Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
When we talk about subjective reality we are not talking about emotional or sensational experiences. We are talking about spiritual experiences. What no one really teaches in the denominations is the difference between the soul and the spirit. "Subjective reality" is just another way of saying a personal relationship with Jesus. Well, a bit more than that, as it emphasizes that this is an inward relationship not an outward one. In the Recovery the objective truths are also taught as well as the importance of consulting other saints, the objective truths in the Bible, and considering our environment. In the Bible we find that every genuine believer had a subjective experience of Christ without knowing much doctrine. Of course, a sinner can have a subjective experience of Christ as well - a subjective experience is not a measure of God's favor. The focus on subjective reality is to counter the strong emphasis on objective facts, teaching and head knowledge prevalent in today's denominations, and in the evangelical world in particular. We can feel there is no life there. The charismatics balance it with the emotions as a counter to the problem with objective facts, but still this is not of life but of emotions. No denomination emphasizes the exercising of the spirit as the Recovery does by which we can experience life.
|
What is under scrutiny is not the existence of subjective/'spiritual' experiences, or even a need for the individual to have such experiences, it's the claims which arise that are rooted in subjective things, particularly when subjectivity is given precedence, or is seen as being a level above objectivity.
WL taught that discernment can be based upon the "sense of life," however, all too quickly that kind of focus becomes a convenient excuse to ignore objective facts. And I'm not saying that's what always happens, but there are plenty examples of that being the case. Imagine if someone were to come along and attempt to tell everyone that even though we know the sky is blue, we shouldn't think about it, we shouldn't get "into our minds" about it. According to the "sense of life" we know that even though the sky is blue, "according to our experience" it's really green.
It's that kind of absurdity which has prompted people to speak out. If someone claims to have a subjective experience or to have a certain 'sense' about something, it's not my goal to contradict that claim. But by the same token, there should be the willingness among LC members to defend claims made which are rooted in subjectivity. For example, Ron Kangas publicly called a member here a “man of death,” based upon a supposed Ron getting a “sense of death” from reading his writings. It’s a claim which Ron has not been willing to defend, instead he chose to go hide under a rock. So, when there is such a lack of transparency, isn’t it then reasonable to place subjectivity under particular scrutiny? I think if LC members were more forthcoming, and also weren’t claiming that the subjective experiences found in the LC to be better than anywhere else, then there wouldn’t be so much resistance to what is being claimed.