Diaprax: what to look for

Before reading this post, if you haven’t already, please be sure to read the rest of the series on diaprax.

You may also find author and analyst Dean Gotcher’s diaprax diagram of interest.

If you know teachers or public sector workers, chances are they have been through diaprax many times.  This takes place on teacher training days and in various sensitivity training or team-building workshops.

Gotcher explains what’s happening in part 8 of his online book, The Dialectic and Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages.

Telltale signs

I can vouch for this one, as I have seen it in educators I know:

When you confront them with questions that demand facts, they demonstrate much discomfort, and become evasive.  They may even disassociate from you if you persist.  They are in grave danger, and they do not know it and will most likely refuse to recognize it or even admit it.

The ‘danger’ of faith

This is what diaprax practitioners and followers — including clergy and religious — fear from ‘traditionalists’ (emphasis in the original):

When alienation with God is removed in Christ, one receives His Spirit of power, love, and a sound mind.  At the time one’s alienation with God is resolved, his alienation with the world begins. One must choose between God or man.  There is no other choice. When human relationship building becomes the center piece of any ministry, that ministry is no longer serving God.

Questions and statements in diaprax

Think of all the workshops or induction training you’ve had.  Do any of the following questions sound familiar?  If so, you’ve participated in diaprax.  Let’s start with the Thesis phase (emphases in the paragraphs mine):

“What do you think about…?” (Cognitive)
“How do you feel about…?” (Affective)

After the facilitator gives a brief “friendly” introduction and engages the members of the group in some “warm” and “casual” dialogue he begins the process of “interrogating” with “drawing out” type questions.  When a facilitator says to you, “Don’t worry about what you might say.  This is just an exercise, so just open up and participate.  No one is here to hurt you, we are all here to help one another.  This exercise is not being recorded.”  Do not believe them.  It is being recorded.  Someone somewhere is keeping notes on you.  Information on your behavior is being recorded by a selected recorder, whether you know it or not.  Your behavior is being kept track of, if not on tape, at least in notes or in someone’s head, to be written down later.  In a separate change agent or group leadership meeting this information will be used to analyze your behavior in the group exercise.  In a diaprax society everyone is always being analyzed, even the facilitator.

Have you noticed how the facilitator is always friendly and engaging?

Using a controlled environment to develop group interest on a social issue, the facilitator must first develop connection with each individual.  He does this by first asking each individual to more clearly define their terms so he can better understand their position.  He uses this phase to activate the desire for respect each individual desires from the facilitator as well a the respect desired from fellow peers regarding their position.  Once this happens one’s position is in jeopardy.

Later in the thesis phase, the facilitator moves the discussion to a different level:

The beginning of the “I have my rights” attitude.  Liberation from those those who establish socially restraining rules, who limit equality of opportunity.  The oppressed-oppressor syndrome is now being developed.

“How do you think you arrived at that view?”
“Why do you think you feel that way?”

This is the sub-phase where the individual realizes the source for his discomfort when he desires to be a part of a new group of people.  That discomfort being the fear of rejection by the new group if he does not adequately justify the restraints and rules placed upon him by parents, laws, God, etc.  The purpose of diaprax is to encourage him to “think for himself” to realize that he has the right to question rules or standards that stand in the way of new social experiences.

The facilitator then moves the group into the Antithesis phase by asking them to consider alternative points of view.

For everyone to feel free enough to participate in the experience of group life and be willing to experience “diversity in unity” learning to “agree to disagree” for the sake of social harmony, they must be willing to set aside any rule that might restrict or restrain dialogue.  The Ten Commandments will definitely be redefined (humanized) or left out because they are intolerant of diaprax—unrighteous human behavior.

A well-managed ‘conflict’ phase follows, centred around questions about possible consequences of an alternative course of action.  Participants must be able to feel comfortable with themselves whilst at the same time ingratiate themselves to the rest of the group — the satisfaction of personal and social needs.

The ‘group dynamics’ begin near the end of the antithesis phase with questions about the best course of action to choose (emphases mine throughout):

… absolutes must be sacrificed for the sake of social harmony.  According to diaprax, the only absolute is change, the only thing relative is truth.  This is where the paradigm shift of the New Age really kicks in because there is no “going back to basics” in this process …

In the Synthesis phase, two things occur, with the end result that participants now become unwitting ‘change agents’.  They will end up unknowingly monitoring behaviours of the traditionalists whom they encounter outside the group after the session has ended:

Each group-think individual now sets out to help bring others into the group-think process.  By drawing others in the diaprax environment they are able to help them become aware of their own personal-social relationship needs …

For everyone to develop a “low intolerance to ambiguity” and adapt to a life lived in the “gray zone,” all for the sake of society, they must learn to accept chaos, change, and coping with stress as a way of life.

The individual change agent, convinced of the necessity for change, now believes it is necessary for everyone to learn to cope with stress in an environment of chaos.  Because the “transition” phase requires group conflict, if individual respect is to be maintained and group cohesion is to be developed, then it will be necessary for everyone to learn to cope with the chaos of change.

I wrote a few times last year that we were meant to be stressed — at work and at home.  At the time, I didn’t know why, but this explains it.  People today don’t want to be unstressed.  Even the most innocuous comments — ‘I’m rushed off my feet’, ‘I don’t have time to think’, ‘I’m ever so busy’ — fit into this.  If you aren’t feeling like that, then, you are ‘other’, out of it, not ‘fitting in’ with the received paradigm.  Eventually, you will become a ‘problem’ to the rest of the group, if not to society.

Other things to watch out for

Gotcher has more observations in Part 9, excerpted below.

On ’empowerment’:

Empowerment is just another diaprax word for duped.  When people realize they have been “had” by the process they soon discover they cannot warn others because others still believe they control their own lives.  Nobody can fight the system while in it.

There will still be authority and prejudice:

Because the authority figure, who sets the rules and demands obedience and respect, will not permit himself to be used as an outlet for any pent up anger, especially from any one under his authority, the one under submission will most likely project his anger at any “outsider” the authority figure resents, thus not only getting rid of the internal tension caused by submission, but also gaining favor with the authority figure as well.  Socio-psychologists believe this is where all prejudice comes from.

Why benevolent authority is not part of the equation for social theorists:

… benevolent authority could produce a healthy community, but, because it still demanded obedience to a higher authority which they could not control, they could not accept it as an option.  This is why OBE, TQM, and STW are not teaching obedience, but respect for one another, as much as is possible.  Those who do not deserve respect, according to socio-psychologists, are those who continue to believe in absolutes and resist change.

… God has made possible what man cannot do.  This is why socio-psychologists refuse to recognize benevolent authority.  To do so would force them to recognize their sinful nature and to admit their need for God.  What they do not want to recognize is that He is their Creator as well.

It is essential for us to realise what is happening and understand how diaprax works.  For, it was always so. As one of my readers, Llew, noted recently: ‘It’s the devil in a different disguise.’

Martin Luther observed a similar trend during the Reformation:

It is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard.  Who does not see how the universities read the Bible?  It has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth. Luther’s Works, V. 32, p. 259

I hope this series has helped you as much as it has me.  Let’s spread the word, even though it might be difficult.

Our future depends on it.

Diaprax — when facts and truth are forbidden

Before reading this entry, it might be helpful to read the other posts in the diaprax series first.

Diaprax is all about changing the way we think, not just as a one-off event but as a constant evolution in the way we view the world.

Part of diaprax is a larger public context revolves around subtle, covert ways of changing our thinking.  In his online book, The Dialectic and Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages, author and analyst Dean Gotcher says that crises and the media spin play an essential role in this process:

First, there is the disaster—the cause for action, the catalyst on which to develop synthesis, the common social issue on which everyone can focus.  Then there are the helpless —  the cause for empathy, the catalyst to draw everyone into and through antithesis, the feelings of compassion for those who are unable to help themselves by those who were more fortunate.  And finally, there is the divided community in contact with itself—the cause for change, the catalyst from which to experience compromise, the need to be “rational” and put aside, at least temporarily, their differing “divisive” thesis, out of concern for the less fortunate.

Think of terrorism, natural disasters and everything going back at least to the oil crisis of the 1970s.  Each of these events produces a change either in business, globalisation or received wisdom in the popular sphere.

The following video examines the language of urgency and crisis that President Obama uses in two speeches, including the one he made in Berlin in 2008:

The media are complicit in helping us effect this change.  Gotcher observes (emphases mine):

It is not easy to get citizens to focus collectively on a particular issue without having a disaster or without directly telling them to.  Yet, accoridng to praxis, no one citizen in the community can tell the other citizens what social issue or potential disaster they must focus on or attend to.  Everyone, including yourself, must attend to and reason through a common social issue or dilemma because of the interest collectively generated from within the community or group.  This, according to diaprax, will require the aid of a facilitator (covert influence) and not an order or command given by some higher authority (overt influence).  The media [have] taken an active role in doing this today…

The three different ways of thinking when solving differences, according to diaprax, are traditional, transitional, and transformational, or thinking with facts, thinking with feelings, and thinking with reasoning skills.

In the traditional way of thinking, reality is based upon external evidence or facts with knowledge being the accumulation of these facts (quantity) as well as respect for and obedience toward them.  In the transitional way of thinking, feelings determine reality.  And in the transformational way of thinking, only what can be reasoned is real.  Simply put, traditional thinking sees reality out there somewhere as facts, established for all times and places; transitional thinking sees reality in the heart, where facts can be overlooked in the pursuit of pleasure and where problems can be solved by simply going somewhere else that feels better; and transformational thinking sees reality in the mind, where facts and feelings are subject to harmonious change through higher-order thinking skills.

He suggests that we think of it as thesis being fact, antithesis being feelings and synthesis as a global, humanistic approach to a situation, where facts become peripheral.  Think about the way the media have handled major world events over the past 10 years.  In discussing acts of terrorism, the tsunami and recent earthquakes, fact rarely enters into the discussion.  It is all emotive, seat-of-the-pants stuff — especially the vox-pop segments.  Watch this play out when disasters are discussed in the workplace.  Within 24 hours or so, almost everyone is on the same wavelength and has the same reaction.  Those who are not simply make an effort to avoid getting caught up in the conversation and risking public opprobrium.

The reason Christianity is so threatening to diaprax, writes Gotcher, is because:

It is not possible to serve God and diaprax at the same time.  The one who tries it ends up serving diaprax, not God.  This is why the Ten Commandments, prayer lead by an authority figure, and Bible reading were removed from the local schools across the nation.  God was declared “dangerous” by the highest court of our land because He stood in the way of global, New Age tolerance.  He had to be removed before “multicultural activities,” “self-esteem,” and “human-reasoning skills” could successfully be used to shape the minds of the next generation so they depend upon socio-psychologists as the high priest of the New Diaprax Age.

Unfortunately, in order to be man-pleasing, many churches are falling into line with diaprax.  Mainstream Protestant churches, the church growth movement and the emerging church are all current examples of discarding Scripture and God’s saving grace for this type of warped, man-centred way of thinking.

Gotcher includes a quote from Martin Luther to illustrate his point (emphasis in the original):

Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all, and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds . . . let us reject the word of man. — Luther’s Works, V.32,  p. 217

Yet, the ‘change agents’ — socio-psychologists — have been working over the decades through theory, books, university courses, workshops and the media to define:

“facts as hypothesis.”  Because to them all facts are changeable, they can conclude that “hypothesis equals fact.” Reasoning seeks for reconciliation between facts and feelings; trusting and obeying does not.

Gotcher writes that the ‘common cause’ — whatever it may be at the time — becomes a god replacing the one true God.  Eventually, society replaces God:

This is called dialectic materialism (traditional Marxism) or historical materialism (transformational Marxism).

He cites three main examples in American life: outcome-based education (OBE), school-to-work (STW) and total quality management (TQM).  I would qualify the last to mean in a church environment.

In any event, the result is that:

Socio-psychologists are removing our freedoms, our inalienable rights, so quickly and successfully it is often hard for me to believe we will ever be able to stop them.  Few have caught on to the fact that the paradigm shift (a change in the way people think) really means the replacing of our democratic-republic form of government with socialism.  And even if some have noticed the changes, it does not appear they care to understand the significance of that change or even care to get involved to stop it …

Today they come to us as our own spouse, our friends, our teachers, and our minister.  Even our own children come home questioning the role of the traditional family in a “rapidly changing society.”

… Most of our problems are really due to our lack of knowledge of truths or our rebellion against them.  Transformationalists, on the other hand, question all truths (relativity).  When crossing a bridge, which method used to build it would make you feel most secure: absolutes, 2 + 2 always equals 4 or relativity, 2 + 2 might equal 4, maybe it equals 5 …

That is why moral decay (fallout) is multiplying all around us.

In a church context, diaprax leads to continuous questioning and reinterpretation of Scripture.  We probably grew up with it.  ‘Well, St Paul wrote for his time, didn’t he?’ ‘The Bible is so old as to be irrelevant.’  ‘Jesus never judged anyone.’  Yet, anyone who knows his Scripture can tell you that all of those statements are patently false.

And this is the nub of the matter.  The transformational folks are hoping that few people today have actually read and studied the whole of the Bible.  The teachers in our various denominational schools and many pastors in our churches tell us about it but don’t actually teach Scripture.  ‘Don’t worry about reading the Bible — we’ll tell you what it says.’ Yes, their own faulty — if not heretical — interpretation.

In school, this extends to a variety of courses which our forebears took for granted and have since paled into insignificance.  Whether it be History, English Lit, or even Woodworking (‘Shop’ in the US) and Domestic Science (‘Home Ec’), we’re left without a leg to stand on.

We don’t know our past.  We can’t do for ourselves.  We have fewer reference points — religious and historic — on which to base our lives.

And that’s exactly how our elite betters want it.

Tomorrow: the seemingly benign characteristics of diaprax

Diaprax: Socialisation from cradle to grave

Earlier this year I wrote about the Fabians, Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.  All of them had subversion of the Church and family unit in mind in order to remake society into a socialist utopia, one which met their vision of controlling the lower orders.

The Frankfurt School were particularly adept at bringing new concepts and terminology into play in the latter half of the 20th century.  Our parents, grandparents and even we — whether at home, in work or in education — looked at these and, understandably, regarded them as new, necessary ways of thinking for a new era in the Western world.  Little did they — or we — realise how much damage they would do to our society as a whole.

An American author and researcher, Dean Gotcher, went through a crisis of faith at university — ironically, a Christian institution of higher learning.   It took him some years to return to faith and to find out what caused it.  His research led him to conclude that it was the Hegelian dialectic combined with praxis (practice, action) designed to change people’s behaviour and their interpersonal relationships. He calls this ‘diaprax’.  When you have time, why not consult the Churchmouse Campanologist series on diaprax?

Gotcher writes at length about this in his online book, Diaprax and the End of the Ages.  What appears to be wholesome and good is actually ruining our world, beginning in the home.  As Gotcher’s findings are lengthy, yet highly absorbing, I shall provide excerpts but recommend that you spend time reading his research in full.  As has often been said through the ages, ‘Things are not always what they seem’.

My posts from earlier this week describe how diaprax works in churches.  The next two will describe how they work in a secular environment.

Diaprax relies on ‘felt needs’ and our ‘higher-order thinking skills’ (HOTS), sometimes called ‘human reasoning skills’.  Although it panders to elevated reasoning and thinking, it is in reality highly subjective and emotion-based.  Gotcher explains dialectic, which you have probably encountered in workshops either at school or work:

The first consideration of dialectic thought is how people relate to one another. This is the personal need each individual has for social relationship. The focus in satisfying these needs is not on what you think when you think about others—that is monodimensional thinking or the traditional way of thinking (didactic)—but how you think about others—that is multidimensional thinking or the transformational way of thinking (dialectic). The “others” you must think about include not only family, friends, community, established ideas, normal behavior, and traditional ways of doing things but also strangers, enemies, foreigners, innovative ideas, daring behavior, and new or different ways of doing things.

Note the other terms used for this: ‘multidimensional’ and ‘transformational’ ways of thinking.

He notes that dialectic would have stayed in a philosophical and socio-political realm had it not been developed and brought to the public at large beginning in the 1930s via ‘praxis’.  Although Transformational Marxists such as Georg Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci developed the concept in the 1920s in their respective countries (Hungary and Italy), the Frankfurt School were the ones who imbued Western mainstream thinking with these ideas, designed to keep moving us from a didactic and objective way of thinking (2+2=4) to a more subjective one (‘there is no absolute truth’).  Hence, we read about ‘change’.  This change is meant to be continuous.

In the video below Gotcher explains how diaprax works — well worth the nine minutes. He reveals why the language used in this process is deliberately ambiguous — to accommodate everyone and to bring about ‘consensus’, itself a collectivist term:

Of praxis — putting the new ideas into action — Gotcher writes:

When praxis became a part of the intellectuals’ dialectic toy, major social changes began to appear within our nation. The combined process of the dialectic and praxis made it possible for socialist-minded intellectuals to directly impact not only the university, but also the public and private school, corporations as well as small business, local as well as state and national government, the church, and even the home.

How does this work?  Let’s begin with the family.  Before the 1950s, the word ‘teenager’ was unknown.  Adolescents and parents spent time together as a family.  Secondary school students learned how to be adults, either helping out at home, getting a job after school or studying for university.  Parents taught their sons and daughters self-control over their behaviour.  Social occasions for young people were, in general, highly structured and chaperoned.  Parents held teas, at which other parents would be present.  Dances at schools were formal occasions, also with parents present.  There were opportunities to sing and dance, but all within received behavioural norms.  Many people attended church or synagogue, and children accompanied their parents.

By 1960, the phenomenon of the previous decade’s rock and roll, psychology and teenagers became the norm.  In 1961, socio-psychologist James Coleman — who would later act as an advisor to the US Supreme Court — wrote a book called The Adolescent Society: the Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on Education.  Instead of describing the adolescent as one who receives guidance from parents and teachers, he writes of the teenager as a fully-formed individual (emphases Gotcher’s below):

The family must be prepared to deal with [the adolescent’s] early social sophistication. Mass media, and an ever-increasing range of personal experiences, gives an adolescent social sophistication at an early age, making him unfit for the obedient role of the child in the family …

Thus the strategy of strengthening the family to draw the adolescent back into it faces serious problems, as well as some questions about its desirability …

Rather than bringing the father back to play with his son, this strategy would recognize that society has changed, and attempt to improve those institutions designed to educate the adolescent toward adulthood.  In order to do this, one must know how adolescent societies function, and beyond that, how their directions may be changed.

I wouldn’t say that Coleman and others were entirely responsible for this shift nor would I say that the Frankfurt School was.  However, they did manage to capitalise on the dominance of women working in factories during the Second World War, the weakened state of men post-war (fatalities in battle, fatherless families) and the rebellion of teenage boys as a result (increased independence outside the home).  Many young families also moved away from their neighbourhoods to new suburbs, forming new alliances with neighbours and colleagues instead of with family.  More people owned cars, so travel became increasingly commonplace.  Many middle-class families also had television sets and were exposed to a new visual entertainment.

In the workplace, Total Quality Management (TQM) became commonplace in manufacturing firms.  Peter Drucker helped to bring this worldwide for a much higher standard and reliability in processes, productivity and finished products.

In the 1970s, many people began to turn to psychology and Eastern religions.  A variety of books helped change the way people thought about their interpersonal relationships.  This is generally known as ‘transformational thinking’.  What I think about you may not be what you think about me.  We each need to acknowledge that and steer our relationship accordingly.

By the 1990s, office processes and interpersonal relationships were the subject of management seminars, employee inductions and so forth.  ‘Values’ became important.  Many large corporations developed a short list of ‘core values’ they expected their employees to adhere to.  Negotiation and soft skills became the subject of many an away-day and team-building session.

For older people, a local ‘forever learning’ or ‘life-long learning’ programme took root in the 1980s.  Some local state universities offered courses.  Many churches had more informal ones.  These, too, were designed to change how our elders think.  Sure, the courses would have had objective titles, but they often had a combination of pedagogy and discussion about the lesson.  People were encouraged to say, ‘I think’ and ‘I feel’.  The subject of study became secondary to the process of diaprax.

The military, public and education sectors began to explore sensitivity training in the 1970s.  The main gist of the seminars and ‘teacher training days’ was to think differently about others, putting oneself in another’s shoes.  Consequently, many people have been trained to ’embrace change’ and ‘foster diversity’ by being ‘understanding’ and ‘accepting’ of others.

In all of these situations, Gotcher states that the objective is to arrive at:

the “best” or “most rational” solution to personal-social relationship needs.This does not mean that the solution agreed upon should be “fact” or “truth” (absolute), only that it is acceptable to all as a possible solution that could or should be tried relative feelings toward ambiguous facts.

We’re no longer talking about civility and etiquette.  This is observing, evaluating, measuring our behaviour at every stage to ensure that what we do is correct in the other person’s eyes.

Almost everyone reading this post has been affected by diaprax at some point.  For many of us, myself included, it started in some measure at school.  Even John Dewey — yes, he of the Dewey Decimal System in libraries — toured Europe over a century ago and brought back educational theories from early Marxist theorists.   His influence on developing a uniform education system in the United States paved the way for later theorists, among them Kenneth Benne, Warren Bennis, Ronald Havelock, Edward Glaser, Richard Bandler, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.

Hence, we are accustomed to ‘self-actualisation’, ‘realising our full potential’, ‘being ourselves’ and so forth.  Each of these concepts encourages subjective feelings and personal truths.  Children move away from parents as early as pre-school or nursery.  We read endless articles about grandparents or aunties being unsuitable to mind children because the child will lack ‘socialisation skills’.  The idea is to move children from the earliest age possible into a third-party, state-approved system of development, thereby reducing the nuclear family to an evening, morning and weekend afterthought.

The child must learn how to become part of society, otherwise he cannot fulfil his ‘individual’ role within it:

It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary, it destroys him.  Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities.
John Lewis, The Life and Teaching of Karl Marx,  p. 56.

Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society.

Citizens are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society.
Articles 14 and 66 of former USSR Constitution.

So, the modern state doesn’t really mind working mums.  In fact, working mums, whether married or single, give the state the chance to ‘intervene’ and raise children from infancy.  Increasingly, even nurseries perform ‘skills tests’ on children, evaluating them at regular intervals on their ability to play, share, speak and so forth.  Any shortfall or deviation — ‘anti-social’ behaviour — is duly noted and put on file.  The child has a ‘permanent record’ before he even knows what he is doing.

Tomorrow: Diaprax — never let a crisis go to waste

Spiritual warfare for the faith and against false teachers

Just to add a bit to diaprax, which we have examined over the past few days.

What follows are Bible verses to read and consider when faced against the dilemma of standing firm in faith or following the false teachers of diaprax.  This is not a complete listing, by any means.  You’ll no doubt have other favourites to add.

Except where indicated, the following come from the King James Version.

Discernment

My son, do not lose sight of these—keep sound wisdom and discretion.  (Proverbs 3:21)

¹⁴Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

³But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ⁴For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

¹⁶Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (1 Timothy 4:16)

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  (2 Timothy 2:15)

⁸Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. ⁹ Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. (1 Peter 5:8-9, ESV)

¹Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

⁵They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. ⁶We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.  (1 John 4:5-6)

⁴And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. ⁵For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.  (Revelation 18:4-5)

False teachers

¹²And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. ¹³For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ¹⁵So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.  (2 Corinthians 11:12-15, ESV)

²I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. ³But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ⁴ Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— ⁵to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.  (Galatians 2:2-5, ESV)

²That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; ³In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.  ⁴And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.  (Colossians 2:2-4)

³If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; ⁴He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, ⁵Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.  (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

¹²These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. ¹³They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.  (Jude 1:12-13, NIV)

Legalism and works

¹⁶Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. ¹⁷ These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.  (Colossians 2:16-17, ESV)

²⁰If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— ²¹ “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” ²²(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? ²³These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.  (Colossians 2:20-23, ESV)

The Great Commission

¹⁸And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. ¹⁹Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: ²⁰Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.  (Matthew 28:18-20)

The decline of faith

¹Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1)

²Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. ³For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ⁴And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

⁴Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.  (James 4:4)

¹⁶So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16)

On faith

⁷I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: ⁸Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.  (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

²⁴For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: ²⁵But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.  (1 Peter 1:24-25)

²⁴Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, ²⁵To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.  (Jude 1:24-25)

⁷He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.  (Revelation 2:7)

More on diaprax and the postmodern Church

Yesterday, we examined diaprax — dialectic + praxis. Christian author and  researcher Dean Gotcher coined the word diaprax after intensive study of Marxist influences in the church.  Today, we look at other aspects of the church which lend themselves to diaprax.

Cell groups

Rick Warren is fond of the small — or cell — group.  It’s often used for Bible study or prayer.  It works like a workshop in that the leader is the non-judgmental facilitator who wishes to guide the group from thesis through to synthesis.  Smaller Alpha groups work along this model.

I was sorry to read that the traditional, Reformed Anglicans Ablaze appears to support small groups.  Recently, its author, Robin Jordan, featured a ‘message’ from Rick Warren on the importance of this type of ministry:

Here is a message Rick sent to the Saddleback family explaining why small groups are so important to a believer’s spiritual growth. You’re welcome to adapt it for your own congregation —

It’s the classroom for learning how to get along in God’s family.

It’s a lab for practicing unselfish, sympathetic love. You learn to care about others and share the experiences of others: “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it. Or if one part of our body is honored, all the other parts share its honor” (1 Cor. 12:26 NCV). Only in regular contact with ordinary, imperfect believers can we learn real fellowship and experience the connection God intends for us to have (Eph. 4:16, Rom. 12:4–5, Col. 2:19, 1 Cor. 12:25).

REAL fellowship is being as committed to each other as we are to Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). This is the kind of sacrificial love God expects you to show other believers—loving them in the same way Jesus loves you.

Hmm.  Well, I did try to warn Mr Jordan (but to no avail) about another emergent programme he touted earlier this year, Fresh Expressions.  I tried to contact him privately but his blog only allowed for Google account holders to post comments.

Of small groups, Dr Robert E Klenck in his essay, ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’ says:

[Warren] is aware of research by Lyle Schaller, of the Leadership Network, that shows the relationship between the number of friendships that one has in the church, and the percentage chance then of that person leaving.  Close relationships are formed in the small groups, thus, people are required to participate in them.

And this is a concern.  This type of group then becomes psychologically close.  Warren asks members of these groups to ‘confess’ their sins publically to one another, as the Oxford Group (not Oxford Movement) did in the last century.  Warren’s is known as an ‘accountability group’.

Let’s look at what’s left unsaid in Warren’s push for small groups.  It’s about church unity, which will become increasingly important as we move towards a worldwide Christian Church.  It is in small groups where that ‘unity’ can take root and where submission to the accountability group through public confession of sins effects this relationship. It’s all rather … cultish. Instead of focussing on God for salvation through the Holy Spirit and the Word, the small group member (unless he is the leader) looks to the group for affirmation, correction and forgiveness. The horror.

Imagine mentioning in passing during one of these gatherings that you disagreed with an aspect of the service on a Sunday morning.  The small group is there to monitor your behaviour and responses.  Expect to be corrected and brought into line with the received ‘paradigm’ of the small group, and by extension, your church at large.  Church unity is all, even when that church is in error.

Unbelievers and ‘felt needs’

Like his mentor, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren also surveyed potential members of his congregation early in his ministry.  He focused only on the unbelievers and, like Schuller, constructed his church around their ‘felt needs’.  ‘Felt needs’ are highly important to diaprax, which eschews what we would call ‘fundamental’, ‘eternal’ or ‘absolute’ truths.  There is no truth.  What may be true today may not be true tomorrow.  We must change constantly.

Warren’s secular guru, Peter Drucker, may have had an even larger role to play in the church growth movement (CGM) than Schuller.  Dr Klenck notes (emphasis in the original):

He holds a doctorate of theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary – one of the strongest proponents of the church growth movement.

Organizational management “guru” Peter Drucker, who is very involved in this movement, stated:

“…noncustomers are as important as customers, if not more important:  because they are potential customers. … Yet it is with the noncustomers that changes always start.”[6]

Thus, in this movement, it is imperative that unbelievers are brought into the church; otherwise, the process of continual change cannot begin.  There must be an antithesis (unbelievers) present to oppose the thesis (believers), in order to move towards consensus (compromise), and move the believers away from their moral absolutism (resistance to change).  If all members of the church stand firm on the Word of God, and its final authority in all doctrine and tradition, then the church cannot and will not change.  This is common faith.

The tension must be present, otherwise we cannot move away from orthodox Christianity towards … a man-oriented church unity through a worldwide religious organisation.

Leaving God out of it

Bob Buford, another of Peter Drucker’s followers, started the Leadership Network in 1984, designed to put church leaders in touch with each other.  Note what its mission and values statement reads in part (emphases mine):

The mission of the Leadership Network is to accelerate the emergence of the 21st-century church.  We believe the emerging paradigm of the 21st century church calls for the development of new tools and resources as well as the equipping of a new type of 21st century church leader, both clergy and laity.  This new paradigm is not centered in theology but rather it is focused on structure, organization, and the transition from an institutionally based church to a mission-driven church.  We value innovation that leads to results …

God the Father?  Christ crucified and risen?  The Holy Spirit?  Grace?  Scripture?  Hellooo?

Have a look in Dr Klenck’s essay and scroll halfway down to see that neither God the Father nor His Son appears in the increasingly-used circular ‘core’ diagram.

TQM fine for the secular world

Having spent several years not only working in quality assurance but holding international certification, I can say that there is nothing wrong with Peter Drucker’s TQM for goods and business processes.  If, like Dr Klenck, you think there is, consider the reliability of everyday objects that you use: lightbulbs, cars and — in his case — surgical instruments.

I do agree with him that TQM has no place in the religious world at all.  In that case, yes, ‘total’ would mean ‘totalitarian’, whereas in a manufacturing plant or services company, it ensures that you get repeatable, measurable, reliable results every time.

Peter Drucker’s error

This is where Peter Drucker has gone wrong.  To him, a church (or another religious house of worship) is like a restaurant or shop which relies on what’s known as ‘footfall’, or ‘lots of traffic’.  In reality, some churches are smaller.  Some are larger.  What’s important is that they are pure and follow God’s holy Scripture.  Yet, Drucker said in an interview:

Consider the pastoral megachurches that have been growing so very fast in the U.S. since 1980 and are surely the most important social phenomenon in American society in the last 30 years. There are now some 20,000 of them, and while traditional denominations have steadily declined, the megachurches have exploded. They have done so because they asked, “What is value?” to a nonchurchgoer and came up with answers the older churches had neglected. They have found that value to the consumer of church services is very different from what churches traditionally were supplying. The greatest value to the thousands who now throng the megachurches—both weekdays and Sundays—is a spiritual experience rather than a ritual.

Hmm.  How many orthodox Christians attend church and ask, ‘Did I receive value for money here today?’  Frankly, I don’t think a seeker would either, although he probably goes back because there’s free popcorn, coffee and a pastor who walks the stage and works the audience like a comedian.  A pretty good show.

It’s about the money

I mentioned before that CGM is very much focussed on money.  In time, probably when most of us will be too elderly to blog or the Internet is restricted to the elite, church members’ tithes and financial contributions will go towards providing welfare for the world.  This is what the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) intends, anyway.

Already, Anglican parishes in England are sending in a proportion of their donations annually to the diocese for various programmes for the disadvantaged.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, some objections must be brewing among those in the pews.  A couple of years ago, our church was asked to complete a survey, giving our views on how much we would like for the diocese to have and towards what programmes.  I can imagine that this came as a surprise to many on the parish electoral roll.

Dr Klenck notes:

The Leadership Network recommends numerous materials and research studies to pastors that are geared towards maximizing the amount of tithing, pledging, and giving in the church.  One of the “masters” of “stewardship” is John Maxwell.  Mr. Maxwell is the former pastor of Skyline Community Church, in San Diego, CA, and founded Injoy Ministries, a church consulting firm.

What next for the Church?

Part of the reason money is so important, is that the Church is set to become just another service industry.  Christ’s holy Bride sounds very much like a business when Bob Buford’s Leadership Network describes Her (emphases mine):

Partnerships, alliances and collaboration will become the norm, rather than the exception, and the relationships will be built on new loyalties and a new common mission. … The next movement will grow people, not parking lots. … These same people are in the congregations of the 21st century and they are going to be the “point people” for the partnerships and alliances that will achieve the vision beyond the property line.”

and Buford says:

The Church of the 21st Century is reforming itself into a multi-faceted service operation.

Don’t forget that one of the reasons why many CGM churches have a register of members’ professions and ‘spiritual gifts’ is that the government or the UN might one day require access to that information in order to evaluate how well a church is working with it on secular schemes for food, health clinics or day care.  So, if you start such a registry at the beginning, especially if you wish to encourage people to join personal accountability groups, you’ve laid the groundwork for future record-keeping and inspection. As such, it doesn’t come as a surprise to either the member or the church administration.

Tomorrow: Biblical reasons why you should avoid diaprax and CGM

The postmodern Church and diaprax — explained

A number of orthodox Christian blogs, including this one, have explored the postmodern Church.  We’ve mentioned names, techniques and genres of ‘doing church’ but few have explored what exactly is happening and how it happens.

In short, all these movements — e.g. church growth, emergent — have their roots in a combination of dialectic and praxis, which one Christian, Dean Gotcher, combined as ‘diaprax’.  Diaprax is common not only in the Church but in the world at large.  Its goal is to set all of us on the road to constant compromise and continuous change.  It is designed to promote unity from diversity and to get rid of tradition and ‘divisiveness’.

First, a review of dialectic in a Christian context.  Do keep in mind that every step along the way is designed to inch the believer further away from the inerrancy of the Bible and his confessions of faith.

How diaprax works

Dr Robert Klenck, an orthopaedic surgeon in Los Angeles, contributes to Mr Gotcher’s Institution for Authority Research and, like him, has studied diaprax closely in relation to the trends we see in our churches today.  In ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’, he explains (emphases mine throughout):

Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this:  a diverse group of people (in the CGM, this is a mixture of believers and unbelievers – thesis and antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/”teacher”/group leader), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, or compromise).

When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise.  This [new synthesis] becomes the starting point [thesis] for the next meeting.  The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God.  The fear of man then overrides the fear of God.

This process is similar to workshops you might have participated in at work.  The principles are identical.  A facilitator leads the group.  He has a set agenda, given to him by a manager (or a pastor, in the case of a church).  However, he asks people what they hope to ‘get’ out of the session, although his questions will help engineer the desired agenda outcome.  Then, as is true with workplace workshops, a number of discussions take place and, inevitably, conflict arises.

People stating their positions or beliefs on an issue is what is known as thesis.  Conflict, roughly speaking, is antithesis (against the thesis, or belief).  The facilitator brings about synthesis by getting everyone to arrive at a common position.  It might not be 100% to everyone’s liking, but it is one that people will largely agree upon. It will also be one that is man-centred, because, as we shall see tomorrow and have seen in my Gramsci posts, nothing is more threatening to the Marxist than faith in God, Christianity and the traditional family under the authority of God and His Son.  Gramsci believed that Christianity fostered the continuance of:

the Western values of individual liberty, private property, and the traditional family, and must be abolished in order for the new communist society to emerge.

Let us say (in an Anglican context) the issue debated is one of bringing a female curate (assistant priest) on board. The church wardens meet to discuss it. Among their number is a traditionalist. The vicar (pastor) introduces the topic then leaves it in the hands of the facilitator, perhaps an expert in conflict resolution paid for by the diocese. A day’s workshop can engineer consensus among the church wardens, as they move from the traditionalist’s thesis — especially that which is expressed in Jesus’s First Cause language, ‘It is written’ — through to conflict (antithesis) and concluding with a postmodern resolution (synthesis) on the part of the traditionalist.

Says the traditionalist at the end of the afternoon, ‘Gosh, I might have been a bit short-sighted on this issue.  I’m sorry.  Yes, if it’s the right woman, I’m sure I could be persuaded.’  Therefore, the door opens just that little bit.  Our traditionalist has started to ‘change with the times’ and puts Scripture slightly off to the side.  The group is happy.  Perhaps they have a glass of sherry afterward.  The traditionalist has gained acceptance — for now.  He is happy to have bonded with his fellow church wardens on this thorny issue.  In finding ‘common ground’, he has pleased man, but perhaps not God.

Yet, although the traditionalist doesn’t realise it, that is only the start.  Dialectic and praxis require continual change in order to meet the times, which are ever-evolving. A few years down the road, he may be further persuaded — again through diaprax — that a new Sunday evening service be started, replacing the traditional Evensong.  The new service would be of an emergent style, to draw in the younger members of the ‘community’, i.e. neighbourhood.  ‘Well, it’s not a big issue, is it?  I understand the youth ministry leader is a very dynamic individual.  We can increase the membership of our church and be seen as a vibrant congregation. It’s all to the good.’  And so, he takes another noticeable step away from orthodoxy and an initial giant step away from traditional liturgy.

Dr Klenck observes that the same method — diaprax — has been used with regard to abortion:

… first, the fact (“what is”) was questioned – what is life?, and does it really begin at conception?  It was decided that as long as the child was not aware of pain, that it was not viable, or really alive.  Now, through incremental change, our society has gotten to the point of tolerating “partial-birth” infanticide.  This would have been unconscionable in the days that Roe v. Wade was decided.

Church buildings and Emergents — for a New Age

And things are always changing.  Think of how church buildings are changing.  Some, like the Crystal Cathedral, are generally recognisable as churches.  Yet others look like big, prefab boxes.  They have no crosses, inside or out.  This is in order that the ‘seeker’ isn’t put off by what he sees.  Many newer churches don’t want people to start thinking about Jesus’ painful death, blood or similar things.  The seeker might then walk away, feeling unsettled.

Dr Gregory Jackson, author of Ichabod, posted on this topic recently.  In ‘Leading Lutheran Moms Astray at The CORE’, he reprinted dialogue among a few women on Facebook who discussed whether they should attend the CORE in Appleton, Wisconsin. The CORE is an emergent church affiliated with WELS.  Here is a brief excerpt — certainly worth a read in full:

Imah: We missed our regular church service this morning … I decided we’d try the Core in Appleton.  It’s an outreach congregation and really cool.  The music is very contemporary– in fact, all songs were songs I hear on 91.9 or the Q, 90.1.  The boys age 9 and 5 were happy to eat popcorn and drink water while listening to the service.  The place was comfortably full and everyone was smiling!!  I highly recommend going to a service.  It was fun!!

Coley22: Personally, I prefer a traditional service and I’ve also heard that The Core isn’t really teaching God’s Word so much. I think it’s a step backwards for the WELS. If a church wants to do something more contemporary, that’s fine, but what good is it if you’re not even teaching God’s Word?

…

JulieMomof5: Coley22, I hope you actually visit the CORE instead of just listening to rumors…
Just because the CORE focuses on theme-based sermons instead of on the lectionary doesn’t mean it’s not true to Scripture …  The truths of God’s Word are emphasized, in terms that unchurched people can more easily understand (I like that Pastor Ski explains church terms when he uses them!).  The fill-in-the-blank folder makes it easier to remember what was said.  The visuals are used to reinforce the message.  Remember, the CORE’s focus is REACHING OUT to the unchurched.  Pastor Ski likes to remind us not to cause unnecessary offense to others before introducing them to Jesus!  Too often, our “traditional” services risk doing just that.

Popcorn, pop music and avoiding ‘unnecessary offence’ — oh, my.  It was a bit too much to take in.  I had to have a cup of tea and a sit-down after reading that.

Caution — discernment required!

Some of you have been spared attending one of these services.  Dr Klenck describes them:

The presentation is informal …  There are distractions, such as numerous video screens, and the pastor often paces back and forth across the stage, which makes the “real” message that is being taught difficult to discern…

The message is ambiguous, sounding reasonable to people who think traditionally, are in transition, or have been trained to think transformationally.  Often, half-truths are used (i.e. Christ’s preeminence as a religious leader, but omitting His deity), or “subliminal” messages utilized.  We heard a tape of one pastor who was teaching against Mormonism, and he was stating how they latch on to a verse in the KJV that is an unfortunate translation.  He then stated how “I can show you numerous errors in the King James.”  The message was against Mormonism, but the subliminal message that people took home with them was that the KJV Bible version is unreliable.  We have very little training in listening to what is not being said, and in the atmosphere of distraction described here, this type of discernment is very difficult, and must be pursued vigorously.  Peter Drucker, who plays a large role in this movement is aware of this fact:

“The most important thing is communication is to hear what isn’t being said.”  Peter Drucker

“The pulpit is the ultimate tool for church growth.”  Rick Warren [7]

A tool is used to manipulate objects.  In the same article, Pastor Warren declares that he first considers the needs, hurts, and interests, and then he goes to the Bible to see what it says about their needs.  Once he examines what the Bible says about the subject, he asks himself:  “What is the most practical way to say this?  What is the most positive way to say this?  What is the most encouraging way to say this?  What is the simplest way to say this?  What is the most personal way to say this?  What is the most interesting way to say this?”  In other words, he puts his “spin” on the Blessed Word of God in order to tickle the itching ears of his audience.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3 (KJV)

If Rick Warren’s technique sounds familiar, it’s what his mentor Robert Schuller used over 40 years ago in California.

Tomorrow: Diaprax, small groups and more