The Experience of Christ

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another point is we don't just experience Christ in things we do, e.g. as obedience, as patience, as humility, etc. We also experience him simply for what he is, e.g. as King, Friend, Brother, Lover, Savior, Confidant, Living Water, Bread of Life, Life, and on and on. We experience HIM. Christ is infinite. So there are bound to be an infinite number of ways to experience him. There are bound to be an infinite number of ways to experience him that we have not even imagined yet, and which aren't specified in the Bible. Some are indescribable, like colors or music. You can experience them, but you have a hard time putting them into words. So I don't think everything needs to be specified, because there are some things that are simply beyond our specification. We just experience them. The best we can say is "Wonderful."

Let me put it another way. You are married, right? Do you think of experiencing your wife as "discrete" things? Is that really how you experience another person? Is it important to define and put into words how you experience her as you are doing so? I mean, I'm sure she loves your meaningful, discrete, tangible and achievable poetry on Valentine's Day. And to be fair the Song of Songs was quite descriptive. But I wouldn't say describing an experience is essential to having it, though it certainly has its place and is fun to try, later.

You presume that providing an analogy for your thoughts is the same as providing evidence that it is the way it should be. You list all of these things that we should experience. On what basis is this so?

Or is this view an overlay on the scripture that is not supported by the scripture itself? Even Paul did not suggest that we should "experience" being crucified with Christ. Instead he said because it is true we should live a different way.

The emphasis on experience in a way that is not stated, or even described tends to be in contrast to what is actually taught. In another place you mentioned that the scripture is more about making us all leaders rather than followers. Yet followers is exactly what we are called to be. The leadership for most of us is in not simply following the ways of the world. But the way we "lead" is in following a different way.

In fact, I think that one of the reasons that so many both within and without the LCM have problems with their ongoing life in Christ is that they are constantly given examples of mighty men of God. They are constantly given the impression that truly following Christ means as a missionary or preacher. Or in intentionally going out to preach the gospel on a regular basis. Yet the importance of living day by day in a way that demonstrates both the oneness that Christ said would show the world that God sent Him, and the righteousness and love in our living that is not like even the best of the rest of the world is missed. That is the life that we are mostly called to. To be people loving each other and our neighbors as ourselves. We can layer on a lot of other things, like good stewardship of our resources, including the earth and environment. Not as green zealots, but as those who are charged to tend to the earth.

But this chasing of the experience — the thought that it stands a so important to our life — is not supported by the evidence. You have said it is implied. Yet even those implications are only part of what could be implied. And the implications you see are not necessarily really there. Even accepting that there is an aspect of experience, it is too unspecified and left to the digging in the implications and metaphors (often that we create, just like Lee constantly did) to support it as anything like a primary meaning or a major thrust of the Christian life.

Both the inner-life movement, of which Nee was and therefore Lee as well, and the Charismatic movement seek experience. And while Paul does not simply deny the Corinthians the pleasure from what they sought, it does seem to read that this experiential aspect of the gifts of the Spirit was significantly downplayed in his responses. Despite this, the modern Charismatics search for evidence that their kind have always been around, turning over every stone to establish a progression of practice. And while we think that we are free of the bondage of the LCM — and I think we mostly are — we have brought aspects of its ways with us. Some of those ways are not necessarily wrong. But they are not simply right or "the way."

I would say that given (in my reading) that these "experiences" are not delineated in the scripture as something to seek, they are, at best, the result of something other than seeking after them. More like what we realize in the "after-incident debrief." At that point, if we feel the need, we can dissect what happened and realize that there was something in it that is among these experiences.

If we need to label it, we will know that we have experienced living water when we realize that we have not gone dry simply because it has been 5 hours since our morning quiet time, or after what was otherwise a difficult or dry time. These are things that we have in Christ, not things that we should be seeking separately. Especially when there is no directive in that way.

Just like being crucified with Christ. Paul did not suggest experiencing crucifixion. He gave it as an existing fact that provided the way to live differently. No need to continue trying to appease God with sacrifices, even of a little skin, or refraining from certain foods. The penalty for sin on my behalf has been made sure. My penalty was completed in the crucifixion of Christ. So I can now live life by Him. And walk in newness of life.

Call that experience if you want. But the experience is in the living, not in the crucifixion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You presume that providing an analogy for your thoughts is the same as providing evidence that it is the way it should be. You list all of these things that we should experience. On what basis is this so?

You presume your analysis in some way connects you with reality. What is your basis for believing that?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You presume your analysis in some way connects you with reality. What is your basis for believing that?

You are the one that made an assertion about there being this implication of experience that we should be going after. I fail to see the directive to have "experiences of Christ" in the way that is being suggested. If it is my lack of reality, then you should be able to show me where I am missing the dots. Not liking the question does not make it unreal.

And having an analogy does not make it relevant. I fell for too many "it's like this" stories in the LCM. You need to make it real. The analogy does not make anything real. It provides a way to explain what is real. You still need to establish that it is real before the analogy is useful.

And so the question stands.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are the one that made an assertion about there being this implication of experience that we should be going after. I fail to see the directive to have "experiences of Christ" in the way that is being suggested. If it is my lack of reality, then you should be able to show me where I am missing the dots. Not liking the question does not make it unreal.

And having an analogy does not make it relevant. I fell for too many "it's like this" stories in the LCM. You need to make it real. The analogy does not make anything real. It provides a way to explain what is real. You still need to establish that it is real before the analogy is useful.

And so the question stands.

"Know" in the biblical sense means personal knowledge. Look up the Greek. Personal knowledge without experience is a contradiction in terms. Therefore we need experience.

It's not that I don't like the question. I just don't like being told I didn't make a case when it's more likely either you didn't understand it or you didn't like it. I've noticed when you don't like the point someone is making you tend to accuse them of not having made it well. It's sort of your fall-back argument of choice. It's patronizing and it gets old.

Instead of accusing "you didn't make your case" why not just (occasionally) admit "I don't understand?" I admit often that I don't understand you. I don't understand half of what you write and I'm not too proud to admit it. A little humility goes a long way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Know" in the biblical sense means personal knowledge. Look up the Greek. Personal knowledge without experience is a contradiction in terms. Therefore we need experience.

It's not that I don't like the question. I just don't like being told I didn't make a case when it's more likely either you didn't understand it or you didn't like it. I've noticed when you don't like the point someone is making you tend to accuse them of not having made it well. It's sort of your fall-back argument of choice. It's patronizing and it gets old.

Instead of accusing "you didn't make your case" why not just (occasionally) admit "I don't understand?" I admit often that I don't understand you. I don't understand half of what you write and I'm not too proud to admit it. A little humility goes a long way.

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible. And assuming you intend it as a catch-all for real things that are there, it fails to identify any of them. You have asserted that the word "know" means personal knowledge and therefore requires experience. But the experience that underpins the knowledge is also experience with the subject matter, not only some kind of "experience of Christ."

I have said that you have not established a reason that talking about "experiences of Christ" without definition is preferable to talking about the actual things that we say, do, learn, etc., that you might like to re-label as "experience of Christ." I am not saying that the statement is not true. Rather that skipping the details and rushing to "experience of Christ" makes the content of the claimed experience of uncertain value outside of the claim that it is "of Christ." And how often are we so certain that things we hear of are "of Christ" yet someone is claiming it to be so. We may not have the fantasy life of that guy over on the other forum who believes that Jesus is sitting beside him and telling him things that do not sync-up with the written Word.

You argue that I am just fighting because I do not understand. But you are defending an overlay that is not found as such in the Bible and preferring it as a vanilla statement about things over real discussion of real, concrete things that do not need a loftier label to be worth the discussion.

It is part of a system of redefinition of things so that the language of the group, the LCM, is out of touch with the rest of the Christians they want to pretend are only barely so. And we retain it . . . why? Because we got to liking it? Because we still feel good for saying it?

Your characterization in your next post that I "like being different an innovative" is just short of an ad hominem. It is not an attack. But it is not a constructive point on the argument, but a characterization of it suggesting that the characterization makes it of no value. I don't just look for innovative things. I am far from innovative. But I see what I see. And I speak about it. If you don't see it . . . well, that would mean that it is you that is not seeing. So rather than just saying it is true and real and meaningful and important, tell me why. Why is this kind of thing that we label experience of Christ that we cannot put a finger on and that is so generally described as "nothing in particular we are enjoying other than the fact that he is near and with us." I understand that. But note how often that is spoken of in the scripture (almost never) and how often it is given a label like this (never).

Yet that is far from the whole of it because we don't hardly talk about any of the other kinds of experiences that are claimed to be included in there. And you don't bring them up as your examples. The reasons you supply for using the term are one of the primary reasons that I don't like the term. They are almost all about things that are outside of our normal life. They are elevations of a spiritual, inner-life and are not part of that secular life. It was a code-word for things that are not part of living ordinary life. So it underscores a spiritual-secular divide rather than unifying everything into the spiritual for the Christian.

That is why I do not like the term. And the reasons are not new or innovative. They are based in the realization of the problems that the LCM made be as extreme as possible so that we thought we were better.

And you are no longer there, but you are defending taking a part of that error with you. It is not "wrong" in an overt way. But it is incomplete and hides things. And even you primarily discuss it in terms of "spiritual" things, therefore help to make my point that if there is such a thing, we don't really acknowledge all that should be in there. Instead it is this nebulous spiritual experience.

And it goes along with a tendency to be dismissive of the "experiences" of other Christians because they are not as "high" in their experience. They don't seem to demonstrate to you something outward that you call joy or something like that. We really think we got superior knowledge from the LCM because we still are dismissive of things that are not like they were there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible. And assuming you intend it as a catch-all for real things that are there, it fails to identify any of them. You have asserted that the word "know" means personal knowledge and therefore requires experience. But the experience that underpins the knowledge is also experience with the subject matter, not only some kind of "experience of Christ."

"Experience of Christ" is a generalization. But it is an accurate one. There is nothing wrong with using the term that you have demonstrated. You've given theoretical reasons for not using it, but nothing from experience that is conclusive. Yes, the LCM had a bad connotation for it sometimes. That's not enough reason to throw it out.

I've considered your argument and I disagree with it. And I think most people would. I've never heard anyone else arguing that saying we need to "experience Christ" is not a good thing. Since you are clearly in the tiny minority of people who would argue for such a thing the burden is on you to demonstrate its validity. And you can't do that by simply making a theoretical point. You have to show evidence, both that doing something produces negative results, and that not doing it produces better results. You haven't done that. You've just argued theory.

You have the tendency to put what someone says in the worst light possible and then attack that. That's one step from a straw man argument. I mean, if you are going to be stubborn I can be just as stubborn. If you are not going to at least acknowledge the usefulness of my ideas I certainly am not going to acknowledge yours, especially if I tend to disagree with them. I've already said I can see your point in theory. I just have not been shown that it actually produces the negative results you tie to it. You've provided no evidence that speaking of "experiencing Christ" has directly led to anyone being led astray from the truth. Nor have you provided evidence that only speaking of specific experiences produces better results. You just speculated it does.

How has holding this belief improved your relationship with God and your living out of the fruits of the Spirit? That's the bottom line. Since you are in the minority on this you need to tell us how it's made you a better Christian, because frankly I don't see how it has. We can all argue for things. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have continued to argue for a construct that is not found in the Bible.

No, I have not. Do you wish to continue this standoff? Or shall we agree to disagree?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And having an analogy does not make it relevant.

And so the question stands.

An analogy is simply an illustrative tool. It's purpose is to make the point in a different way than plain vanilla explanation. Hopefully it helps shed some light on the idea the writer is trying to make. But, no, the fact that one can come up with a good analogy doesn't help prove the point, it just helps make the point. Jesus used analogies with parables. C.S. Lewis was great at using analogies to make his ideas clearly.

I never said that the fact that I can come up with an analogy proved my point. It seems a bit harsh for you to call an analogy irrelevant. The effectiveness of an analogy depends on the willingness of the reader to try to see the point the writer are making. A person who's mind is closed is going to be able to cook up a weakness in any analogy, if that's his goal.


I don't think most people are going to be tripped up or misled by saying "we need to experience Christ" any more than someone is going to be tripped up by saying "we need to buy some groceries." People can understand that it is general description of something that is worked out in specific ways.

There are two reasons saying experiencing Christ is proper. The first is because we need to be reminded that there is a difference between just thinking about Christ and actually encountering him. Since he's invisible it is easy to confuse the two. The second is that sometimes our experience of Christ is quite general, as when we are simply enjoying his presence. There is nothing in particular we are enjoying other than the fact that he is near and with us. Now you might say that then we need to say we are enjoying his presence and not say we are experiencing him. I would simply reply that you are being picky and unreasonable.

Also, I don't think that your argument that the scripture doesn't say we need to experience Christ holds any water. The idea is implied throughout scripture. It seems to me not being able to see that is a symptom of too much squinting and not enough common sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are two reasons saying experiencing Christ is proper. The first is because we need to be reminded that there is a difference between just thinking about Christ and actually encountering him. Since he's invisible it is easy to confuse the two. The second is that sometimes our experience of Christ is quite general, as when we are simply enjoying his presence. There is nothing in particular we are enjoying other than the fact that he is near and with us. Now you might say that then we need to say we are enjoying his presence and not say we are experiencing him. I would simply reply that you are being picky and unreasonable.

We definitely needed voices like OBW when we were back in th LCs to question everything, like the Bible says, Prove all things. We needed voices like that because we were slowly moved from the standard of the scripture to another solely based on Lee.

After the Max Episode in the late 70's, Lee took a distinct turn from speaking of experiencing Christ in our daily life, to The Truth. He successfully convinced us all that this was needed due to OUR lack of knowing the truth, and not the actual truth of the facts which occurred and were covered up. Subsequently Lee, due to unrighteousness, embarked on a ministry of dead doctrines in the name of Truth. He taught about the experience of Christ while little of that actually occurred.

Truth requires the genuine experience of Christ, because truth has the power to liberate us. Truth without this reality is nothing but deadening doctrines. Now that we have stepped back and looked at where Lee's teachings have taken us, we don't need to examine each other with the same microscope. Excessive analysis creates paralysis, fear, and confusion, thinking everything we do, say, or write is potentially dangerous, unscriptural, or heretical.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Truth requires the genuine experience of Christ, because truth has the power to liberate us. Truth without this reality is nothing but deadening doctrines.

This may be true. But the way that John said it was not that truth "requires the genuine experience of Christ, because truth has the power to liberate us." Instead he quoted Christ who said "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Question. What is it to "hold to" teachings? If we want to call anything "experience" that brings truth, that would be it. So what is it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

This may be true. But the way that John said it was not that truth "requires the genuine experience of Christ, because truth has the power to liberate us." Instead he quoted Christ who said "If you hold to my teaching,^{AK)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-26413AK">} you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Question. What is it to "hold to" teachings? If we want to call anything "experience" that brings truth, that would be it. So what is it?

What I said is exactly what John said, only in different words.

"To hold" is to believe, to obey, to keep. The scripture uses a host of expressions.

You remind me of this guy who condemned all "new" English versions of the Bible because they were different from his Authorized King James Version, which was to him "THE WORD OF GOD." I tried to tell him that it was the King of England who "authorized" his own version, often using the edge of the sword. He would hear none of that. He even went so far as to say the Greek N.T. text should be changed to match the "Authorized" version.

Witness Lee, like so many other preachers, liked to use expressions like "experience Christ, the Triune God, etc." If there is nothing inherently wrong with these expressions, and outside Christians also use them, are we serving anything positive by opposing these expressions?