Mere Christianity or Degraded Christianity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even though God is external to us, we will always view Him through the lens of our subjective reality. That is how our brains work, that is how we were created.

We also view God, whether good or bad, thru the teachings we receive, which tend to shape "our subjective reality."

Lee's views were narrow and judgmental towards outsiders. That same "subjective reality" can be seen in his followers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That same "subjective reality" can be seen in his followers.

"So subjective is my Christ to me", Lee famously wrote in a hymn. We all sang those lines over and over, vicariously absorbing his 'experience of Christ'. The Protestant legacy has been one of rampant subjectivism. Watchman Nee, Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Billy Sunday, Aimee Semple McPherson, Ellen White, Brian Houston (Hillsong); on and on the flock gathers round the stage, watching the charismatic's dramatization of his/her personal salvation story. It's all about the experience.

And the experience includes Jimmy Swaggert crying, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's financial pyramid scheme, etc etc. Suddenly Daystar doesn't seem so odd.

Only Jesus Christ's experience with His Father will never fail. It will never fade, it will never be shaken. "I will not be moved" - only one Person in history could say that. This is the rock on which we stand. Not ourselves. "Everything which came into being came through Him, not one thing came into being apart from Him." Jesus is the singularity. Everything that is real flows from Him.

God's economy, the Body (i.e. ChristandtheChurch, the feeling of the Body and so forth), the vision of the age, the ground of oneness, the Processed Triune God, and the rest of it, are all the issues of subjectivism writ large. They're slender reeds, untrustworthy. Jesus alone reigns.

[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.

[Freedom]

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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What no one really teaches in the denominations is the difference between the soul and the spirit.

And the reason probably is that when you look at the verses that supported Nee's original teachings on the difference, it was evident that there was nothing clear about it. He said it was clear, but it was not. In one place, a particular attribute was declared to be of the soul and in another, a slight restatement of the same attribute was declared to be of the spirit and different. What I kept finding when I read the list is that there is a reason that it takes a sharp sword to divide them. They are so intrinsically intertwined that it is clear that this one little verse about the Word as a sword was not intended to suggest that the Bible provides the answer to divide them because the very verses that Nee wanted to use couldn't do it.

So it is very sound that the dreaded denominations do not teach "the difference." Why? Because it isn't there. It is more like two aspects of the same thing than two separate "organs." Yes, the Spirit can differentiate. But the difference was not left laying on the ground in the form of a list of verses.

Meanwhile, Lee's followers are busy trying to find their spirit, turning every reference to the word into their private land of us v them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, the Spirit can differentiate. But the difference was not left laying on the ground in the form of a list of verses..

The matter of listing proof-text verses, or even strongly suggestive verses, and then saying "this shows us that" is itself a subjective exercise. Those you get there early in the process, and make a long list, and say "this shows us that" will often get followings, as Nee and then Lee did.

But lists do not reality make.

This of course is my own subjective assessment, and colored by dark and hidden things, no doubt. The Lee followers wrote once that I had ambition and had been thwarted, and was now lurking in cyberspace, muttering in streams of murky self. Yes, but that is my point. So was Nee, so was Lee, so are we all, at least to some degree.

Jesus alone needs no perfecting, no training, no rebuking or correction. His relation with the Father was perfect. The Father delighted in Him. If you tell me that this is merely my soul, then I laugh. No, it is the Word. It is not about my subjective experiences, it is about Jesus. It is about His experiences of the Father. Who can plumb them? So if we cannot suss out the heights and depths and breadths, then why go anywhere else?

What teaching, what training, what revelatory truth can push Jesus off the table? None. So I remain a Protestant, and son of Protestants, but am probably less likely to be distracted by the snake oil salesmen than before. Now I "see Jesus", as the writer of Hebrews said we could.

I remember the song, "Jesus only, Jesus ever" (Hymns, #511). In the LC we sang it, then promptly forgot it. Why - because the oracle wanted to talk hermeneutics, or the latest move or flow, or the revelation of the church, or some other doctrinal wind of teaching. But Peter pointed out Jesus only Jesus ever in Acts 2. And Peter never left the Shepherd. But the oracle in the LC wasn't interested. Paul pointed out Jesus only Jesus ever in Acts 13, using the same source (vv 34-37)! And Paul never lost the vision of Jesus. It was about "this Jesus", and nothing else. (Acts 2:32)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

How do you know the difference between your "spirit and life" and the charismatics' "emotions"? From my vantage point, and having been in both, I see little more than manufactured enthusiasms. Occasionally genuine, occasionally not, and with no guide past the subjectivity, save our own subjective assessments.

Originally Posted by WitnessLee

It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication. (ELDERS' TRAINING, BOOK 08: THE LIFE-PULSE OF THE LORD'S PRESENT MOVE, Chapter 11, Section 2, Witness Lee)

How do we know this was Lee's "truthful observation"? Because he told us. How did we know what was "Life and light"? Because Lee said it was. Self-absorbed subjectivity. No objective reality. Welcome to the post-Protestant age, where every man is a king. There are Watchman Nee's popping up everywhere.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

How do you know the difference between your "spirit and life" and the charismatics' "emotions"? From my vantage point, and having been in both, I see little more than manufactured enthusiasms. Occasionally genuine, occasionally not, and with no guide past the subjectivity, save our own subjective assessments.


How do we know this was Lee's "truthful observation"? Because he told us. How did we know what was "Life and light"? Because Lee said it was. Self-absorbed subjectivity. No objective reality. Welcome to the post-Protestant age, where every man is a king. There are Watchman Nee's popping up everywhere.

You cannot prove God to someone objectively. There is actually very little we can prove to someone objectively when it concerns religion. Everything is subjective. The Bible is a written record of the author's subjective realities. Paul's gospel came to him from subjective revelation. One person's objective reality is another person's subjective reality. You may not realize this but you are using similar arguments that atheists/agnostics use against religion. If they were to ask you "how do you know God exists" you could revert to your subjective experiences. Or you could say "because the Bible tells me so" which will end up being circular reasoning.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everything is subjective. The Bible is a written record of the author's subjective realities.

All true, and all good points. But you miss something: Jesus' subjective realities, plainly pointed out in the NT by the apostles, are our focus. Not our own experiences and sensations. The first is trustworthy as a stand-in for objective reality, to the believer. The second should not be. My comment has been that the error of Protestantism is to lean upon subjectivism, and be led astray. Not always; not everywhere. But it is a danger. Then the rejection of one's neighbour as the "other" - in the LC, called "fallen Christianity" - in turn leads to isolation, derangement, and perversion. And the last state becomes worse than the first.

By contrast, look at the subjective experiences of Jesus.

~Zeal of Thy (the Father's) house has eaten Me (the Son) up.

~You (the Father) will not let My flesh (Jesus) see corruption.

~My God my God, why have You (the Father) abandoned Me (the Son)?

Our subjective response rests solely on the response of Jesus, and the Father's response (delight, rescue from death, exaltation). We love because He first loved us. We see His atoning blood and we repent. We see His obedience and we hear His voice saying, "Follow Me".

The danger is instead following a subjectivism unhinged, where the supposed "leading" and the so-called "flow", based on one person's impressions, determine our current experience, even objective reality itself. Then, for example, the so-called "oracle of God" downplays scripture en masse as "fallen" and "natural". Dong Yu Lan teaches the same thing in Brasil: that Paul is "judicial" and is less than John, who is "organic". This kind of rampant subjectivism I find to be odious. The crowd jumps up and down and shouts repetetively, then they can be led anywhere. Even away from the Bible, and from the safety of 2,000 years of Bible reception.

That's why I showed Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 using the same source. They used what was already established as fact by the Jewish society, that David was an oracle of God, and the apostles then used it to point to Christ.

Paul said to Timothy, "I remember your tears". (2 Tim 1:4). But it is Jesus' tears that save us, not our own. That's all I'm trying to say. The danger of Protestantism is that we focus on our own tears, our own joys, and we miss His.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The danger is instead following a subjectivism unhinged, where the supposed "leading" and the so-called "flow", based on one person's impressions, determine our current experience, even objective reality itself. Then, for example, the so-called "oracle of God" downplays scripture en masse as "fallen" and "natural". Dong Yu Lan teaches the same thing in Brasil: that Paul is "judicial" and is less than John, who is "organic". This kind of rampant subjectivism I find to be odious. The crowd jumps up and down and shouts repetetively, then they can be led anywhere. Even away from the Bible, and from the safety of 2,000 years of Bible reception.

This is the same point that I tried to make yesterday. Subjectivity/spirituality is fine, as long as it's rooted in something, and as long as it doesn't contradict objective facts. That's where the problem is. The LC likes to criticize the Pentecostals for what are seemingly bizarre displays of spiritual ‘experiences’, but yet when anyone attempts to call into question the subjectivity found in the LC, they claim that without subjectivity, Christians are doomed to have a ‘dead’ experience in all the denominations.

DYL's teaching about some scripture being 'judicial' and some being 'organic' bears such a striking resemblance to what WL taught. It's the whole mindset of there being some hidden way to distinguish scripture which is known only to one person, the one has that 'discernment'. People in the LC don't seem to realize that DYL was just another manifestation of the exact same mindset as WL. If they really feel to call into question what DYL taught, then they should also question what WL taught.

I don't think the LC has set out to be purposely esoteric, but that is the end result when subjectivity is given precedence. They start with the claim that objective facts are just "dead doctrine," and that certainly resonates with some people, because doctrine is not 'exciting'. But once the subsequent claim is made that the subjective experiences found in the LC represent something far greater than the objective, then there are problems. It starts to seem okay for the subjective to contradict objective facts, and that is the point where everything becomes muddled.

Doctrine and theology serve to help develop an understanding of the guiding principles for Christians, so it should go without saying that a study or focus of such things is not going to be exciting. But a focus is necessary in order to know which direction to head. Without any kind of guiding principles and understanding, people can make any claim they please.