The Experience of Christ

[OBW]

There has been some controversy, mainly between myself and Igzy, concerning the place of experience in the Christian faith and practice. While I do not reject experience outright, I am not sure that the thing that we call experience has the importance assigned to it in the written record. Or maybe it is that we have redefined something else and now call it "experience of Christ" and therefore are, like calling grace "simply Christ," hiding what we really mean — even from ourselves.

So I have begun a study, beginning with the word "experience" in the Bible. I am far from done with it. But I will note that outside of the NIV and the NET, the word hardly appears in the NT. In the OT, it is primarily a reference to training. Experienced with the sword. Experienced in carving or in working with gold. It only barely appears in the Psalms, unless you read the NET. And in the Psalms is found the only places where the word comes close to meaning something like what I understand from most of the usage related to "experience of Christ." Yet even there it is mostly a reference to the experience of joy. Or peace.

I scanned through a book by Lee, The Experience of Christ, and noted a lot of declarations that we are to experience all these things (things for which the word "experience" is not supplied in the Bible). For example, we were to experience the emptying our of ourselves. But when I actually consider the passage, it says to have the same mind, not to do the same thing. Might not be much difference. But might be. The mind of someone who rejects something about themselves for a purpose would be one to follow. But declaring that we should do the thing that Jesus did is not exactly what Paul was saying.

But experience is almost always about how it is lived out. We experience hardship, persecution, salvation, the opening of our eyes (to many things), and so on. While we do experience emotions, that is seldom a point of discussion in the Bible. Even where it mentions joy and peace, it is less about emotions and more about a sate of being. Emotions rise and fall rapidly based on outward circumstances and/or our perception of them (whether right or wrong perceptions). But a steady peace is not emotional (or at least not generally so). It is beyond mere emotions.

I will not declare that experiencing Christ or experiences of Christ are "not Biblical." But those are not the terms that are used in the Bible, therefore they refer to something that has a different name or description. I might declare that I know that these "experiences" are not emotional, or just "experiences" of worship of some type rather than experiences in regular life. But many statements concerning these "experiences" are just that. They are something that has no direct link to life or living. There often are emotions wrapped up with them, and when the emotion fades, so does the experience.

"I experienced Christ in my quiet time this morning" may be a true statement. But what does it really mean? What did you experience? We really don't have anything that is "simply Christ" so it is more complex than that. And if it really is an "experience of Christ," how did it affect your living that day and the ones to follow? Did your daily living require that the experience be refueled regularly? Or having had this experience, do you have the realization of something that you can live according to?

This is not a challenge to Igzy. I'm not worried about him. It is a general request to turn a vague term into a lot of substantial things. And possibly put some wrong notions related to it into the garbage. I do not have anything ready to go on it. As I mentioned, the word is not often used. In one version, it is used only once in the NT. And that one could not support a general book title like The Experience of Christ.

Also, this is not a critique of Lee's book, although that is not out of the question. But that is not my goal.

I will not try to "moderate" this thread. But it would be better if we try to add something solid. Not just our personal thoughts. At least be looking at some scripture, or something that someone has written on the subject that has a decent link to scripture.

I will admit that I have provided some initial thoughts. But they are far from solid. Let's look at the word experience first. Define it. Find it in scripture. Find places where it is implied in the nature of the passage without direct use. And places where we have assumed it but it really doesn't fit. Then look at what should be the "experience" of the normal Christian life (not the book).

And maybe this just sits quietly and is ignored. That is OK.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

There has been some controversy, mainly between myself and Igzy, concerning the place of experience in the Christian faith and practice. While I do not reject experience outright, I am not sure that the thing that we call experience has the importance assigned to it in the written record. Or maybe it is that we have redefined something else and now call it "experience of Christ" and therefore are, like calling grace "simply Christ," hiding what we really mean — even from ourselves.

One verse which quickly came to mind related to you and the experience of Christ -- Phil 4.6, "Let your forbearance be known to all men, the Lord is near." I love this verse, and it often is in my heart when relating to others, either on this forum or in other venues. Forbearance is tolerance, patience, and longsuffering towards others.

This so-called "experience" of Christ lies in how I relate to others. Do I react from my self, expressing a range of emotions from frustration to anger or worse, or do I give the patience of my Lord an opportunity to invade my response? If "the Lord is near," should not He have permission to interact with what I say? If He is near, I must consider which response expresses Him and hopefully that is what could be "known to all men."

This verse then opens up a wide venue of more "experiences" of Christ. Does what I say come under obedience to Him, or is it just what I want. Perhaps I need to apologize because the Lord is troubled by my words, or maybe my words are fine, but my tone is wrong. To pray is also to "experience" the Lord, hoping that what I post could express His heart, and benefit the reader in some little way.

The Lord often reminds me of these verses in 2 Tim. 2, "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." Life is filled with petty arguments, and I have lots of opinions about a host of topics, and would love to jump in and let others know, but then I remember His word. My remembrance is also an "experience" of Christ, and better yet, my obedience to what we remember. And then "the Lord is near," perhaps nearer than He was before.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This so-called "experience" of Christ lies in how I relate to others.

I agree completely. There's much in the NT, both gospels and epistles, that confirms this. And the companion thought is the necessity to "see Jesus" in the text, a la Heb. 2:9. Which is why WL's treatment of scripture could be so troubling.

If I just try to love people and ignore God's Messiah, revealed plainly to me in the Bible, then my love will eventually dry up. My concept of love will either drift away, or become stymied. God's love in Christ will endure forever.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

There has been some controversy, mainly between myself and Igzy, concerning the place of experience in the Christian faith and practice. While I do not reject experience outright, I am not sure that the thing that we call experience has the importance assigned to it in the written record.

Thanks for introducing this subject, and for doing the Bible homework. I remain interested in any of your additional research.

I know you want Bible references on The Experience of Christ. While I'm not certain I doubt you'll find verses speaking explicitly of the experience of Christ.

I guess the first thing we need to determine is whether or not the early Christians, after the ascension, spoken of in Acts, were experiencing Christ. If so, there are your Bible references.

And also, if so, the Bible wasn't necessary for them to experience Christ. As there were no books on Christ written then.

And maybe you are not a moderator but if I'm leading your thread astray, please moderate me.

[OBW]

I probably picked a bad time to introduce the subject. It is getting into a heavy season at work and I need to give more of my little free time to something besides this thread and forum.

If nothing else, I am wondering if we might find that "experience of Christ" should be more general in both finding and application. Is the experience in considering whether something expresses him (at least a significant thing, given that the purpose of man was bearing the image of God on earth) or wondering what could be known to all men?

Forbearance, and tolerance (to the extent that it is part of forbearance) are interesting terms. And they fall within a range of actions that we are called to take that includes both judging, and not judging. So simply forbearing everything is not an end-all. The goal of the Christian life is not to make everyone happy about everything. But where our tolerance is exercised must include our unbelieving neighbor. Until they are part of the body, while they are ultimately under God's judgment, they are not ours to judge. But there is a form of judgment that must go on within the body. While the way of rampant exclusivism is not the way, neither is simply sitting with forbearance about everything. Otherwise, there could be no admonishing, exhorting, or even bringing certain kinds of offenses to the church.

Yes, truly loving the unsaved by being tolerant of them in everything outside of what society (and God) would call criminal is a must. It should be exercised. And to the extent that we do not naturally want to tolerate certain ones, we need to receive the grace to overcome our natural intolerance. We need to set our minds on the Spirit and "walk" in a manner that is tolerant. We can call that an experience of Christ.

But if tolerance is the first thing that comes up, then why aren't we tolerant of Lee, Nee, Lin, RK, Benson, Ray and the others? Maybe it is because there are some things you don't just be silent about. And there is a context in which something should be said. Having seen something that we, collectively or individually, see as potentially damaging, or even limiting in our Christian growth, should we simply tolerate and be silent? And why? because it might offend someone? We are constantly offending the die-hard LCM people, both regulars and leaders. So the forum should end?

What do we gain by hiding the actual experience behind a generic label? I realize that it is a "high" way of speaking of it. But what it is will be true no matter what you call it. And we know what it means to become convicted that we are intolerant of certain people. And to deal with God about that until we begin to change. Sometimes we actually change almost immediately. Sometimes we find ourselves changing slowly as we step out in faith, but find ourselves in our old ways, but are quickly pricked in our consciences when we fail, and return to our walk according to the Spirit.

But more than anything, I am looking to find that what we tend to lump into a generic term "experiences of Christ" should, on the whole, have some occurrences in our quiet times or corporate worship, but as much or more in our daily lives because we come to express Christ in our living more and more. And they are worthy of more detailed analysis, both personally, and in whatever we speak to others. Saying "I had several experiences of Christ this week" is like saying "I lived my life this week." Or it should be. If the term is focused too exclusively on our quiet time, or the corporate worship, then we may only understand part of what could be there. And maybe the problem is that we are not labeling properly. But it could be that we are stuck in a spiritual/secular separation where experiencing Christ is spiritual and living the daily life is secular.

I know that there was a lot of talk about not being able to wait to get to the next meeting. And it was one of the reasons that there was so much looking down on the rest of Christianity — because they don't meet as often as we did. And I believe that is because we had an incorrect understanding of what and how we "experienced Christ." It was a much bandied term will little true definition. But for many it was assumed to be something that happened in our "spiritual times."

This has been a "no evidence" speech. It somewhat expresses the expectation of my search. I will be up front about it because I want to recognize my own tendency to force-fit things to my chosen result. Can we all try to do that? It might help us see beyond our biases

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

We need to set our minds on the Spirit and "walk" in a manner that is tolerant. We can call that an experience of Christ.

Isn't the experience of Christ all about "the least of these?"

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that there was a lot of talk about not being able to wait to get to the next meeting. And it was one of the reasons that there was so much looking down on the rest of Christianity — because they don't meet as often as we did.

Looking back on my local church days I came to realize that surely the busy local church life, with all the meetings and conferences, could not be what Jesus envisioned for his followers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't the experience of Christ all about "the least of these?"

Looking back on my local church days I came to realize that surely the busy local church life, with all the meetings and conferences, could not be what Jesus envisioned for his followers.

I think that the experience of Christ lies in leaving the 99 and finding the one lost sheep. WL made it instead about "building the body". Even the gospel message got subsumed. I remember RK saying that Billy Graham had done absolutely nothing for the kingdom of God because he was only about converting sinners and not about organization-building.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember RK saying that Billy Graham had done absolutely nothing for the kingdom of God because he was only about converting sinners and not about organization-building.

Did brother Ron really say that? Such a narrow view.

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; "

Ephesians: 4:11-12

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that the experience of Christ lies in leaving the 99 and finding the one lost sheep. WL made it instead about "building the body".

And right here may be one of the reasons that I still have a problem with the term. We may have a problem with what Lee called "building the body," but all that would entail would seem to be out of, or part of the experience of Christ.

Yet it is not the whole.

Neither is leaving the 99 to find the one. It can only be part of it. Not all of it.

And this is the problem I have with the term. For so many people, if we continue to call everything of the Christian life "the experience of Christ" yet do not provide details as to what it was in each instance that was "experience of Christ," then we have masked the true meaning of the instance and set an undefined bar as the measure that others see themselves as having to measure up to.

How much better to speak of having something prick your conscience about how you drive, and then taking action to correct it. Or about your attitude toward the gay guy in the office, or the woman who is living with her boyfriend.

I know. I only mention certain kinds of things. We need to be honest in our dealing with the clerk at the checkout counter. We don't always need to mask our emotions, but we need to check whether the emotion is righteous, or just us being upset (or even gleeful when the bad guy "gets it"). We need to deal rightly with our children. Sometimes that means calmly with only "the facts." Other times the emotion, especially of fear or concern is very necessary, especially for the young who have no concept of many dangers.

And on we go.

Someone pointed to being loving until it dries up. But what is required to rehydrate your love? Are we just SOL if we cannot take enough time to stop and pray, or is the realization that we are about to "blow it" simply evidence that we are not taking advantage of what we already have for the purpose of life and godliness?

And rather than making all of these things into a never-really-described "experience of God" smoothie that doesn't instruct or enlighten anyone as to what it means, why not just talk about the actual experience for what it is rather than just saying "I had an experience of Christ."

Especially since there really is no such term used in the Bible. The Bible describes events, including discussions. It does not describe "experience of Christ" or ever say the term.

So why do we have to do so and what does it do for us?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't the experience of Christ all about "the least of these?"

I think that this may be one of the problems that I have with the term. I can't conclude that it is "all about" anything as narrow as just any aspect of the Christian life.

But part of it is in actually loving others. Like Ohio said somewhat differently —how I relate to others. So the experience of Christ is at least partly about all aspects of how I relate to all others. Not just to LCM members. Not just to other Christians. Not just to "good material." Not just to those who are socially Christian in that they live outwardly according to a Christian ethic though having no confession of belief in Christ. It is also to the unlovely, the sinner in every sense of the word. Even to those who society (and I) think that are horribly opposed to the "right" way. Like . . . let's leave the list of people we might think of as "out" out of the discussion.

Recently a long-time friend who has moved away posted the following on facebook

What Would Jesus Facebook?

Answer: I don’t know.

But let’s suggest some things he WOULDN’T facebook:

1. Jesus would not post endless streams of mocking pictures of and posts of NBC anchor Brian Williams failings. Or anyone else’s.

2. Jesus wouldn’t post hateful things about Barack Obama. Or George W. Bush. Or Mitt Romney. Or anyone. Ever.

3. I Don’t know what Jesus’ position would be on the 2nd Amendment. I suspect he wouldn’t (or doesn’t) have one. But even if he did, I don’t think he would celebrate and glorify guns on his facebook page. I just don’t.

4. Maybe Jesus would have some strong political opinions. I’m not sure. But if he did, he would never let his zeal to express those opinions lead him to post anything that would in any way compromise the values the he taught and lived.

To sum up, Jesus may have ridden into Jerusalem on an ass. But he would never have acted like one on facebook.

I have. And so have some of you. Let’s stop.

But beyond this, I believe that what we might call the "experience of Christ" is way more than how we interact with other people. It is about how we live our entire lives. And while we might argue that all of it eventually becomes an aspect of interaction with others, even saying that allows us to overlook things that we do not see as part of that interaction.

At least at the time that we see it. But it is all part of the life of the Christian and is therefore either lived because of Christ or not.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that what we might call the "experience of Christ" is way more than how we interact with other people. It is about how we live our entire lives. And while we might argue that all of it eventually becomes an aspect of interaction with others, even saying that allows us to overlook things that we do not see as part of that interaction.

Well put. And something that I needed. I always consider how others see me, but forget to consider how the Father sees me. Jesus repeatedly told about the shut door, and the Father who was in secret; arguably that was the basis of His interactions with people. How quickly I forget that, and become a politician, all about appearances and pseudo "relationships"!

Thanks for posting that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I will admit that I have provided some initial thoughts. But they are far from solid. Let's look at the word experience first. Define it. Find it in scripture. ... look at what should be the "experience" of the normal Christian life (not the book).

And maybe this just sits quietly and is ignored. That is OK.

Ha. I bet you wish it had sat quietly, ignored. (humor, there).

I've been following this from afar, and this quote, below, caught my attention:

Originally Posted by OBW

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?

It brought to mind the idea of the Christian experience as analogized by a race. Common, right? We've all heard this; it's so true it's trite. But there may be insight, there. Think of, for example, two runners, one who does excellently, then falls into a deep hole about a hundred yards from the finish line and disappears. Occasional weak cries emerge, with extended gaps of silence, which gaps grow ominously long. The second runner does a terrible job of it. Manages to trip over every uneven spot. Hits every obstacle, and gets weary and sits down often, complaining loudly and threatening to quit. But at the end, he gets up and roars off like a rocket and has Peter's proverbial "rich entrance" at the finish line.

So who did well? The second guy. But all during the race, if we wanted to assess the "experience of Christ" of the runners, we'd bet on the first. This indicates to me that ultimately, our assessment means nothing or nearly nothing. We can't truly assess our "experience of Christ", except to press on. It's only truly assessed by God, at the finish. So forget about it, and carry on. The only thing that you can really do is assume that if you have in any way "experienced Christ", then you're probably among the least of all the saints. Other than that, ignore it. Your evaluations, enroute, simply are not trustworthy.

So I tend to side with OBW in this conversation. Not that I'm taking sides or promoting antagonism, but his objections to the notion of the generic "experience of Christ) carry more water with me. Carry on (and that's where the "hold to" part comes in).

[awareness]

I'm afraid to ring in.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm afraid to ring in.

You? Afraid to wade in? Now I'm getting worried! What have I done?!?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So who did well? The second guy. But all during the race, if we wanted to assess the "experience of Christ" of the runners, we'd bet on the first. This indicates to me that ultimately, our assessment means nothing or nearly nothing. We can't truly assess our "experience of Christ", except to press on. It's only truly assessed by God, at the finish...

I probably should have put in my scriptural reference, given that OBW asked for them, and I usually assume (wrongly) that people get what I am alluding to. I am specifically thinking here of the parable of the two sons. One promised to obey the command, then didn't. The second refused, then repented and did it. Jesus asked them, Which one did the will of the Father? They answered, the second.

So my analogy was, we can be in the front row of the meeting, making noise, testifying of all our "experiences of Christ" during the week, which may be real and legitimate. But they may not. So drop it. Drop it and go on. Ultimately it is what you "hold to", that is real. And that cannot be assessed until it is found what you are holding to, at the end.

Ultimately, WL developed a catch-phrase, sold a few thousand books, and a few thousand folks bought them and read them. Or put them on the shelf, unread. Life goes on.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I probably should have put in my scriptural reference, given that OBW asked for them, and I usually assume (wrongly) that people get what I am alluding to. I am specifically thinking here of the parable of the two sons. One promised to obey the command, then didn't. The second refused, then repented and did it. Jesus asked them, Which one did the will of the Father? They answered, the second.

So my analogy was, we can be in the front row of the meeting, making noise, testifying of all our "experiences of Christ" during the week, which may be real and legitimate. But they may not. So drop it. Drop it and go on. Ultimately it is what you "hold to", that is real. And that cannot be assessed until it is found what you are holding to, at the end.

Ultimately, WL developed a catch-phrase, sold a few thousand books, and a few thousand folks bought them and read them. Or put them on the shelf, unread. Life goes on.

Again, I don't see that talking about experiences of Christ generally was the cause of the problem. To me the cause of the problem, ironically, was thinking we needed specific "experiences of Christ" that you could shout about in the meeting, i.e. get a bunch of Amens to. So the problem was not generality. Quite the opposite. It was a misguided specificity, i.e. of LCM-approved "experiences." The LCM-approved experience list was actually quite narrow.

To me saying we need to experience Christ is like saying we need to pray. Paul said "pray unceasingly." He didn't say at that moment what to pray about specifically. Being general about experiencing Christ doesn't encourage invalid experiences any more that generally encouraging prayer encourages invalid prayers.

A generalization for a real encounter with God, whether as grace, or love or joy or service or prophecy, is an experience of Christ. It makes a very valid point that genuine Christianity has the element of real experience, not just theory. God is involved and when he is you, at least eventually, realize that. That's an experience. I think it's silly to be told that I have to find in the Bible where it talks about experience. As far as I'm concerned it's implied all over the Bible.

I think you guys are making a huge mountain out of a molehill. I see correlation masquerading as causation.

[Cal]

All genuine Christian behavior and living is by definition an experience of Christ, because the Christian life is "not I, but Christ." So whenever the Bible commands any action from us it is by definition commanding an experience of Christ.

So not to put too fine a point on it, but seeing that the Bible encourages all kinds of participations which are all by definition experiences of Christ, yet to turn around and say that the Bible doesn't encourage experiencing Christ is possibly the most illogical thing I've heard in a long, long time. It's right up there with the argument that increasing the amount of money the nation owes will help us reduce the national debt.

It's like you saying that people should fly, drive or take a boat to another destination, and then turn around and say you didn't encourage anyone to travel. I mean, duh.

[aron]

It's like you saying that people should fly, drive or take a boat to another destination, and then turn around and say you didn't encourage anyone to travel. I mean, duh.

But at the end of the day you don't know if you've traveled or not, so what are you talking about? You're just talking to make noise. Only God knows whether you've traveled or not, and how far, and by what means. And God won't tell you until the end of the journey. That's what the Judgment Seat is for.

If you need scriptures, how about, "Lord, when did we do this or do that?" Answer: "When you did it to the least of these my brothers". Then the one who said, "I did this, and I did that", is told, "Get away from Me. I don't know you." So they simply don't know until God tells them. Until then they don't know.

So if Paul said, "I have not yet laid hold", i.e. "I have not yet assessed whether and to what extent I have traveled (by boat or plane)", then who are we to presume? And if so, what then are we talking about? Terminology and concepts. Both of which WL made many books out of.

You wrote:

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.

To me, OBW is saying he doesn't want to eat the "experience of Christ" pudding being offered by WL, or whomever. He's not judging your pudding nor your eating. He just says there's no compelling reason for him to partake of it. It's just terminology and concepts.

Again, I apologize for speaking for someone else. That's what I get from his argument and it seems reasonable to me. But I may be off on a number of accounts here.

[Lisbon]

I taught a Jr Hi Sunday School class around 45 years ago and taught them and me Gal 5:22 which goes..But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsufering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance... Wow!

I think if we were to get into these items, what would we be like. At the end of the day, I so often come to the Lord with no peace, no joy, little love. Lord, where am I? Then quite often I hear, "Come unto Me all that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Learn of Me." As many have said, the Lord led us into the LC and now has led us out but my sense is that I am too often in a quagmire. Howe we need the experience of those Gal verses.

Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Gal 5:22 which goes..But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsufering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance...

There was this guy, named Jesus. He embodied all that you've stated above, and more. And He was here, among us. The record is clear. Keep your eyes on Him. Don't look at yourself. That is a waste of time. Peter was doing fine until he looked down and began to take stock of things. Then he sank like a stone (pun intended).