventing
new forms of energymatter (information) is a part of the ongoing work of creation.” (Leonard Sweet;
parentheses in the original; emphasis added)[xi]
new forms of energymatter (information) is a part of the ongoing work of creation.” (Leonard Sweet;
parentheses in the original; emphasis added)[xi]
“For the common sense to be the common good in the postmodern era,
it must come to respect the authority of intuitive modes of knowing.…
it must come to respect the authority of intuitive modes of knowing.…
“It is through creative
intuition that postmoderns continue
the work of divine creation.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xii]
intuition that postmoderns continue
the work of divine creation.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xii]
“With the crooked lines of our lives God is wanting to write ‘a
new account of everything old,’ a Third Testament.…
new account of everything old,’ a Third Testament.…
“The Third Testament calls us to imitate and
participate in God’s creativity …
participate in God’s creativity …
“Quantum
spirituality is nothing more than your ‘new account of everything old’–your part of the ‘I Am’ that we are.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xiii]
spirituality is nothing more than your ‘new account of everything old’–your part of the ‘I Am’ that we are.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xiii]
So, with
astronomical arrogance (to say the very least), not only does man want to “produce
the Third Testament” and to “continue the work of Scripture” in “our ‘new account of everything old’” as “co-creators” in “partnership”
with God “in the ongoing drama of creation” (the “drama of ‘doing God’”[xiv]), but man wants to “participate in God’s creativity” in the belief that
man’s attempt to “continue the work of divine
creation” is man’s “part of the ‘I Am’ that we are”! Although unbelievable,
this is indeed what Oneness/panentheism’s lie of being “One with God” boils down
to.
astronomical arrogance (to say the very least), not only does man want to “produce
the Third Testament” and to “continue the work of Scripture” in “our ‘new account of everything old’” as “co-creators” in “partnership”
with God “in the ongoing drama of creation” (the “drama of ‘doing God’”[xiv]), but man wants to “participate in God’s creativity” in the belief that
man’s attempt to “continue the work of divine
creation” is man’s “part of the ‘I Am’ that we are”! Although unbelievable,
this is indeed what Oneness/panentheism’s lie of being “One with God” boils down
to.
“There is only One of Us. You and I are
One.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xv]
One.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xv]
“… there is no separation in God’s World—that is, nothing which is
not God …
not God …
“You cannot be separate from Me, for I Am All That Is.…
“You and I are One. We cannot be anything else if I Am What I Am: All That Is.” (the seducing
spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xvi]
spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xvi]
“My Beingness is in
everything. Everything. The All-ness is My Expression. The wholeness is My
Nature. There is nothing that I Am Not, and something I Am Not cannot be.” (the seducing spirit calling itself
“God;” emphasis added)[xvii]
everything. Everything. The All-ness is My Expression. The wholeness is My
Nature. There is nothing that I Am Not, and something I Am Not cannot be.” (the seducing spirit calling itself
“God;” emphasis added)[xvii]
And, therefore,
in Oneness everything is “part of the ‘I Am’”—i.e., of the immanent
“God” that is/is in “All That Is.”
in Oneness everything is “part of the ‘I Am’”—i.e., of the immanent
“God” that is/is in “All That Is.”
“You are, have
always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole …” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold
added)[xviii]
always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole …” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold
added)[xviii]
“Your thought about yourself is that you are not good enough, not
wondrous enough, not sinless enough, to be a
part of God, in partnership with God.…
wondrous enough, not sinless enough, to be a
part of God, in partnership with God.…
“For your grandest wish—and My grandest desire—was for you to experience yourself as the part of Me you
are. You are therefore in the process of experiencing yourself by creating yourself anew in every single
moment. As am I. Through you.
are. You are therefore in the process of experiencing yourself by creating yourself anew in every single
moment. As am I. Through you.
“Do you see the
partnership? Do you grasp its implications?…
partnership? Do you grasp its implications?…
“Think, speak, and act as
the God You Are.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xix]
the God You Are.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xix]
“Create your own truth.
“In this will
you experience Who You Really Are.”
(the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xx]
you experience Who You Really Are.”
(the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xx]
“Remember, Change is a process called Life. The decision to change
things is the decision to live.…
things is the decision to live.…
“It comes not
from dissatisfaction, but from passion. The passion OF Life for MORE Life.…
from dissatisfaction, but from passion. The passion OF Life for MORE Life.…
“In this, and in all things, you are making
it all up. That is, you are creating it on the spot. You are the Creator and
the Created.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxi]
it all up. That is, you are creating it on the spot. You are the Creator and
the Created.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxi]
“You cannot create a thing—not a thought, an object, an
event—no experience of any kind—which
is outside of God’s plan. For God’s plan is for you to create anything—everything—whatever
you want. In such freedom lies the experience of God being God—and this
is the experience for which I created You. And life itself.” (the seducing spirit
calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxii]
event—no experience of any kind—which
is outside of God’s plan. For God’s plan is for you to create anything—everything—whatever
you want. In such freedom lies the experience of God being God—and this
is the experience for which I created You. And life itself.” (the seducing spirit
calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxii]
“In a word, God is freedom.” (the seducing spirit calling itself
“God”)[xxiii]
“God”)[xxiii]
“Freedom is what you are. God is that, and you are that. That is
the essence of what you are.… It is the essence of your being.” (the seducing
spirit calling itself “God”)[xxiv]
the essence of what you are.… It is the essence of your being.” (the seducing
spirit calling itself “God”)[xxiv]
Sadly, more and
more people in today’s shifting Christianity are eagerly participating in the
creative process of this emerging faith that is “making it all up” as both “the
Creator and the Created.” They are determined to create and conceive new “truth” that people are willing
to accept—i.e., “truth” that gives people their desired freedom from the
“old” linear truth that divides “what is ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’” and “what is
‘right’ and ‘wrong.’” And what better way for people to achieve this desired “unencumbered” freedom “to simply ‘be,’” than to choose to rewrite, or “recreate,” the Word of God
with their own lives (lived however they so choose of course)?! And
since this merging and emerging “Christian”/New Age faith of
Oneness/panentheism is replacing believing
and obeying God and Jesus with being and doing God and Jesus, people can thus conveniently make it all up as they go along.
more people in today’s shifting Christianity are eagerly participating in the
creative process of this emerging faith that is “making it all up” as both “the
Creator and the Created.” They are determined to create and conceive new “truth” that people are willing
to accept—i.e., “truth” that gives people their desired freedom from the
“old” linear truth that divides “what is ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’” and “what is
‘right’ and ‘wrong.’” And what better way for people to achieve this desired “unencumbered” freedom “to simply ‘be,’” than to choose to rewrite, or “recreate,” the Word of God
with their own lives (lived however they so choose of course)?! And
since this merging and emerging “Christian”/New Age faith of
Oneness/panentheism is replacing believing
and obeying God and Jesus with being and doing God and Jesus, people can thus conveniently make it all up as they go along.
“Missional is who you are, because it is who God is.…
“The missional
thrust begins in the very being of God.
God goes out in love to create the cosmos: ‘Let there be light.’ The missional
bent is there from the beginning.…
thrust begins in the very being of God.
God goes out in love to create the cosmos: ‘Let there be light.’ The missional
bent is there from the beginning.…
“The impulse to
create, to conceive, is what lies at the heart of the missional.…
create, to conceive, is what lies at the heart of the missional.…
“Even though the
word itself is an adjective, missional is
all about verbs, not nouns, because only missional ‘loving’ gives meaning to
our existence.…
word itself is an adjective, missional is
all about verbs, not nouns, because only missional ‘loving’ gives meaning to
our existence.…
“Drama comes from the Greek word dran, which means ‘to do.’ The
incarnation is all about God’s drama of
‘doing God,’ God’s drama of love.… God did God. God lived in our midst and
loved us and invited us to ‘do God’
along with him.
incarnation is all about God’s drama of
‘doing God,’ God’s drama of love.… God did God. God lived in our midst and
loved us and invited us to ‘do God’
along with him.
“‘Be ye doers of
the word, and not hearers only.’ My
translation of ‘Go Make Disciples’ is ‘Go Do Me.’ Is this not the
second-best mission statement in the Bible: ‘Go Do Me’? Doing the gospel is
primary speech; talking about the gospel is secondary speech.… To ‘Go Do Me,’
to ‘doing God’ by doing good, I must
be simultaneously seeing, following, and being
Christ. I have no theology to impart, no biblical interpretation to argue,
no agenda to accomplish. I only have my
life.…
the word, and not hearers only.’ My
translation of ‘Go Make Disciples’ is ‘Go Do Me.’ Is this not the
second-best mission statement in the Bible: ‘Go Do Me’? Doing the gospel is
primary speech; talking about the gospel is secondary speech.… To ‘Go Do Me,’
to ‘doing God’ by doing good, I must
be simultaneously seeing, following, and being
Christ. I have no theology to impart, no biblical interpretation to argue,
no agenda to accomplish. I only have my
life.…
“Jesus says, ‘Go Do Me.’ Go be Jesus.” (Leonard Sweet; bold added)[xxv]
“Each one of us is free to become
Jesus, a living truth, …” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xxvi]
Jesus, a living truth, …” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xxvi]
“The era of the Single Savior is over. What is needed
now is joint action, combined effort, collective
co-creation.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xxvii]
now is joint action, combined effort, collective
co-creation.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xxvii]
“Therefore, entreat those who would live the New Spirituality to consider
every book sacred and every messenger holy, even as they, themselves, are holy,
and as the living of their own lives
writes the book of their most sacred truth. Remember that always.
every book sacred and every messenger holy, even as they, themselves, are holy,
and as the living of their own lives
writes the book of their most sacred truth. Remember that always.
“The living of your own
life writes the book of your most sacred truth, and offers evidence of it.”
(the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xxviii]
life writes the book of your most sacred truth, and offers evidence of it.”
(the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” emphasis added)[xxviii]
“[E]very body of Christ is called to become the Third Testament.” (Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xxix]
“When you agree to spread the word, to carry the message that can
change the human heart, you play an important role in changing the human
condition.…
change the human heart, you play an important role in changing the human
condition.…
“It is something you are
‘being.’…
‘being.’…
“You carry the message as you, not with you. You are
the message!…
the message!…
“Your message is your life, lived. You spread the word that you are.
“Is it not
written: And the Word was made flesh?…
written: And the Word was made flesh?…
“You have My
word. You have My word, in you. You are, quite literally, the Word of God,
made flesh. Now, say but the word, and your soul shall be healed. Speak the
word, live the word, be the word.
word. You have My word, in you. You are, quite literally, the Word of God,
made flesh. Now, say but the word, and your soul shall be healed. Speak the
word, live the word, be the word.
“In a word, be God.…
“I’m telling you
Who You Really Are.” (the seducing
spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxx]
Who You Really Are.” (the seducing
spirit calling itself “God;” bold added)[xxx]
“With the
crooked lines of our lives God is
wanting to write ‘a new account of everything old,’ a Third Testament.…
crooked lines of our lives God is
wanting to write ‘a new account of everything old,’ a Third Testament.…
“… your part of the ‘I Am’ that we are.”
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xxxi]
(Leonard Sweet; emphasis added)[xxxi]
“Missional … is
living a life born in the very being of God.” (Leonard Sweet;
emphasis added)[xxxii]
living a life born in the very being of God.” (Leonard Sweet;
emphasis added)[xxxii]
Again, in this emerging faith of panentheism/Oneness there is a reason why verbs are replacing nouns. And, no, the “era of the Single Savior”
is not over. Only the era of believing
in the single Saviour is over. Among other things, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is being replaced in our
post-truth era with “being Christ.”
Yes, we are to be “doing good” and to be “loving,” but we cannot “be” and “do” God and the Lord Jesus Christ! To be loving and to do good is
not to be and do so as God, as Jesus, as Christ but, rather, as ourselves in obedience to God and the Lord Jesus
Christ. They are not the same thing!
is not over. Only the era of believing
in the single Saviour is over. Among other things, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is being replaced in our
post-truth era with “being Christ.”
Yes, we are to be “doing good” and to be “loving,” but we cannot “be” and “do” God and the Lord Jesus Christ! To be loving and to do good is
not to be and do so as God, as Jesus, as Christ but, rather, as ourselves in obedience to God and the Lord Jesus
Christ. They are not the same thing!
In his “do” Jesus (“Go Do Me”), “be Jesus,” “being Christ,” “do
God,” “in the very being of God,” and “your part of the ‘I Am’ that we are,”
Leonard Sweet dances around openly saying be
God or being God. Yet this is
clearly implied in what he does say. And to say “be Jesus” and “being Christ”
is no different than to say “be God” and “being God,” regardless of whether or
not whoever says it believes the truth that
the Lord Jesus Christ is God. In any
case, Sweet’s teachings and mission, as well as his shift from “Go Make
Disciples” to “Go Do Me,” all take being a doer of the Word to a whole new
dimension on many levels! And, as
will be addressed later, to believe that man creates and becomes “the Third
Testament” is as eternally significant as the rest of this emerging faith in
which everything is changing on purpose.
God,” “in the very being of God,” and “your part of the ‘I Am’ that we are,”
Leonard Sweet dances around openly saying be
God or being God. Yet this is
clearly implied in what he does say. And to say “be Jesus” and “being Christ”
is no different than to say “be God” and “being God,” regardless of whether or
not whoever says it believes the truth that
the Lord Jesus Christ is God. In any
case, Sweet’s teachings and mission, as well as his shift from “Go Make
Disciples” to “Go Do Me,” all take being a doer of the Word to a whole new
dimension on many levels! And, as
will be addressed later, to believe that man creates and becomes “the Third
Testament” is as eternally significant as the rest of this emerging faith in
which everything is changing on purpose.
Incidentally, Sweet writes: “My
translation of ‘Go Make Disciples’ is
‘Go Do Me.’ Is this not the second-best mission statement in the Bible: ‘Go
Do Me’?” Since when is “Go Do Me”—Sweet’s own
“translation”—a “statement in the
Bible”?! Would this be part of his intention “to continue the work of
Scripture”? After all, according to the seducing spirit world:
translation of ‘Go Make Disciples’ is
‘Go Do Me.’ Is this not the second-best mission statement in the Bible: ‘Go
Do Me’?” Since when is “Go Do Me”—Sweet’s own
“translation”—a “statement in the
Bible”?! Would this be part of his intention “to continue the work of
Scripture”? After all, according to the seducing spirit world:
“Divine inspiration is the birthright of
every human being.…
every human being.…
“They [‘your
religions’] have told you … that only a very few among you have achieved a
level of worthiness to be inspired directly by God—and that all of those people
are dead.
religions’] have told you … that only a very few among you have achieved a
level of worthiness to be inspired directly by God—and that all of those people
are dead.
“They have
convinced you that no one living today could possibly achieve that level of
worthiness, and, hence, no book written today could possibly contain sacred
truths or the Word of God.…
convinced you that no one living today could possibly achieve that level of
worthiness, and, hence, no book written today could possibly contain sacred
truths or the Word of God.…
“Because to tell
you otherwise would be to leave open the possibility that another master,
another prophet, another messenger of God could come along, bringing new
revelations and opening you to new
understandings—and that is something that already established organized
religions could not abide.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold
added)[xxxiii]
you otherwise would be to leave open the possibility that another master,
another prophet, another messenger of God could come along, bringing new
revelations and opening you to new
understandings—and that is something that already established organized
religions could not abide.” (the seducing spirit calling itself “God;” bold
added)[xxxiii]
“Through Thy
precepts I get understanding:
therefore I hate every false way.
Thy word is a
lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path.”
(Psalm 119:104-105)
precepts I get understanding:
therefore I hate every false way.
Thy word is a
lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path.”
(Psalm 119:104-105)
Endnotes:
[i].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
255-257.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
255-257.
[ii].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 139.
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 139.
[iii].Ibid.,
p. 111.
p. 111.
[iv].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
273-274.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
273-274.
[v].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 43.
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 43.
[vi].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 259.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 259.
[vii].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 58.
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 58.
[viii].Ibid.,
p. 111.
p. 111.
[ix].Ibid.,
p. 37.
p. 37.
[x].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
255-256.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
255-256.
[xi].Ibid.,
p. 133.
p. 133.
[xii].Ibid.,
pp. 296-297.
pp. 296-297.
[xiii].Ibid.,
pp. 260-261.
pp. 260-261.
[xiv].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 59.
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 59.
[xv].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Friendship
with God, p. 23. Cited from Reinventing
Jesus Christ: The New Gospel, by Warren (B.) Smith, (Ravenna, OH:
Conscience Press, 2002), p. 23. [Note: Smith’s book has been republished as False Christ Coming – Does Anybody Care?:
What New Age leaders really have in store for America, the church, and the
world (Magalia, CA: Mountain Stream Press, 2011), and this quote is on p.
41.]
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Friendship
with God, p. 23. Cited from Reinventing
Jesus Christ: The New Gospel, by Warren (B.) Smith, (Ravenna, OH:
Conscience Press, 2002), p. 23. [Note: Smith’s book has been republished as False Christ Coming – Does Anybody Care?:
What New Age leaders really have in store for America, the church, and the
world (Magalia, CA: Mountain Stream Press, 2011), and this quote is on p.
41.]
[xvi].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 3, pp. 56-57.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 3, pp. 56-57.
[xvii].Ibid.,
p. 50.
p. 50.
[xviii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 1, p. 28.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 1, p. 28.
[xix].Ibid.,
pp. 75-76.
pp. 75-76.
[xx].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 3, p. 341.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 3, p. 341.
[xxi].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, pp. 138-139.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, pp. 138-139.
[xxii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 1, p. 61.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations
with God, Book 1, p. 61.
[xxiii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, p. 145.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, p. 145.
[xxiv].Ibid.,
p. 342.
p. 342.
[xxv].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, pp. 57-60.
Sweet, So Beautiful, pp. 57-60.
[xxvi].Ibid.,
p. 114.
p. 114.
[xxvii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, The New
Revelations, p. 157. Cited from Deceived
on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church, by
Warren (B.) Smith, p. 62.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, The New
Revelations, p. 157. Cited from Deceived
on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church, by
Warren (B.) Smith, p. 62.
[xxviii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, p. 208.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow’s
God, p. 208.
[xxix].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 256.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 256.
[xxx].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Friendship
with God, pp. 394-395.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, Friendship
with God, pp. 394-395.
[xxxi].Leonard
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
260-261.
Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, pp.
260-261.
[xxxii].Leonard
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 27.
Sweet, So Beautiful, p. 27.
[xxxiii].“God,”
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, The New
Revelations, p. 11.
as quoted by Neale Donald Walsch, The New
Revelations, p. 11.
Several hyperlinks and color emphases were added to this text to enhance its re-posting.
The next section of this chapter is titled: “It is through creative
intuition that postmoderns continue the work of divine creation”
The next section of this chapter is titled: “It is through creative
intuition that postmoderns continue the work of divine creation”