Willis Harman, taught 1979 Consultation participants about his new psychic
“science.” Urging them to adopt this new paradigm, he said:
“Science will produce the knowledge we need. Modern society has developed
science and technology that enable it to accomplish feats which other
societies could only dream about. Yet it is clearly confused in matters of
guiding values and ultimate goals. The deepest value commitments and the
ultimate goals of all societies that ever existed have come from the
profound inner experiences of some group of people – religious leaders,
prophets, mystics, poet-philosophers, or in some visionary cultures the
majority of the adult population. Some form of systematic knowledge of the
world of inner experience, publicly validated and widely disseminated, would
seem to be among the knowledge most needed to guide society in its crucial
choices. Yet modern society’s official knowledge system – science – tends to
assume a priori that these experiences will in the end be explained (or
explained away) as epiphenomena from a perishable brain, and has steadfastly
excluded these phenomena from its field of study. The prevailing view in the
culture is that such systematization of, and consensus on, inner wisdom is
impracticable.” (p. 33) [emphasis added]
Remarkably, Willis Harman was able to proclaim an alternative Luciferian
future to evangelical leaders without any significant resistance. This is
because potential debate at the 1979 Consultation on “Future Evangelical
Concerns” was stifled. The format of the Consultation was orchestrated in
such a manner that no contrary opinions were permitted.
After an overview by Donald E. Hoke, and keynote address “In Search of
Noah’s Faith” by Leighton Ford, the Consultation was broken down into six
sessions of “Addresses and Responses.” This portion of the Consultation
included the presentation of a paper followed by a “brief response from a
Consultation participant, selected in advance.” The Preface states that
“contrary to the 1977 format, responders had been instructed to summarize
and capsulize the assigned paper rather than debate the issues raised.” In
other words, the presentations – some of them very controversial and
heretical – were not to be challenged! Some responders merely “urged
cautions.”
William H. Garrison, who was vice-chairman of the
Dallas Theological
Seminary board at the time, chose to stay within the confines of the
directive and issued a weak response to Willis Harman's address:
“…[W]e could take issue with him on his optimistic view…. But my role as a
responder is not to take issue with him so much as to try to highlight or
sharpen the focus of the issue as it relates to the church and whatever
agenda it should develop for itself to meet this changing situation.”
Garrison did warn that
“…we have to take issue with Dr. Harman’s utopian or optimistic view as he
sees Christianity as only a part of a great synthesis…. We should expect the
synthesis which Dr. Harman suggests is going to occur, but to the extent to
which Christianity becomes a part of it and loses its distinctive and its
exclusive emphasis upon directing men and women to the living God, it will
become a syncretism – a putting together of totally irreconcilable ideas.”
(p. 40-41)
The astute reader will recognize that the groundrules of the Consultation,
rather than simply a matter of being "polite," were actually based on
psycho-social group manipulation techniques -- ensuring that debate would
not take place by using methods of peer pressure, adherence to pre-set rules
of conduct, and conformity to pre-established criteria. This set the stage
for decades to come. With virtually no opposition from leadership, Willis
Harman's virulent new syncretism became embedded in "emergent" theologies,
and has been widely promulgated to evangelicaldom ever since.
Coming up – What Willis Harman taught about the new “science,” and why
evangelical leaders were not equipped to defend the Gospel from the coming
onslaught of the New Age.
The Truth:
"“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8)
What follows is a list of the “Addresses and Responses” at the 1979
Consultation:
“A Utopian Perspective on the Future:
Address by Dr. Willis W. Harman
Response by Mr. William H. Garrison
“A Dystopian Perspective on the Future: Challenge for the Churches:
Address by Dr. Peter J. Henriot
Response by Dr. David E. Johnston
“The Future of the Church: Its Nurture, Form, and Function”
Address by Dr. Gene A. Getz
Response by Dr. Gordon MacDonald
“The Future of the Church: The Christian Family”
Address by Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., M.D.
Response by Dr. Howard G. Hendricks
“The Future of the Church: In a Secular Society”
Address by Dr. Ted Ward
Response by Rev. John M. Perkins
“The Future of the Church: The Essential Components of World Evangelization”
Address by Dr. Ralph D. Winter
Response by Dr. J. Robertson McQuilkin
Part 3 of the Consultation consisted of seven “Scenarios.”
Scenario, Study Group 1 Dr. William C. Brownson, Jr.
Scenario, Study Group 2 Dr. Richard F. Lovelace
Scenario, Study Group 3 Dr. Ted Ward
Scenario, Study Group 4 Dr. Ralph D. Winter
Scenario, Study Group 5 Dr. Cathy Stonehouse
Scenario, Study Group 6 Dr. Larry W. Poland
Scenario, Study Group 7 Dr. David E. Johnston
Email this page