Against the LC Practice of Prophesying

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad?

I'll not burden the post with a complete quote. We know what is there and responding to this part alone is sufficient.

I read both your post and Ohio's that follows before this. I will start by saying that I do believe that we need to seriously consider our experiences in the LCM. I cannot say that they are all bad, or that any particular one is. But the environment was so charged with teachings where something is dismissed for something else (because of God's economy or some other overlay), where we were constantly reminded of our special position due to our (divisive) stand of oneness "on the proper ground," and were focused to strongly on finding types of Christ (and the church) that were designed to point us away from now and instead to the age to come — to a period when we would be "overcomers" (unlike so many other poor mooing Christians) — and so on. How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I will concede that some may truly be. But if they are not described independent of the problem that is the LCM, such as in conjunction with a statement like "the rich ministry of WL" or "WL was a gifted minister of the Word," then I have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with emotions.

You say that it isn't black and white. And I would agree. But once there are certain signs, Paul said to shut them down, not to cherry-pick.

Do you really think that anyone could get away with teaching entirely bad theology — then or now — and have a following? So none of them were entirely bad. But the presence of certain things was Pauls' sign to turn off the spigot. Not just take care of what you accept from their ministry.

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Period. End of story.

That was Paul's rule. Not mine.

Don't try to sort out the chicken from the bones. Or separate the wheat from the leaven.

Reject them altogether without reference to what they taught that might have been good.

Open the dumpster and drop it all in.

There are many more teachers that are not rejected. Whatever the rejected teacher taught that was good will come back from the good teachers. And if it does not come back, maybe we should take a closer look to see if it really was so good.

Every time we suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word, we deny the reasons to reject him altogether.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Sounds good. Until you consider every teacher is a mixture of good and bad. Including you. To play the advocate where is the line? Please provide a reference for "Paul's rule," too. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Really though, dealing Witness Lee or any teacher is relatively is easy. Because like you said you can drop a teacher.

But mostly we were talking about the teachings and the experiences. Those are the difficult ones to sort out.

We are really talking about two things: Whether there was anything good about our experiences, and how to talk about it going forward. As I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. It's just citing what to you are the facts.

In general, I don't think you should ask people to act like they got nothing good out of it just because you are squeamish someone might take that as a recommendation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I don't like this kind of agnostic approach. To me it's like the question: how do you know you really exist? At some point you have to take a stand one way or the other. Again, if you think you had no good experiences in the LCM, no experiences you will take into eternity and treasure, then fine. Others don't necessarily agree with you.

How can you be sure what you believe and experience now is good and real? I mean, how far do you want to push the skepticism? All the way into cynicism?

The bottom line is we walk by faith, not knowledge. Because whatever we think we know is always based on certain more basic assumptions, including that our reasoning ability in any way actually corresponds to reality. Nothing really can be proved without assuming by faith something more fundamental. This is why there is no proof of God, because if he exists he's the most fundamental principle there is. There is no more basic principle on which to base a proof of him.

The same goes for the most basic things we believe. At some point we just have faith that what we think we know is true. You can't really exist, except as a tediously negative cynic, without doing so.

So the only real clue we have is what is the fruit of our lives and beliefs. You shall know them by their fruit. Check out the fruit of how you think and live. There the answer lies.

[OBW]

The first verses of 2 Timothy 3

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

So let's consider those attributes:

Lovers of money. Daystar. Tennis rackets. Chairs. Suits. Requiring the church in Taiwan to sell some of its property to pay for Lee’s business debts. LSM, especially to make his essentially reprobate son its manager (paid) and contact point for the churches. And don't forget that this is not just a complaint that he had business ventures. Most of these were designed to use the money of the people of the church for his own personal gain.

Boastful, proud, conceited. “I kind of like being exalted.” “That Lee! . . .” When asked what we would do when and if he died, “It’s all in the books.” Constantly directing that no other sources of spiritual nourishment is required than Lee’s writings.

Unforgiving. John Ingals. Al Knock. Bill Mallons. John So. (need I go on?)

Slanderous. The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. (again, need I say more?)

Rash. Spitting on the Lang book. Cutting off fellowship with Sparks because he did not agree on the ground doctrine. Two significant places where he took somewhat sudden and apparently rash positions on people. Probably could say the same about his sudden about-face on Max R.

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Not sure how else to describe his own declaration that we should not bother reckoning ourselves as anything (like dead to sin) because he couldn’t do it. Rejecting being righteous by faith and instead saying we should wait until it comes out of us (after enough dispensing). And this is why he could not stand James. It required that he at least try to be righteous.

Can we find every sin in Paul’s list? Not likely. But Paul was not requiring that someone be guilty of all before they fell into the category of someone with whom we were to have nothing to do.

This is a troubling phrase because it seems to stand opposed to Christ’s own statement of loving everyone as you love yourself. So somehow it does not mean to literally write them off entirely. But it is still serious. Yet I surely cannot imagine that however it should be understood in a more moderate form would be to continue to listen to such a one as a teacher of the Word.

You don't see it? I can't seem to avoid it. It is everywhere.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The first verses of 2 Timothy 3

Yet I surely cannot imagine that however it should be understood in a more moderate form would be to continue to listen to such a one as a teacher of the Word.

You don't see it? I can't seem to avoid it. It is everywhere.

Well, you make a good point.

But, again, this does not answer the question how do you explain the good spiritual experiences in the LCM. Now you can continue with your plea that they were all delusional. I don't think that dog hunts however. For one, it's not likely. For two, we wouldn't still be here discussing it years later if it was all delusion.

My point again is it's the real things alongside the bad things that is so confusing about processing and coming to grips with the experience of those days.

I know for a fact that I experienced the Lord's presence in powerful ways back then. I wasn't dreaming or brainwashed. The brainwashing was not the experiences, by and large. The brainwashing came by what we were told the experiences meant: I.e., we were in God's up-to-date move, His best, Lee's ministry was the top ministry, yada. All that was the brainwashing. What I experienced when I touched the Lord was not brainwashing.

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute. Because if I did it would mean my whole comprehension of reality is so far off I might as well check it in, walk around in foam slippers, stay away from sharp objects and wait until the next life to understand anything at all.

Sneak preview of my theory: Here's what I think. The Bible says "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4:8). We were goofy and mixed-up in a lot of ways in the LCM. But one thing we did do seriously was try to draw near to God. I think we possibly did that with more intensity than any group ever. And so God honored it. We drew near, so he did. It wasn't a confirmation of our theology or meeting habits or being the best or anything like that. It was simply God doing what he promised. We had some amazing experiences as a group and individuals because of it. Unfortunately, some used those to lead us to false conclusions.

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point again is it's the real things alongside the bad things that is so confusing about processing and coming to grips with the experience of those days.

I know for a fact that I experienced the Lord's presence in powerful ways back then. I wasn't dreaming or brainwashed. The brainwashing was not the experiences, by and large. The brainwashing came by what we were told the experiences meant: I.e., we were in God's up-to-date move, His best, Lee's ministry was the top ministry, yada. All that was the brainwashing. What I experienced when I touched the Lord was not brainwashing.

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute. Because if I did it would mean my whole comprehension of reality is so far off I might as well check it in, walk around in foam slippers, stay away from sharp objects and wait until the next life to understand anything at all.

Sneak preview of my theory: Here's what I think. The Bible says "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4:8). We were goofy and mixed-up in a lot of ways in the LCM. But one thing we did do seriously was try to draw near to God. I think we possibly did that with more intensity than any group ever. And so God honored it. We drew near, so he did. It wasn't a confirmation of our theology or meeting habits or being the best or anything like that. It was simply God doing what he promised. We had some amazing experiences as a group and individuals because of it. Unfortunately, some used those to lead us to false conclusions.

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

My experience was always a mix of the good and the bad, and even as a kid I saw some of the bad in the LC. Over time, the bad started progressively more apparent. As I reached adulthood, I had opportunities to take my own initiative with participating in LC activities. Some of this resulted in positive experiences along the way. I can disregard those experiences, but neither do I expect they could ever be repeated again in the LC.

When I was younger and took the initiative to attend conferences and trainings, I don't see that as a bad thing, I just didn't know any better. I wouldn't do it now. The way I try to look at it is that there are much worse things I could have been doing.

Where I think the line has to be drawn is to realize those experiences were something of the past. Whatever the benefit was, I think it's like Igzy said, I tried to "draw near to God". Now that I know better, attempting to stay immersed in the LC environment is not something that God will honor. I also realize I still have a lot of "unlearning" that needs to take place.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My experience was always a mix of the good and the bad, and even as a kid I saw some of the bad in the LC. Over time, the bad started progressively more apparent. As I reached adulthood, I had opportunities to take my own initiative with participating in LC activities. Some of this resulted in positive experiences along the way. I can disregard those experiences, but neither do I expect they could ever be repeated again in the LC.

When I was younger and took the initiative to attend conferences and trainings, I don't see that as a bad thing, I just didn't know any better. I wouldn't do it now. The way I try to look at it is that there are much worse things I could have been doing.

Where I think the line has to be drawn is to realize those experiences were something of the past. Whatever the benefit was, I think it's like Igzy said, I tried to "draw near to God". Now that I know better, attempting to stay immersed in the LC environment is not something that God will honor. I also realize I still have a lot of "unlearning" that needs to take place.

The "unlearning" is an absolute necessity. This thread is an interesting train of thought. As I have stated elsewhere my experience in Santa Cruz was the highlight of my Christian LC experience. Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami were disasters because they were too controlled by Anaheim. In S.C. we had the benefit of being part of the Local Churches but not controlled by them. Of course, Karl Hammond was the buffer and we did experience exponential growth from when Karl and I began in the spring of 1969 until I left in 1971. Growth in numbers, especially young people with their enthusiasm, is its own exhilarating experience. I am seeing that now in my own church, and I'm Unitarian, but it is different because in S.C. it was a hippie hang out with the University of Santa Cruz nearby. In our church it is young families who are coming in with their children and their enthusiasm. The difference is palatable and I would rather have the experience which I have now then what I had then. It was great at the time but it was short lived in the scheme of things. Of course, I was much younger in S.C. and more easily influenced. At our church now we have a remarkable Sunday School and parents tell me their children are insisting they attend.

To me, nature is the real high experience of knowing God. First of all, I know it's real. I don't have to have "faith". When I walk along the ocean which I often do the waves of the ocean speak to me. Even when there are high winds and the ocean is rough it is speaking words of wisdom of how we are fortunate to be here because nature allows it to be. When the ocean is calm I understand peace. High in the mountan of Azungate in Southern Peru I could see the beauty we are fortunate to behold. Hiking the Inca trail to Macchu Picchu gave me the same incredible experience. A similar experience only in complete contrast happened when I hiked down the Grand Canyon with my wife and looked up rather than down as I had in Peru. These are exhilarating experiences and they are real. Nature with all of its foibles is real. I experience God in nature.

Recently my wife and I traveled to the inside passage in Alaska and we rented a 100 foot yacht with 6 other people with a captain and 2 crew. We fished, kayaked and hiked and followed serial breaching humback whales and orcas but we also came upon maybe 100+ humpback whales who were feeding on krill one evening. We anchored and listened to them feeding all night. They surrounded our boat, dove underneath and we could see them feeding in the distance with the sun going down and woke up with them as the sun rose. These experiences in nature are real but they lead to other experiences in our life based on our own real experiences. I am reluctant to start basing my God experiences on something other than what I know to be true in real life. Gravity is real. Am I going to start believing that experiences which violate gravity are real unless they are superficially designed to do so? It's not that they can't be real it is just that they are unlikely to be real.

Tourists travel the world around but it doesn't make them necessarily appreciate God in nature (they might just like the food onboard). It helps if our experiences of nature are intentional but of course people sometimes encounter unforetold experiences of nature. People have experiences which they believe are God experiences which have nothing to do directly with nature e.g. they read a scripture and it speaks to them. However, we attribute this to God because we don't understand it otherwise or we can't tie these scriptures to something directly. Maybe you could pray-read parts of a book by William James or C.S. Lewis or Socrates and it might speak to you.

In any case, I don't think Igzy is delusional nor was I but we have to take a measured response to our "God" experiences with some perspective. I have used nature as one measure of experiencing something real. I could also use the love between my wife and I and our great experiences together. She is a real person and our love for each other is real. Don't base your love between your wife and yourself on something that is unreal--it will never work. To get back to the thread, appreciate the experiences and don't necessarily question them but consider them as part of our life experiences in the LC and move on.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But, again, this does not answer the question how do you explain the good spiritual experiences in the LCM. Now you can continue with your plea that they were all delusional. I don't think that dog hunts however. For one, it's not likely. For two, we wouldn't still be here discussing it years later if it was all delusion.

. . . .

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute.

I have not denied that any happened. But how much that we still think was real was because of the LCM or despite it. I'm not talking about the people in the LCM. Many of them are dear Christians who have built an alternate reality around themselves that revises much of the doctrine and practice just enough to be able to declare their allegiance to this utopia that they probably could not stomach otherwise. I know that I have heard a fair number of softer or slightly altered versions of Lee's theology over the years since leaving.

And you have really put up a shield when you declare that I am trying to convince you that you had no experiences and were delusions. IT NEVER HAPPENED. You are as guilty of contextualizing my posts as Lee was in isolating 1 Cor 15:45b to declare that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. Read the whole thing instead of having some knee-jerk reaction to one sentence. It makes you sound as if you need the strawman argument to defend some position. If you do, then maybe you need to study you position better . . . either to get clearer on how to defend it (and I will be listening) or to realize its error.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have not denied that any happened. But how much that we still think was real was because of the LCM or despite it. I'm not talking about the people in the LCM. Many of them are dear Christians who have built an alternate reality around themselves that revises much of the doctrine and practice just enough to be able to declare their allegiance to this utopia that they probably could not stomach otherwise. I know that I have heard a fair number of softer or slightly altered versions of Lee's theology over the years since leaving.

And you have really put up a shield when you declare that I am trying to convince you that you had no experiences and were delusions. IT NEVER HAPPENED. You are as guilty of contextualizing my posts as Lee was in isolating 1 Cor 15:45b to declare that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. Read the whole thing instead of having some knee-jerk reaction to one sentence. It makes you sound as if you need the strawman argument to defend some position. If you do, then maybe you need to study you position better . . . either to get clearer on how to defend it (and I will be listening) or to realize its error.

My point was not that you said everything I experienced was delusional. My point was that you have a tendency to dismiss experience, to a fault as far as I can see. I have read posts by you that have seemed to have been saying that a lot of what we thought we experienced in the LC was not a genuine experience of God. Not only so you seem to downplay experience itself, which to me is ultimately another dog that won't hunt, as I'll explain later.

We've been around each other long enough to do better than to accuse each other of being disingenuous. I'm just trying to understand you as best I can. I want to respect your position, but often I don't even understand it. I STILL DON'T IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT SUBJECT. So instead of accusing me, why don't you try to explain yourself more clearly.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

Maybe it's hard to have that experience on Sunday morning for other reasons. Maybe experience is less important than we learned in our past. The people that I meet with in a rather vanilla Bible church do not have, or at least speak of, "experiences" like we think are so important. Is that because they are somehow deficient in their Christian living? Or because we are still hanging onto a form that was necessary to survive in the place that we speak of as run by overbearing masters and leavened throughout its theology? And a form that was useful in keeping us in line. Because if we had these experiences in the LCM, then it must be the place to be to gain God's favor.

Do most church goers really not know how to draw near to God? Or have we created a narrow rule as to what it means to draw near to God? One that is possibly as narrow as Lee's definition of God's economy as stated in a single sentence in the first chapter of the book by the same name.

Did we draw near to God with more intensity? Or did we need something that was not able to be provided in the normal ways, so we narrowed our attention in a spiritual v secular view of life on a very "spiritual" set of activities that provided feelings and from that the conviction that it was confirmation of what we were about.

Is the Christian life really about experiences of God in a spiritual context where spiritual is so removed from secular? Or is the very existence of the spiritual-secular divide a falsity itself that should inform us of a different kind of sickness. I believe that true experience of Christ is mostly in your living because that is most of your life. If you are not "drawing near," whatever we think that includes, a lot of the time, then the result is a life of a variant on the "get saved, backslide, get saved, backslide get . . . " but on a weekly or even daily basis. As long as we are pointing at the experience as the cure for the backslide, we will convince ourselves that we need a better, stronger experience the next time around. A variant on dispensing theology.

Instead we need to experience (without the need for feelings) drawing near when we write code, drive the car, buy groceries, read tax law, cook dinner, go to a baseball game, fix the toaster, etc. To eliminate the spiritual-secular divide and instead live all of life seeking God, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, making peace. In short, living a life of love for God and of neighbor as self.

And there are actually a whole lot of those "church goers" that you still look down on just a little that are actually doing that. It is not demonstrably true because of a burning desire to jump up in a meeting and "prophesy." It is demonstrably true because of the lives that they now live. Oh, you can say some that are not doing that. As the one parable said, there are tares planted by an enemy. And there are some that have barely sprouted from seed.

But our learned version of spiritual maturity that looks like an LCM member without the LCM on their back is a false image of the true believer. The one who was spoken of over 3 or so chapters beginning in Matthew 5. And when I look at chapter 5, I see evidence speaking strongly against the one who helped muddle our view of true seeking for God, and true righteousness. More reasons to simply reject him and his predecessor and those that are following. To seek my spiritual instruction elsewhere.

[OBW]

BTW. "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. But . . ." was not stated as something to be experiencing. It was provided as a factual basis for rejecting the need to engage in activities to be spiritual. In that case, circumcision and other Jewish ritual law. How much are we influenced by Lee saying that we need to be experiencing the crucifixion of Christ rather than recognizing that it is true and then acting accordingly?

And how many other of these spiritual formulas that we learned are similar misapplications of what Paul and others provided as spiritual fact, not ritual to be undertaken for the purpose of experience? How much of it is our continuing to look at the Bible through a set of Lee-colored glasses that we have merely rubbed some of the color out of?

I keep finding that I have a variant set around. And when I find them, they are usually setting on my ears and nose.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Maybe it's hard to have that experience on Sunday morning for other reasons. Maybe experience is less important than we learned in our past. T

The way I look at it is the only alternative to experience is theory. Theory just points the way to reality. There can be real things you have not experienced, but they aren't real to you until you have.

See? I think you have a different connotation for "experience" than I do. I think you think when I say experience I mean some kind of high or rush, or even escape from reality. No, I just mean actually knowing, seeing and touching God in the Spirit, rather than just dealing with him as an idea. I think to many Christians God is mostly an idea, not someone whose reality is present in their experience except on rare occasions. They mean well, but he's kind of theoretical to them. They think this is normal as long as they behave, because they don't know any better.

The difference between theory and experience is that with theory you just learn about something, with experience you actually learn it. With God, it's the difference between knowing about him and actually knowing him.

Take angels. I believe they are real. But I've never experienced one. They are just theory to me. I just know about them. Christ is real to me, however. I have experienced him, rather than just learning about him.

So to me, when you downplay experience, it makes me think you don't really experience God much, because if you did you'd admit you experience him and you wouldn't be so suspicious of others claims of experience, because you'd understand what they mean. I don't know, but that's the vibe I pick up from you. Sorry if such a perception is my fault. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Take the verses Galatians 5:22-23a. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

Fruit is an experience. Love is an experience. Joy is an experience. Peace is an experience. This is not talking about learning that these things are good and that we should try to have them (there is that side but this is not talking about that.)

Galatians 5:16 says, "So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh." This is talking about experience as well. It is saying if you have the experience of walking by the Spirit you will overcome the flesh. It isn't saying that if you know about this fact or if you try to overcome the flesh you will, it is saying you need to have a certain experience of the Spirit to overcome the flesh.

And simply walking in fellowship with God is an experience. Are you going to deny that? So from my viewpoint you are giving experience a bad name.

I understand that "experience" divorced from fruit is suspect. But I also think "fruit" without experience is also suspect--that to me is what "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" means.

But the solution for the former is not to downplay experience. The solution is to make people clear that the right kind of experience produces the fruit God is really interested in. That's the only kind of experience I'm interested in, and it's legitimate wherever its experienced, even if it's in the LCM calling "O Lord Jesus." There isn't a bad version of a legitimate God moment. That was the purview of Lee, ranking God experiences (e.g. being saved in Christianity often made one a Moabite. etc.).

The solution for the latter is to remind people that eternal life is knowing God, and the good works God is truly interested in are the fruit of knowing God.

Also, if I have misunderstood you, please don't accuse me of being disingenuous. Just explain what you mean more clearly. I'm sure everyone here would be relieved to get a chance to understand you better.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And there are actually a whole lot of those "church goers" that you still look down on just a little that are actually doing that. It is not demonstrably true because of a burning desire to jump up in a meeting and "prophesy." It is demonstrably true because of the lives that they now live. Oh, you can say some that are not doing that.

Again, there is a difference between living a Christian-like life without the fruits of the Spirit, and actually having the fruits of the Spirit. I've known some very dear Christians who just seem to still lack the fruits of the Spirit. I've known some Christians who are very well-meaning but just don't have have much love, joy and peace. I'm not looking down on them. I'm just stating facts as I see them. Paul warned in Galatians of starting in the Spirit and trying to carry on by the strength of the flesh. These people seem to have that problem.

But our learned version of spiritual maturity that looks like an LCM member without the LCM on their back is a false image of the true believer.

"Our?" Please speak for yourself. It's not mine. I wish you'd try to remember that. Everyone who thinks people need to experience God rather than just knowing about him are not necessarily elitists or closet LCMers.

Here's a question for you. Do you have love, joy and peace in your life? How much? A lot? If not, do you think that is normal? I know everyone can have a bad day, but overall, what is it like for you? Like right now, I'm filled with joy and peace. I like that experience. I think it's normal for a Christian. I have bad moments when I lose my temper or get bummed out or doubt. But eventually I know I need to return to the Spirit and love, joy, peace.

I don't think God is much interested in grim-faced, grinding "faithfulness" day-in and day-out. I sense in you a measure of pride about your ability to forge on without having any feelings. Well, we all need to do that sometimes, but I don't think it's intended to be the norm. Love, joy and peace are after all, feelings of a sort. I've heard of people who claim to have gone years in the "dry valley" but it's not happened to me.

So here's to experience! Life would be pretty damn dull without it.