|
Seer Training: Christian or mysticism
A church in Scotland which is part of a mainstream denomination is running a course on Seer Training. Is this forward thinking or a route into occultic mysticism?
by Watchman
 We live in a day of both great threat and great opportunity.
Churches are haemhorraging members, our nation is now post-Christian and we are seeing new government legislation coming onto force which is making it more and more difficult for believers at all levels to maintain a solid Christian witness. A post-war baby boom of church leaders is heading for retirement whilst Christian denominations increasingly are following the secular tide into condoning and encouraging immoral models of relationship.
But change also presents great opportunity. Whenever prevailing and historical models are threatened, the loss of the status quo can produce a vacuum into which new things can flow and new paradigms emerge.
The question today is whether what is 'new' is biblical or a return to mystic and deviant practices.
The following is the blurb attaching to a forthcoming course in Scotland for Christians.
----------------------
The Seer Course
The Seer Course will walk you through the ancient Hebrew definition of the seeing gift and how it applies to you personally today. In this course, you will learn practical applications of how to function as a seer, how God wants to communicate with you as a seer, and how He taught Jeremiah to see.
You will grow in metaphorical (sic) [should be 'metaphysical'? - Ed.] understanding and be amazed as you realize all the implications and possibilities of this gift. Most importantly, this course will change your life at a day-to-day level and radically heighten your relationship with God.
The Seer Course addresses these questions and more:
- How do you know you have this gift?
- How do you know you’re not just making it up?
- Does seeing include more than just spiritual sight?
- How do you operate as a seer?
- What are orbs, lights, and strange things you think you see?
- What is the seer’s role in relationship with God and others?
----------------
What is indisputable in the age in which we live is that 'new' things are emerging at an unprecedented rate and the need for spiritual discernment is critical in our time. The word of God teaches us that there is nothing new under the sun. But these things can reappear clad in a new (different) set of clothes, so the need for continual vigilance is paramount. And the most subtle forms of deception is counterfeit of the real thing. The danger is even greater when there is (some) truth mixed in with error.
But in these issues, the days of fence-sitting and abstract philosophising are over. Opportunity or threat? It's make your mind up time. |
Watchman, 28/08/2009
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7)
| |
|
Mark Hadfield |
31/08/2009 11:35 |
I wasn't trying to be contentious, or to attract a roasting. It's a genuine question / concern (as I'm sure it was when you asked, Peter).
|
| |
|
Peter Carr (Guest) |
31/08/2009 12:42 |
Absolutely, but you know how we can all have blind spots! All the best for the response when you get it.
|
| |
|
Editor |
31/08/2009 13:05 |
Peter, I am not sure which 'roasting' you refer to (perhaps it was a period when you were posting messages yourself anonymously), but I do discourage persistent anonymous postings as a general rule. When there are exceptions I make that clear. (See About us/Editorial Policy/Site Ethos.)
Regarding the "Watchman" identity, any (every) site user can click on the signature which then takes you to a page which explains the psuedonym.
It is worth taking time to read these things if questions arise.
Hope this helps clarify things for you (and Mark).
|
| |
|
Peter Carr (Guest) |
31/08/2009 13:27 |
You could be right, but memory also informs me it is because I questioned editorial policy!
|
| |
|
Mark Hadfield |
31/08/2009 17:42 |
Thanks. Followed the link and read it. Although I can appreciate some of the reasoning behind the pseudonym of Watchman, I'd like to offer some observations that led me to ask the question (and sorry if this seems off-topic, but I don't know where else to discuss this):
1. Quite a few (would it be unfair to say "most"?) Watchman articles evoke strong emotional responses within the community, some might even say prejudiced in some cases. So the evidence suggests that the use of a pseudonym does not necessarily help the conversation to be intelligent and enquiring concerning the topic, which I assume to be the purpose of the articles rather than reinforcing divisions. Sad but true. Breaks my heart.
2. I feel uncomfortable that there is a lack of accountability to the community as to the source of the opinions offered. This is a big concern for me. And if others have asked too then ...?
3. I struggle with the implication (and I accept it is only an implication and not a statement) that a pseudonym can somehow make those opinions free of bias. Though I recognise and appreciate every effort to write as bias-free as possible, it is unavoidable that every one of us has bias, and it seems better to me to at least be transparent regarding our own bias.
For example, one of my own biases (sic?) is that I know the gifts of the Spirit. Though I also acknowledge the hurt that the Charasmatic Movement has sometimes caused in its infancy and immaturity and ask for forgiveness from the wider Body Of Christ in that regard, it does not negate my conviction (bias) that God's Spirit wants to be better known by every one of us and to equip us for the work of His Kingdom.
I would hope (as an optimist) that in being transparent concerning my bias, that it might encourage us to have intelligent conversation rather than mud-slinging, whereas I do know that being veiled (like Watchman) rather than transparent usually breeds suspicion and mistrust.
4. In the absence of a stated source, I am forced to conclude that the opinions of Watchman and the opinions of Editor are one and the same, and I would guess that is the conclusion that others may also draw? But I would also guess that that's not necessarily so?
I've no desire to create an argument, be contentious, be on any kind of attack, or to attract a roasting. I'm also sorry if this is not the right place to have this discussion. I simply offer these observations for consideration and I don't require any reply or response other than to know that I've been heard and that we are indeed interested here in being "Christians together" :o)
in His love,
Mark
|
| |
|
Peter Carr (Guest) |
31/08/2009 19:28 |
"2. I feel uncomfortable that there is a lack of accountability to the community as to the source of the opinions offered. This is a big concern for me. And if others have asked too then ...?"
Mark,
Thank you for articulating many of my concerns that I too have struggled with over the past 2 years with regards to CT (one of which I have quoted above). You have no idea how heart warming it is to see that I am not alone with my concerns!
|
| |
|
Editor |
31/08/2009 20:42 |
Hello Mark,
First of all "You are right" - it is "off topic".
Secondly, whilst you are most welcome to make your concerns known, this is the first time that you have expressed these to me. An e-mail was/is always available to you - and others (cf Matt. 18).
In terms of editorial policy, it is very common (including in Christian publichations) to use psuedonyms to protect sources.
Regarding the subject matter of this particular topic the concern is/was expressed by a third party. If visitors choose to disbelieve that and rather attribute the opinion to myself then there is nothing I can do about that.
There is in some quarters of the Christian community a strong tendency to 'ad hominem' responses (reactions). And I suspect that what often underlies these tendencies is a desire to vilify the writer(s) rather than address the topic. People that speak to me need to be able to do that with a confidence that I will only attribute comment with their consent.
Additionally (as any journalist will tell you) sources sometimes need to be kept private for a wide variety of reasons, as the "Watchman" explanation clearly states.
But thank you for your comments.
However, if we can get back to the topic, perhaps if you have any information or opinions on or experience of the 'Seer Training' you can post here for the benefit of all concerned.
|
| |
|
Mark Hadfield |
31/08/2009 22:36 |
Thanks Colin. I hadn't considered approaching you privately as I hadn't seen it as an issue of correction (Matthew 18) or even complaint, merely discussion within the community. However, I do think that you're right - it would have been gracious and wise for me to discuss it privately with you first. Please accept my sincere apologies. I do respect the work of Christians Together.
As for "seeing". I am reluctant to open a dialogue that may turn into mud-slinging. I don't think this thread got off to a good start in that respect. But I'll take a risk ...
I came to Christ through a vision experience 22 years ago. I saw a vision of Jesus which both terrified me and attracted me at the same time. I didn't know it at the time but I found the exact vision many months later described in the book of Revelation which I'd never read before at that time in my life. I became a disciple shortly afterward. I've also heard many stories of people coming to Christ through vision experiences and through dreams. Sometimes they are even people of other faiths who encounter Jesus in a vision during their religious observances. Is this what Joel meant in 2:28 and which Peter quoted at Pentecost? I don't know. Maybe? I just know that God is God.
If we take away the books of the Bible authored via visions then we lose some very important books. If we then take away characters from the Bible who were led by visions or by Holy visitors then we lose pretty much every major character in both testaments, we lose the gospel going to the Gentiles, we even discredit witnesses of Jesus' birth. And what did Jesus mean when He said He could only do what He *saw* the Father doing? Do we discredit Jesus as well?
At the same time, I do genuinely understand and empathise with the concern about emerging language like "seer", especially when New Age practices have already hi-jacked those terms even though they pre-date the New Age Movement itself, and I think we are right to be cautious and to ask God to help us in our discernment. I think "seer" is new to our vocabulary - it certainly is to me - and it sounds strange and foreign. But believing that God can guide people through dreams and visions is quite acceptable for most of us, isn't it? It's certainly prevalent in the Bible. The course blurb you quoted seems to claim that "seer" is a term originating from the Old Testament Hebrew describing a blessing from God.
I heard a story recently from a church in the U.S. The pastor had complained to the Sunday School team because they had redecorated a room using a New Age Symbol all down one wall. Sounds shocking doesn't it? The thing is, that symbol was a rainbow. God's creation. God's symbol of covenant. Yet New Age paranoia creeps in, and it seems this pastor forgot what a rainbow really was.
Sometimes the issue is jargon. For example, a charasmatic may talk about "a prophetic word" whilst a non-charasmatic talks about "a word in season from Lord" and both are in fact talking about the same blessing but are misunderstanding one another's jargon.
I'm trying not to offer any conclusion. Merely to jar a few brain cells.
I have no wish to offend brothers and sisters who received a different means to the initial revelation of Jesus to mine, but stepped onto the same journey together and are looking to the exact same destination. I love and respect you all. Christ is the only way, plain and simple.
But I would try to help us all realise that we would do well to think this stuff through carefully, with our Bibles open, asking God to clarify things for us, recognising that our diversity can lead to misunderstanding if we're not prepared to dialogue intelligently, rather than being quick to judge one another out of unfamiliarity. If we are in Christ then we are many parts of one Body. It is the Head that joins us, nothing less.
Grace and peace.
Mark
|
| |
|
Andrea Mac |
31/08/2009 23:17 |
Hi Mark,
Please don't think that those of us who are concerned about the particular aims of this course are sceptical of genuine spiritual encounters with God - we're not (or, at least, I'm not!).
The part which concerns me is the inference that you can 'sell' this gift to whoever wants to have it. That is not scriptural at all. It is always a gift and always initiated by God for His purposes alone.
I am sure your experience was genuine and I have no problem with that. However, it wasn't (to the best of my knowledge) the result of you learning how to 'hear' from God first.
The description of the above course seems to me to be all about what you can get out of it rather than maintaining a close relationship with God at all times so that we will be in a position to be able to hear from Him, should He decide to communicate with us in this fashion.
Just my thoughts on it. I'm sure I'll hear God's messages to me if I keep my heart in tune with His. Whether He speaks quietly to me in thought or reveals His will in a supernatural form is completely in His domain and I'm content to leave it there.
Andrea
|
| |
|
Eddie Hallahan |
01/09/2009 00:30 |
Of course He does tell us in His word to 'eagerly desire the greater gifts'
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7)
|
|
|
|
