I came onto this blog as some pre-work on Greg Boyd who is visiting Ireland next month (Aug 06) and was impressed by some of the responses although not agreeing with many.

I think you have shot yourself in the foot and have confirmed to me the stereotypical funadmentalist/calvinist/evangelical image. Ie cold and closed in their thinking and not big on debate (as obviously their way is the only truth.)

I would agree very much with David from Sweden – as a 21 yr old he’s pretty much on the money as far as I’m concerned.

BTW – I’m a 48 year old Irishman who has done a bit of church leadership, some theology and a lot of thinking of how and why the church has got it so wrong and lets the ‘world’ set its agenda by refencing movies like the Matrix to write books about.

Based on your response to David from Sweden –
you’re probably not going to read this anyway.

I decided to read through the reply’s of other people after posting my own. What stood out to me was Angies’ reply. She has been in contact with Dynamic Growth and got free and experienced these excersises first hand.

What made me wonder a bit was that you (Mike) said that:

“anecdotal arguments don’t persuade me at all. Explain your experience by the Bible and I’ll listen.”

We all do agree (you, me, Angie, Boyd and Larson) that everything has to be tested against the Bible. You seem to think that what is described in “Escaping the Matrix” is a method that the Bible describes as wrong. Or possibly you rather means that because these excercises are not written in the Bible they are wrong.

There are some considerations that I think would be worth looking at:

1. I can’t find a single verse that even implies that these excercises are wrong. Of course you can argue about some theological stands, and I can defend them (with the Bible) but the excercises in themselves can’t be dispelled by the Bible. Please show me if I’m wrong.

2. These excercises aren’t described in the Bible, but the principlies that they rest on definitely are. We are to take our thoughts captive and teach them to obey Christ (the book shows a way how to do that), we are not to conform to the pattern of this world and the Bible are full of promises and descriptions of life in Christ. Of course we are also “encouraged” to pray about all things. There are more to be said in scriptural support of the book but this should be enough.

The Bible says that we should take our thoughts captive and teach them to obey Christ. But it doesn’t say how. There’s probably plenty of ways and “Escaping the Matrix” shows one.

It’s the same with other things. Bible says e.g. that we should show hospitality. There are myriads of ways of how to apply that truth/principle. If I wrote a book about a way relevant to our culture, it might not be described EXACTLY in the Bible.

If Christians were to follow your line of reasoning about only doing what’s EXACTLY in the Bible we would have to stop do a lot of what we are doing today. Does it say anything in the Bible about EXACTLY how the structure of leadership and EXACTLY who should decide what and how? No! But the Bible gives us some guidelines in the New Testament. Some principles. The way in OT isn’t transferable to our days, – not EXACTLY anyway.
I could argue the same way about music, churchbuilding, projectors, good christian counselling and hundreds of other things.

So, my point is: Why do you have a problem with Boyd and Al’s excercises from a Biblical point of view? Isn’t it using the principles of taking thoughts captive to be able to live more fully for God and also the principle of praying.

To me it seems more like it’s your own misconception about their excercises as weird seances that is the problem, apart from that they don’t agree with your Calvinist theology.

I’m sorry if I’m straight at it, I don’t mean to be rude, I just sincerely want to hear your thoughts around these issues.

I hope you don’t mind this huge post. If you wish, feel free to remove it and just refer to http://www.angelfire.com/journal/althehare/escapematrix.htm

It’s just that I’d like other people to respond as well (if they choose to), as part of my project of understanding the issues better.

My first impression of the book is that here are two guys who’ve crafted a psychological technique to improve our imaginations and align them with (what they believe to be) Biblical truth. Their methods (seem to) have a solid neurological basis, they’re not asking us to believe in Satan, not asking to believe lies, not asking us to compromise on every other ‘Christian’ thing Christians do and so if it helps – and assuming that filling our imaginations with images of Jesus is not unbiblical – why not try it?

Still, being the cautious non-innovative dude I am, I’m looking around for people who seem to have a HUGE problem with the book. Yours is the first really substantial critique I’ve come across. I’d like to respond to it based on your own sections:

1. Boyd’s Orientation

I feel that linking his ideas with New Age mysticism simply begs the question. We’d probably have to go deeper into DeWaay’s review (which I won’t do here) but since your section, Mike, doesn’t actually provide Scriptural refutation of Boyd’s thesis in Seeing is Believing, I have to give it a pass until more exegesis is done to show why it’s unBiblical Christians should not produce images of Jesus in their minds as part of their sanctification.

Likewise, with your comments that Boyd’s practice “shares much in common with suggestive, hypnotic techniques employed by psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists.” Many Christian practices share much in common with practices and activities in contemporary society. The issue is whether Scripture forbids it (either explicitly or implicitly).

“Séance-like” atmosphere? True identity of the images conjured up? Once again, I think we need more solid objections than labels and pseudo-insinuations. I don’t mean any offense, Mike, but I’m sure you’ve had at least a few images of Jesus in your lifetime, haven’t you? How would you feel if people raised questions about the ‘true-identity’ of said images? How is this different from what you’re writing about Boyd & Larson?

2. Sin & Responsibility

Boyd & Larson do not, in my reading of the book, deny sin or personal accountability for it. The emphasis on our lack of choice in the various installations of neurochips merely restates the fact (as illustrated throughout the book) that our brains ‘take in’ events and memories SOME of which impact us without our conscious awareness. I think at least some neurological evidence shows this is true (doesn’t it, Mike? You probably know this better than me) and I can’t see how we get from this basic neurological fact to “We’re not accountable for our sinful behaviour” let alone, “We don’t need to be accountable for our sinful behaviour” (something which I reckon you feel Boyd & Larson are implying).

In my view, therefore, this is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a red herring.

3. Anthropology & Sanctification

The issues raised here are fascinating for theological enthusiasts but I don’t think it goes to the heart of the matter. The list of “You are” affirmations were meant to remind the believer of often forgotten truths regarding our standing with God. If we can SAY it and claim it from Scripture, I don’t see anything wrong (or at least, not yet) with IMAGINING it.

I mean, to put it simplistically, someone with your view of salvation/sanctification could just REMOVE those verses quoted in the book you believe are only forensically true and keep only those you believe are experientially true as well. At most, you’d have a shorter list(!) though I’m pretty sure you can still produce MANY images and ‘movies’.

Therefore, I don’t think Boyd & Larson’s method hang on any particular Christian theology. It’s about imagining Biblical truth and replacing our everyday visions of un-truth with what we know from the Bible to be true. The heart of Boyd’s & Larson’s work concerns imagining truth as opposed to merely believing it, thereby reaping experiential rewards from such imagination. Whilst I agree there MAY be something questionable about it and there ARE numerous questions involved, Mike, I just don’t think you’ve raised these in such a way to make your objection against them convincing. So, again, if you’ve got doubts about some of the phrases they use (e.g. “You are now as near to God as Christ Himself”), then just put those aside and use other true-er ones.

On a related note, I’m not sure about the significance of 1Tim 1:15. My amateurish exegetical skills notwithstanding, I think Paul’s declaration (which was probably meant to highlight his former persecution of Christians) is made in context of much thanksgiving and praise and if we can imagine – using Boyd & Larson’s method – God hugging/holding/loving us as sinners then there’s really no inconsistency with what Paul writes. It’s also unlikely that Paul intends to make an unqualified theological truth-claim that he is the ‘chief of sinners’ as a) there are unrepentant sinners around (surely we don’t think Paul is ‘worse off’ than them, do we?) and b) Paul has written about being a ‘slave to righteousness’, which presumably he is, vis-à-vis being a ‘slave to sin’, which he presumably isn’t but some still are. Paul, in my view, was therefore not so much constructing propositional theology as he was using hyper-bole (not sure if this is the right word) to remind both himself and his readers of the depths of sin God saved him from, and doing so in the context of thanksgiving to God (something Boyd & Larson would almost certainly encourage in words and imagination!).

To repeat, Boyd & Larson did not tell us to deny we are sinners. In fact, I think they would tell us to reflect on God’s grace to us in spite of our sin and our ‘new creation’ status in Christ.

4. Method of Change

Putting aside the exegetical controversies surrounding Galatians, I’m afraid I can’t agree that Boyd & Larson’s approach constitutes a ‘fleshly’ or ‘worldly’ means to accomplish a godly objective, in the same way that I don’t think that using the Internet, taking aspirin, or going for work-outs are non-godly options to do the work of Christ or heal/better our health. Once again, I think you’ve begged the question.

I also think you may have misrepresented Boyd & Larson with your statement (of their work) that… “Apparently, things can be real and true even though they are not factual.” If I’ve read them correctly, I think they only mean to say that things can be experientially REAL without being factual. I don’t see them as telling us to believe in lies or hold fantasy as truth (the correctness of their theology notwithstanding, as per your ‘Anthropology & Sanctification’ section).

Furthermore, Boyd was trying to encourage us towards compassion, as opposed to judgment, for another. He’s telling us to love the person, yet often our minds (and thus our experience of reality) think judgmentally of them, conjuring up negative stories/’movies’ which reinforce our judgment of them. As we DO NOT KNOW ‘what may be motivating this person to be the way he or she is’, the issue of truth is secondary in the proposal that we imagine a story which elicits our compassion.

But, really, if this feels too deceptive, then it’s just a short step to ask God to give us as true as possible a mental picture of these persons’ circumstances in the prayer that our minds will be transformed towards loving them more.

I’m also less concerned than you seem to be with this quote:

“Don’t just recite information about how you think you’d be different. Get a picture of yourself and see how you’re different. Listen to how this God-glorifying you thinks and speaks differently from the way you presently tend to think and speak. Observe how you feel about things when you manifest the truth of who you are in Christ, and note how it’s different from the way you presently tend to feel about those things. Don’t just know about the true you; experience the true you.”

Boyd & Larson have already explained in the opening chapters (and I think Boyd has also done so a little in Seeing Is Believing) the inadequacies of conceptual information vis-à-vis experience. A careful (and charitable, I might add) reading of their work, IMO, will yield the conclusion that they’re not DENYING truth or saying it’s not important. They are offering suggestions and/or mental tools to make our true concepts and beliefs a more integral part of our mental/emotional experience.

We are worlds away from a ‘name it, claim it’ tactic and the lack of concern with truth that (I gather) you’re ascribing to them.

To briefly address your various concerns:

You’re probably right that the authors feel that their exercises are ‘indispensable’ to experiencing real life in Christ and I too feel that they’ve exaggerated their case. Still, even if we disagree with them on the indispensability of their method, this doesn’t entail we can’t, let alone shouldn’t, try out their ideas. Reading good spiritual books is NOT ‘indispensable’ for growth in Christ, but you’re probably still gonna get the next John Piper paperback, right? (smile).

You write that the book doesn’t encourage/stress the importance of community or that the authors don’t believe that Body Life is unnecessary for growth and maturity. A book on private prayer or personal Bible study probably won’t seem to ‘encourage/stress the importance of community’, this hardly warrants the conclusion. We have to see what the subject matter is. In any case, it’s a weak objection, one easily circumvented by the authors putting in a few lines affirming community (e.g. doing TNT in a group which, as I understand, is what’s done at their seminars anyway) and which doesn’t address key issues.

I also find it amazing that you can write that “The focus is not on Christ. As appealing as these techniques might be to our narcissistic culture, they are contrary to the selflessness and other-centeredness of the New Testament.” Boyd & Larson tell us to imagine Christ being with us, to ‘see’ Him next to us, holding us, etc. Ironically, this would de facto mean that Christians who follow their method have more images of Christ in their minds than those who don’t! How is this NOT ‘focusing on Christ’? And whilst I don’t think this automatically makes anyone more sanctified, I simply cannot see how their work can be labelled ‘narcissistic’, even less can I see how these caricatures help in our evaluations.

Finally, Mike, I think your review would be strengthened by:

a) An evaluation of the scientific or neurological basis of their methods (did they represent the scientific consensus fairly? Did they omit certain bits of neurological information which greatly damages their case for their method?)

b) A stronger theology of Christian imagination (exactly what is sinful about imagining Jesus with us and others in time and ‘beyond’ time? Which passages are most relevant?) I believe Boyd has a theological section in his ‘Seeing Is Believing’ where he anticipates and responds to some criticism of his theology of Christian imagination. Maybe you can start there?

I hope this critique of your critique helps. Do let me know if you feel I’ve misread either you or the book. I’m seeking to understand more about this topic and your review was a good start to get me going.

Blessings,
Alwyn