I went to school with Peter. I was on the student council with him, and there were some issues back then that made it clear where his theological trajectory was headed, so none of this surprises me. However, I just want to point out how arrogant it is to make these following statements:
Step #1 “It’s OK to see God differently”
Step #2 “It’s OK to see the Bible differently”
Step #3 “It’s OK to see salvation differently”
Step #4 “It’s OK to see the earth differently”
Step #5 “It’s OK to see prayer differently”
Step #6 “It’s OK to see sex differently”
Step #7 “It’s OK to see your destiny differently”
Who is Haas, or anyone else for that matter, to say what is OK and what isn't? I hear liberal apostates say this all the time, and yet, what is the basis for saying it? Unless you have a direct line with God, then actually, you have no basis for saying this. It would just be as equally viable to say that it's not OK to see any of this differently. And the thing is, if we're talking about the biblical view of these things, then there is more warrant for evangelicals to argue that it's not OK than it is for liberals, who have only their own self appointed authority, gained via experience, to judge what is OK and what is not.
But what is to decide between us? I say orthodoxy, both in and outside the Bible would reject these claims. Imagine if Haas had said them to the heretics. It's OK because Peter Haas said so.
"Sabellius, it's OK to see God differently."
"Marcion, it's OK to see the Bible differently."
"Judaizers, it's OK to see salvation differently."
"Valentinus, it's OK to see the earth differently."
"Jezebel, it's OK to see sex differently."
"Mary Baker Eddy, it's OK to see your destiny differently."
Um, no, according to real Christianity, it isn't. This is one of the main problems with contemplatives that I was talking about. They end up going into this type of spirituality because they cannot submit themselves to God's Word.
Now, if you want to say that evangelicalism has gotten all of these things wrong because they have failed to submit to the Bible, that's one thing. But that's not what is really being said here. You should understand that when liberals say "evangelicalism" what they really mean is "historic orthodox Christianity." BTW, just another irony, most contemplative monks throughout Church History would have condemned Peter as a heretic for saying the above. That's because many contemplatives remained orthodox on many of the issues above.
"Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupts by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man who becomes so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
When are people going to stop eating the self-deification fruit of that tree? These pronouncements don't belong to you. You may repeat what God says about them. Nothing more. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and tremble at His Word.