There is a lot to agree with in this article. But I heartily disagree with the notion that there are multiple "layers" of meaning to a text. When Paul wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians or to Timothy, Titus or Philemon, he expected them to understand HIS meaning, not what the recipient(s) chose to superimpose upon it. And the first 4 centuries of Christian history were spent undoing allegorical interpretation supplied by the exegesis of Clement and Origen and the Alexandrian school of interpretation.

I do expect Scripture to change my life, but not when it is misunderstood or its meaning twisted from the original intent of its authors by people who think that God in conjunction with the author didn't say it well enough the first time. If that is done, it is no longer God's word, it is ours. God has never promised to bless our words. He HAS, however, promised to bless His. We need to use our heads to find out what that is.

I've practiced lectio Divina myself for quite a while, and it is great... But I do have a beef with one thing this man says: "Know that Scripture has literal, spiritual, allegorical, moral, and analogical meanings" This idea comes from Augustine, not the Bible. While it is true that scripture can have fresh significance each time it is read, I would contend that the literary contextual meaning intended by the human author sets the boundries for what the text can possibly mean.

One question for Leviathin: Was David in the wrong to so often speak in the Psalms of "meditating on God's word"? Your cautions about taking scripture out of context are good and worthy of consideration, but Jewish tradition holds that every word of God has deep meaning. We should not discount that - Jesus didn't. I have found that as I study and meditate on the Torah, I find more and more that there are wonderful connections between it and the New Testament. No surprise there, since Jesus is "the Word"!

Although I agree that we need to spend more quatlity time with the Lord, I am in complete disagreement with how the author suggests we do it. First of all, the Bible reads that we are to "bring into captivity every thought to Christ", which pretty much wipes out the meditation process as it instructs people to "open their minds." Secondly, taking one or two words out of context is a dangerous thing to do. Many a cult and much false doctrine has been the devastating result of this practice. Thirdly, the New Testament church never had the complete Word of God and they relied soley on the Holy Spirit to guide them. I might add that they didn't use any of these so called "practices" to get closer to God. Why not just try the simpple practice being on your knees, reading scripture, praying and worshipping the great and mighty God of this universe. That is pretty much what the New Testament saints did. They didn't need any of the "self helps" that we somehow think we need these days.

I agree with "redeemed1"-the "emerging church" movement is wrong and deceptive to those that don't study or understand God's Word. This article should not be on a so-called Christian website. In truth, it is mysticism, Kaballah, New Age, Yoga and against the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD, the book we need to follow, not man's ideas and philosophies. I knew when I saw the title that this article would be wrong. This should be disturbing to true Christians and students of the Word.

Jesus gave us two things after He resurrected, seen by over 500 people and ascended back to the Father: the Holy Spirit, our Helper and the Word of God, our treasured guidebook and love letter, inspired by God, Jesus the Logos/Word.
(and Jesus didn't leave any bones in an ossuary in Jerusalem!)

Ancient practices by man only keep us further from the Truth.

Why is it necessary to do this at all? For two thousand years, since Christ�s ascension, His followers have been able to gain assurance of God's presence in their lives through the knowledge that He has risen and now dwells in their hearts. For the early church, there was no written word in wide circulation to "resonate," "attract"' or "disturb" them. Throughout the centuries, faithful believers focused on the Word [who] became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14) rather than trying to find assurance through a single written word circulating through their minds.

By taking passages of Scripture, which have an intended meaning, and breaking them down into smaller, separate segments, often for the purpose of chanting over and over, the true meaning of the passages are lost. Rather a form of occult mysticism is practiced—with the hope and intention of gaining a mystical experience that God never intended when He gave the inspired words to His servants. (From Running Against the Wind by Brian Flynn, pp. 133-137.)

I disagree with what mushhead is saying. Many of us Christians have come from varied spiritual paths before we ended up a Child of God. I studied Transcendental Meditation many years ago and I still use some of the techniques today in my daily walk and study of the Bible. I have a closer relationship with God because I am better able to meditate, have a two way conversation with God without interference from outside influences and stray thoughts.

I find this artictle disturbing for a couple of reasons: 1-It is written by Tony Jones who in other offerings has toppled off the rock of orthodox doctrine into the abyss of heresy; 2-The practices being described are eerily similar to Transcendental Meditation. Using pagan methods and practices does not become acceptable simply because we clothe them in Biblical terminology and christian purposes.

Reason #1 increases the likelyhood that reason #2 is valid. Add to that the growing popularity of Hindu and Buddhist practices among christians, especially those who are the supposed leaders of the Emergent Church, and I am left with only one question: Is the presence of this articlt on Crosswalk.com an indication that this site is now a vehicle for promoting a version of christianity that encourages people to practice blended religion rather than the historical version that required people to proclaim Christ as Lord and God while denouncing all other gods as false?