Leonard Sweet New Ager? You decide
The above shows characteristic of all of these recent emerging convergences, a MANIFESTO accompanies the agenda being promoted jointly by Sweet and Viola. It is called "A Magna Carta for Restoring the Supremacy of Jesus Christ a.k.a. A Jesus Manifesto for the 21st Century Church." This Manifesto does not hearken back to the written Word of God in order to follow Jesus or His teachings. Instead it speaks of "implantation and impartation" and "incarnation." This is based on imaging, imagining, visualization, meditation, and following a "Presence," even using the term "cosmic Christ." The document also makes this amazing statement - an example of psycho-spiritual biblical revisionism:
This book and Manifesto was not written in Leonard's past where he can just try to explain it away rather it was written and then published in June 2010
Leonard Sweet offers in an answer to his critics that he is somehow misunderstood.
Len states on his website
"I wrote a book 20 years ago called Quantum Spirituality, and a few years ago made it available as a free download on my website. Back when "New Age" was a movement, I was inspired by the brilliance of the Apostle Paul in evangelizing pagans, to show how even New Agers, like atheists or other non-Christian groups, could be evangelized for orthodox Christianity if only we learn how to speak to them. For example, the recovery movement language of "higher power" or "higher consciousness" can be turned into "Christ consciousness." Instead of "New Age," we might adopt and adapt the "New Light" language of Charles G. Finney, the founder of modern urban revivalism and the leader of the Second Great Awakening, who called his followers "New Light" evangelists because they used new methods like altar calls and hymns to bring early 19th century Americans to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Would I write the same book today? No. Would I say some things differently? Yes. I started working on the book in my late 20s. I hope I'm older and wiser now. But this was the first book to examine the challenges confronting Christianity as it entered into the uncharted waters of a new postGutenberg, postChristian, postmodern culture, and I quoted and referenced New Age thinkers who seemed to "get" this cultural transition better than the church did while I outlined avenues of approach to their minds and hearts."
Yet the book is still offered on his website so at no point do I see that Len disagrees or repents of what he states in Quantum Spirituality. So I would have to say that Len agrees with what he wrote but disagrees with the conclusions others including myself came to.
Actually on Sweet site it lists this book as Already called "a spirituality classic," Quantum Spirituality:
"A Postmodern Apologetic is the book that launched what today is called "postmodern publishing" as well as Len's ministry to postmodern culture. A book written in a circle, the reader is invited to begin anywhere, stop anytime, and end wherever. This was Len's "coming out" book as a postmodern disciple after his 1987 knockdown, drag-out Damascus Road encounter with God, who (as he describes it) "knocked me off my high academic horse and said, 'Sweet, are you going to get a mission for the world you wish you had or the world that's actually out there." So its obviuos Sweet does not disagree with the writing or conclusions he came to.
Here are some thoughts then you decide
While some Len Sweet defenders have argued that Sweets hybrid post modern "New Light" apologetic simply flies right over the heads of "old light" fundamentalist types, the facts tell a much different story. Sweet is trying to transform biblical Christianity into a quantum/postmodern/New Light/New age/ New Spirituality.
Without apology Sweet writes that he is part of a "New Light Movement" and he describes those he especially admires as "New Light Leaders." Len lists New Age leaders Willis Harman, Matthew Fox (who the Catholic church kicked out as a heritic) and M Scot Peck.
Now some of my detractors would not consider the above either new age or non Christian even though all have played leading roles in the building of todays New Age/New Spirituality movement. How then can these men be Sweets role models and heroes?
A self professing Christian leader should be warning the church about these New Light leaders not holding them up.
Willis Harmon (1918-1997) was a social scientist/futurist with the Stanford Research Institute where he started a futures research program. Later he was President of the New Age Institute on Noetic Sciences and well connected to many fellow new age leaders.
In the late 70's a group of Evangelical leaders openly met with Willis Harman. These Christian leaders were exploring new and alternate views of the future. Disregarding what the prophetic teachings of scripture they were looking for a more optimistic and hopeful view of the future other than the one plainly stated in the Bible.. Probably hoping to turn God and His Word into their image instead of the other way around. Discernment Research group reports "These consultations on the future represent the first publicly disclosed ocassions where Evangelicals and New Agers met together to discuss and address common ground.
But the Bible teaches us in Eph 5:11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them"
Another one of Sweets "personal role models" and "heroes" is Episcopalian priest Matthew Fox. Fox is a former Catholic priest who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for openly professing the heritcal teachings of Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard Chardin (and other new age teachers). who is frequently referred to as the father of the new age movment.
Fox teaches that all creation is the Cosmic Christ.
Sweet not only hails Matthew Fox as one of his spiritual "heroes" but he also describes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as "Twentieth century Christianity's major voice."
Sweet lays bare his postmodern/quantum/New Age/New Spirituality "apologetic" by writing:
Quantum Spirituality bonds us to all creation as well as to other members of the human family. New Light pastors are what Arthur Peacocke calls"priest of creation -earth ministers who can relate the realm of nature to God, who can help nurture a brother-sister relationship with the living organism called Planet Earth. This entails a radical doctrine of embodiment of God in the very substance of creation. (my comment-this doctrine is not based in scripture but in Sweets own mind). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1974) identifies the difference between pantheism and pan-entheism:Pantheism is the belief or theory that God and the universe are identical"; panentheism is "the belief that the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part exists in Him, but.. that His being is more than, and is not exhausted by, the Universe." New Light spirituality does more than settle for the created order, as many forms of New Age pantheism do. But a spirituality that is in some way entheistic (whether panor trns), that does not extend to the spirit matter of the cosmos,is not Christian. A quantum spirituality can no way define God our of existence.
This panenthestic God in everything teaching by Leonard Sweet is the foundational teaching of the New Age/New Spirituality.
M Scott Peck another one of Sweets heroes in a Different Drum,states even though he saw himself as a Christian he believes that salvation of the world lies in community not so much as accepting Jesus Christ as ones Lord and Savior.
Peck writes "In and through community lies the salvation of the world.The human race stands at the brink of self annihilation.. Im scared for my own skin. Im even more scared for the skin of my children. And Im scared for your skins. I want to save my skin.I need you, and me, for salvation. We must come into community with each other. We need each other. If human kind is to survive, the matter of changing the rules is not optional"
We can never forsake unity for the sake of sound doctrine.
Sound doctrine will always divide sheep from goats.
and of course this exactly what Jesus did not do-nor did His disciples. They died living by Gods Word and Gods rules rather than trying to change those rules to save their own skin.
Sweets buddy and friend Brian McLaren has been talking about a new kind of Christian and everything must change.
The Bible describes this new kind of Christian in Rev 17.
Go back to the opening statement-The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living.
I ask you do you really need to read any further?
Some thoughts and information were taken from my friend and brother in the Lord Warren Smith in a book called "A Wonderful Deception." for more information on the new age infiltration of the church I would suggest you purchase the boob