Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
What does "these vast expanses of Christ" mean? How vast? How expansive? Is there any objective way of knowing if your own "expanse of Christ" is real or illusory? Suppose you sit in a chair and review such essays as this one by TAS - does your Christ expand? How do you know?
"I feel warm fuzzies"... that must be the spirit/Spirit..." But how do you know? I sat in the meetings for years, rehearsing such phraseology, chasing the 'glow'. In the end I had nothing. Maybe TAS or StG has something. But how are we to know how much, how high and deep and broad? Why then focus on it as if it's something of itself, to be held forth as a subject of some separate and serious inquiry, the focus of a book or a meeting or a morning devotional?
|
This is the crux of what I refer to as the vagary of trying to attain, know, etc. Christ, or his death, his resurrection, etc. That I feel something is itself vague.
And when we feel something, unless it is physical pain, it usually requires more than just the feeling to decide what it is. It is said that the feelings and emotions that are then expressed as joy, sadness, anger, or fear (as well as others) generally start with the same sensations. It is the context that causes us to turn it into the actual emotion. And when we are clear what is causing the feeling, we may correctly express the emotion expected. But if there is something happening that is not so clear, our response may be muddled. Something uncertain is happening to a loved one. We are unsure of the outcome and our love is at least partly overcome by the uncertainty of the outcome. But when the final outcome is known and it is positive (e.g., they pulled through a risky surgery and will fully recover) we often do not simply turn from anxiety to joy.
But sometimes we have certain emotions about things because they are learned. For example, when the local football team has a great play or wins a game, I am not as excited as some. Not because I don't care, but because I have not engaged in group activities that tend to emphasize extreme and even sudden excitement or anger based on every play, call, and final score. But I could learn to be that way.
In a similar way, those of us who have ever been involved in the LC, and even many who have simply been part of similar inner-life groups are effectively taught about the things that should "lift our spirits." And since the things that lift our spirits so often result in outward displays of agreement, excitement, etc., we have learned to be excited when we hear certain things. Or when we engage in certain activities. We expect that things read or spoken that include certain words or phrases will lift our spirits, so we join in the "amens," hallelujahs," and so forth. And since this is what others are doing, it actually does give us positive feedback.
So the question is this. If you didn't get the feedback, would you have concluded that there was nothing there? Was the sensation simply because of the content of the spoken or read word? Or was it the fact that because positive actions and statements were both expected and actually observed we had the sensation that the content was somehow so important or beneficial.
I realize that this kind of analysis of the things that have caused us to become excited and solidified our thinking related to those things is a bit harsh. But if the source of the sensation is something so vague. So large an expanse that you cannot actually put anything solid to. So much grounded in nothing particular. What is it? It may seem almost un-Christian to question anything about the "expanse of Christ." But if the things that capture you about Christ are without the ability to actually perceive, what are they? If we are simply excited to keep talking about the height, depth, and breadth of Christ, but cannot point to anything that actually provides meat to those lofty statements, then what is it?
To me, this is the failure of the inner-life movement. They are enamored with the feelings and sensations related to the words that they study and repeat. But they are so quick to dismiss the diligent effort of other Christians that it would seem likely that they truly have little more than a better lexicon for discussing things so that they are more stirred up about the words.
I know. Maybe too harsh. But it is what I have seen in both the LC and in other inner-life teachings. So spiritual that they are of no earthly good.