Soul & Spirit - Same or Different?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I didn't know what was meant by Lectio Divina, so I looked it up and found this video by evidently a Catholic preist (he calls himself "father"): Lactio Divina 4 explanation minute video

This is not too far from what I've practiced in my morning times with Jesus for some time now. I read the word; I thank the Lord for specific things I'm reading or ask Him to operate in my heart. Sometimes that leads into a song that comes up in me, so I sing that. But I use the scripture to meditate upon Him and His works and intentions towards me (and others), and thank/praise Him that He is faithful and true and able to do what He said He will do. Do you see something wrong with that? (the one thing I don't do is Lectio Divina step #5 - go out and do something according to the meditation you just had - but not sure there's anything inherently wrong with that)

Lectio Divina is popular among Catholics and Gnostics. It actually predates Christianity but in the very early church it entered Christendom through the Gnostics and then later into the mainstream by monastic Catholicism.

It's a practice I discourage as it's a very similar to what you'll find in eastern mysticism where you take a verse and turn it into a mantra of sorts for the purpose of emptying the mind of thought. The idea of this is that God can only speak to you through a completely quiet and tranquil mind. It makes me wonder how the Holy Spirit spoke through those who were undergoing martyrdom...

The inherent danger in this is that by emptying the mind, there remains no buffer for differentiating or discerning between what is true and what is a lie. So those that benefit from Lectio Divina simply validate their experience by feelings rather than having a way to challenge their feelings through critical reasoning.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Lectio Divina is popular among Catholics and Gnostics. It actually predates Christianity but in the very early church it entered Christendom through the Gnostics and then later into the mainstream by monastic Catholicism.

It's a practice I discourage as it's a very similar to what you'll find in eastern mysticism where you take a verse and turn it into a mantra of sorts for the purpose of emptying the mind of thoughts. The idea of this is that God can only speak to you through a completely quiet and tranquil mind. It makes me wonder how the Holy Spirit spoke through those who were undergoing martyrdom...

The inherent danger in this is that by emptying the mind, there remains no buffer for differentiating or discerning between what is true and what is a lie. So those that benefit from Lectio Divina simply validate their experience by feelings rather than having a way to challenging their feelings through critical reasoning.

Gotcha, and that would be taking it to an extreme, and anything taken that far is . . . well . . . extreme! Please see the article and comment I posted after editing my last post (we're both quick to answer right now).

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Gotcha, and that would be taking it to an extreme, and anything taken that far is . . . well . . . extreme! Please see the article and comment I posted after editing my last post (we're both quick to answer right now).

I don't see anything in that article outlining a less extreme version of Lectio Divina. The author seems to flat out reject it altogether. I believe he's delineating between a subjective approach (LD) and an objective approach to scripture (Exegesis).

StG, perhaps you can outline your personal practice of pray-reading. What does it look like in detail? Does it look similar to the practice taught in the LC's where they single out a verse and declare it over and over again?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I don't see anything in that article outlining a lesser extreme version of Lectio Divina. The author seems to flat out reject it altogether. I believe he's delineating between a subjective approach (LD) and an objective approach to scripture (Exegesis).

StG, perhaps you can outline your personal practice of pray-reading. What does it look like in detail? Does it look similar to the practice taught in the LC's where they single out a verse and declare it over and over again?

I don't view my morning time as pray-reading exactly, at least not in the LC sense perhaps. I outlined it two posts ago - did you see that? I usually read a couple devotionals. One is Daily Light, edited by Anne Graham Lotz, which is is just a page of topical scripture. I read those verse while talking to the Lord. I intersperse it with prayer for other things and people, as they come to mind. If I don't understand something in the scripture, I ask the Lord to show me. I thank Him for His shed blood and for loving me and all of us. I praise Him for what He's done, is doing and what He has planned. If a good song comes to mind, I'll sing that (from memory usually). Really nothing set. (BTW - I don't say certain words over and over, like I've heard LC folks do.)

If that helps towards your question, great. If not, I'm happy to tell you more.

Also, I don't agree with what you said about that article and will post a quote from it, when I get a chance later.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't view my morning time as pray-reading exactly, at least not in the LC sense perhaps. I outlined it two posts ago - did you see that? I usually read a couple devotionals. One is Daily Light, edited by Anne Graham Lotz, which is is just a page of topical scripture. I read those verse while talking to the Lord. I intersperse it with prayer for other things and people, as they come to mind. If I don't understand something in the scripture, I ask the Lord to show me. I thank Him for His shed blood and for loving me and all of us. I praise Him for what He's done, is doing and what He has planned. If a good song comes to mind, I'll sing that (from memory usually). Really nothing set. (BTW - I don't say certain words over and over, like I've heard LC folks do.)

If that helps towards your question, great. If not, I'm happy to tell you more.

Also, I don't agree with what you said about that article and will post a quote from it, when I get a chance later.

Specifically, I was curious to know more detail on what you meant by this statement:

"But I use the scripture to meditate upon Him and His works and intentions towards me (and others)"

How exactly do you use scripture to meditate? What's involved in the meditating aspect of it? Are you simply referring to inward reflection or is it more involved than that?

Regardless it does look like you practice the 4 steps of traditional Lectio Divina (Lectio, Meditatio, Oratio, Contemplatio). The LC's do, in fact, act out an "evolved" version of Lectio Divina. It's akin to the practice of calling. Calling in the LC's also began as a simpler personal practice then snowballed into a corporate chant. It's the same dilemma of the lesser of two evils.

I have to say a pattern I see here with yourself and other ex LC members who defend these practices is not necessarily a desire to return to the purity of scripture as much as a desire to return to an earlier and more pure version of the Lord's Recovery. Or perhaps it's a process of progression toward complete freedom from the Local Churches. I hope for the latter.

It's quite astonishing when you come to the realization that the LC's are almost an exact microcosm of the Catholic church. In it's early formative years the Roman church too laid down a foundation of works based spirituality (mysticism). It first went through a period of flourishing, then became weighed down by legalism, and finally fractured into factions looking to return back to their spiritual roots.

My hope is that those who seek freedom from the legalism of the Local Churches don't stop short at Witness Lee or even Watchman Nee but continue on through to Christ and the Apostles lest you find yourselves repeating history.

[Sons to Glory!]

So here's a section of that article on I linked to before and which we both commented on. Found Here: A Danger of Lactio Divina

The Holy Spirit is undoubtedly trustworthy and can, miraculously, implant his intent in us intuitively. But does this possibility absolve us from doing the hard work of exegesis? Why would he have bothered inspiring Scripture in the first place? Is it not possible that the Spirit works through both research and meditation? By pursuing such a subjective approach to interpretation as “inspired” preaching, are we not at risk of ignoring what God intended in his Word in favor of preaching our own? Are we not conforming ourselves to the spirit of the age (of which we are necessarily a part) rather than to the depth of his Word?

This, then, is a danger in Lectio Divina, that it may teach us to approach the text subjectively rather than objectively, and that in this way it leads to unstable, unsupportable conclusions. Though it appears to elevate piety, it may just train us to preach badly.

In the bolded above, the author is saying that both are needed. I read this to mean that we can go into two extremes. Exegesis (WL used to call this "exit Jesus") is good, but it can produce deadness and dead letter, devoid of Spirit. The other extreme, call it Lectio Divina or whatever, could produce something too subjective. Bros here in Scottsdale talk about this sometimes. The need is expressed to "dive deep" into the study of the word, to crack the books, the Greek, etc. to get some real riches. I've heard bros here say that the idea of "Get out of your mind" is not a good one, since God gave us a mind for a reason. But all mind is just that - all our mental (human) understanding and no Spirit. It's an extreme. An unturned cake. I think what the author here is saying is that there should be a balance of both. And they use the word "may," as in Lectio Divina "may teach us to approach the text subjectively rather than objectively, and that in this way it leads to unstable, unsupportable conclusions." Sure, suppose I can see that . . . it needs a balance with the solid scriptural study too.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Specifically, I was curious to know more detail on what you meant by this statement:

"But I use the scripture to meditate upon Him and His works and intentions towards me (and others)"

How exactly do you use scripture to meditate? What's involved in the meditating aspect of it? Are you simply referring to inward reflection or is it more involved than that?

Regardless it does look like you practice the 4 steps of traditional Lectio Divina (Lectio, Meditatio, Oratio, Contemplatio). The LC's do, in fact, act out an "evolved" version of Lectio Divina. It's akin to the practice of calling. Calling in the LC's also began as a simpler personal practice then snowballed into a corporate chant. It's the same dilemma of the lesser of two evils.

I have to say a pattern I see here with yourself and other ex LC members who defend these practices is not necessarily a desire to return to the purity of scripture as much as a desire to return to an earlier and more pure version of the Lord's Recovery. Or perhaps it's a process of progression toward complete freedom from the Local Churches. I hope for the latter.

It's quite astonishing when you come to the realization that the LC's are almost an exact microcosm of the Catholic church. In it's early formative years the Roman church too laid down a foundation of works based spirituality (mysticism). It first went through a period of flourishing, then became weighed down by legalism, and finally fractured into factions looking to return back to their spiritual roots.

My hope is that those who seek freedom from the legalism of the Local Churches don't stop short at Witness Lee or even Watchman Nee but continue on through to Christ and the Apostles lest you find yourselves repeating history. StG says YES! Amen to that!!!

I often see the parallels of the LC with the RCC. It's what happens when man's flesh takes control - it eventually wants a strong, centrally controlling authority. This is the natural route many Christian groups have taken. So by sight the church is a mess. But by faith the church is His glorious bride and is just fine - He's got this!

Concerning your bolded comment above, I surely don't see it as the former - no one thinks we should go back to those times, although there certainly was an undeniable move of the Spirit present back then - it's just something He did in the past. Jo, you see patterns of things people are supposedly trying to defend regarding LC practices, because you evidently tend to only see the dirty bathwater, and you view all things LC through that lens. Some on here may share your perspective and others on here don't. Perhaps you should try to refrain from categorizing everyone that doesn't automatically assume your viewpoint, as someone who is still totally mired in the LC clay.

Regarding your question about my morning time with the Lord, I'm not sure why you are asking for these details. Do you want to correct something with how I'm pursuing Jesus? Will it be a help to you if I record my morning time so you can see exactly? (not going to do that) I just don't know the profit in conveying any more than what I've already conveyed. I will say it's not a set, religious thing I do and any morning may go in differing directions. For instance, at the end of this morning's time, I wound-up in Ephesians chapter three, since we are going through that book now. I read the verses (can't remember if out loud or not) and considered their meaning. Any-a-ways, maybe I should ask you - what happens in your morning time with the Lord, bro?

[Jo S]

Sorry for the delay, StG, there was just so much to unpack in your post that I couldn't find the time yesterday.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Regarding your question about my morning time with the Lord, I'm not sure why you are asking for these details. Do you want to correct something with how I'm pursuing Jesus? Will it be a help to you if I record my morning time so you can see exactly? (not going to do that) I just don't know the profit in conveying any more than what I've already conveyed. I will say it's not a set, religious thing I do and any morning may go in differing directions. For instance, at the end of this morning's time, I wound-up in Ephesians chapter three, since we are going through that book now. I read the verses (can't remember if out loud or not) and considered their meaning. Any-a-ways, maybe I should ask you - what happens in your morning time with the Lord, bro?

One thing I realize when speaking to current and former local church members it that you find the terminology is very similar to that of orthodox Christianity but the meaning behind the words can be totally different. That’s why I asked what you meant by “meditation” in regards to your morning practice. It was an attempt at getting terms straight as to avoid making any unnecessary presumptions. I understand it’s a private time to oneself, but to be fair you did welcome further inquiry in a previous post. Now I see you took offense…

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So here's a section of that article on I linked to before and which we both commented on. Found Here: A Danger of Lactio Divina

In the bolded above, the author is saying that both are needed. I read this to mean that we can go into two extremes. Exegesis (WL used to call this "exit Jesus") is good, but it can produce deadness and dead letter, devoid of Spirit. The other extreme, call it Lectio Divina or whatever, could produce something too subjective. Bros here in Scottsdale talk about this sometimes. The need is expressed to "dive deep" into the study of the word, to crack the books, the Greek, etc. to get some real riches. I've heard bros here say that the idea of "Get out of your mind" is not a good one, since God gave us a mind for a reason. But all mind is just that - all our mental (human) understanding and no Spirit. It's an extreme. An unturned cake. I think what the author here is saying is that there should be a balance of both. And they use the word "may," as in Lectio Divina "may teach us to approach the text subjectively rather than objectively, and that in this way it leads to unstable, unsupportable conclusions." Sure, suppose I can see that . . . it needs a balance with the solid scriptural study too..

StG, it’s important to note the context in which the author is using the term “meditation”. He refers to meditation as reflecting on what’s being studied in scripture. In the Local Churches and all others who incorporate Lectio Divina, meditation however is something much more than being a mere pondering or mental inquiry. It becomes a means to attaining a certain state of consciousness.

In Catholic mysticism scripture is viewed as a living sacrament similar to that of the Eucharist. The goal for a practitioner is to “work” themselves into a certain frame of mind before approaching scripture in order that the text can actively speak to them. This mental state can be accomplished through things like singing, prayer, or like you mentioned reading extra-biblical material. However you don’t find any of these prerequisites prescribed or even described in scripture itself. That’s not to say prayer or song is vain, it’s in the manner which they are used that makes them vain. If it’s for the purpose of influencing or altering your consciousness in any way, it’s vanity.

A Christian prays and sings as a result of the outflow of God’s spirit in them because they are already connected to God and by that already in the mind of Christ. The mystic however approaches spirituality in a way that they believe God can be found within prayer, song, or scripture. This is also what the Pharisees believed and the Lord rebuked them for it (John 5:39)

The danger in this approach to scripture is that because text is being viewed through the lens of a manufactured emotional state, it’s now impossible to simultaneously practice critical analysis while reading the text. In other words the apprehension of knowledge in scripture through Lectio Divina is centered on you, your feelings, and how the text can apply to you in the moment in the way you want it to rather than attempting to view the text in its proper historical context. At this point, you will only see what you want to see in the text (eisegesis).

So really in the article the implication is that for a born again Christian the Holy Spirit should be at work simultaneously in them alongside critical study. It’s not so much a “balanced” approach by combining two separate faculties, as it is a holistic approach of mind and spirit working in concert with one another.

Because you’re of the LC bent in that the mind and spirit can be separated, the implication is that you have both mind and a human spirit. First, it’s important to confirm through scripture that all men have a human spirit but because we went down a rabbit hole we weren’t able to flush that out. In summary, I personally believe in both the unregenerate dichotomous (soul, body) and regenerate trichotomous (soul, body, spirit) man.

Now in the case that not all people have an individual human spirit then you’re in danger of falsely identifying your own emotions as “spirit”. This is the mistake Watchman Nee made. While he condemned emotions in one breath, he exalted them in another. He just ended up cherry picking which emotions were useless and which ones were deemed “spirit”. With Lectio Divina and “calling” you’re not getting out of your mind, because it’s not possible to be out of your mind, you’re just giving your mind over to fleeting passions.

You asked what my morning devotional practice looks like. Well, I don’t have one. I don’t view devotional reading as a routine. Rather I approach scripture when the Lord allows me to. Sometimes I go long periods without reading scripture. Other times I’m deeply lost in it. I trust the Lord to decide when the time is right to learn scripture. In personal devotion, scripture should be viewed as the road to Emmaus where the Lord decides when to open the scriptures to you. If scripture is viewed as a means to connect to God at your own will you risk turning scripture into an idol; this is because you’re not doing so by God’s needs and His leading, you’re doing so by the leading of your emotional neediness or your intellectual ambitions. So you see exegesis (“Exit Jesus”, lol) isn’t the problem, it’s our selfish motives that cause the “deadness of the letter”. This is true for the mystic and for the intellectual alike.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I often see the parallels of the LC with the RCC. It's what happens when man's flesh takes control - it eventually wants a strong, centrally controlling authority. This is the natural route many Christian groups have taken. So by sight the church is a mess. But by faith the church is His glorious bride and is just fine - He's got this!

Christ is the model for his church. At what point in his 3 ½ year ministry on earth did Christ become compromised? Our flesh on the other hand has been compromised from birth.

The fruit of the LC and the RCC is rotten because the roots were planted in bad soil. The flesh didn’t take control of these ecumenical movements. The flesh is what began them. Christ’s church however began at Pentecost and it hasn’t stopped until this day and neither will it be usurped by flesh. Jesus himself affirmed this in Matthew 16:18. So whatever you may have thought was Christ’s church at some point, never really was. Christ’s church is the fellowship between the individual and God and then between those that are in agreement; it’s not one centered around another man’s ideology.

As I’ve said, people mistake fleeting emotions for God’s spirit and so when people see miraculous signs and wonders (such as rapid church growth and strong community centered around ideology) it’s automatically assumed a move of God as that's where our natural feelings lead us. But like Gamaliel said in Acts 5:39: if it’s from God you won’t be able to stop it; if it’s not then it will fail. It’s quite evident Nee’s recovery has failed. So what’s left of these movements and so many other failed Charismatic movements are rotting tree stumps where vultures lay their eggs.

As far as controlling authority, scripture is clear; God establishes all authorities and power on earth (Romans 13:1). This includes offices of clergy as we see established in the NT. Clerical roles within Christianity aren’t inherently evil. It’s a measure God uses, not only to establish and maintain order; He also uses authority as discipline and a sign to persuade His people toward repentance. Just as harsher rule was imposed over Israel the further they drifted from God so it is within Christendom. It wasn't the rules or leadership that separated the Israelites from God, it was their own spiritual adultery through the worshipping of false gods and false idols. In the same way, legalism wasn’t the cause of division in the LC, it was the false vision and false doctrine that people gave themselves over to that caused them to follow a false Jesus and an idol gospel.

As all the prophets in scripture made clear, the only way to truly be free from oppressive rule is to humbly turn to God in faith and repentance. Unfortunately, this biblical mandate is usually disregarded in favor of social reform. Many people leave these kinds of groups based on relative truths rather than the Truth, Jesus. It’s no wonder that even decades removed they continue to struggle with their past. Through the lack of repentance and the self-justification in one's heart, what you then see in attempts to manage the pain is the propping up of legalism as a scapegoat. This then works to trap you in a perpetual cycle of resentment and blame shifting. Short term, it's easier to go that route rather than accepting personal accountability before God. Whether or not the clergy is in the wrong, God will be the judge. It's our responsibility to first check our own hearts before judging others. That way when you do expose darkness in light, it'll be in a spirit of exhortation rather than one of condemnation. The goal is to love and pray even for our enemies so that they may be reconciled to God.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Concerning your bolded comment above, I surely don't see it as the former - no one thinks we should go back to those times, although there certainly was an undeniable move of the Spirit present back then - it's just something He did in the past. Jo, you see patterns of things people are supposedly trying to defend regarding LC practices, because you evidently tend to only see the dirty bathwater, and you view all things LC through that lens. Some on here may share your perspective and others on here don't. Perhaps you should try to refrain from categorizing everyone that doesn't automatically assume your viewpoint, as someone who is still totally mired in the LC clay.

You may not see it as the former because, like all other living members (past and current), you’ve not seen what the Lord’s Recovery looked like prior to Witness Lee.

Judging from his own writings, in Watchman Nee’s time, practices like calling and pray-reading were much closer to their more traditional mystical roots. However as I’ve mentioned previously a lesser version of evil is still evil. So if you find yourself on the same ground that Nee built off of, you’ll only work to return to the very same end you sought to escape from.

Unlike the people that spend most of their time attacking those whom they felt hurt them and baiting others to do the same, you spend your effort in trying to bring a positive atmosphere to the forum. For that I commend you. However, because of your middle-road approach in viewing the LC’s, you inadvertently impose on others the very burdens they seek to escape from similar to what we see in Acts 15. You’re advertising compromise as positivity and unity. What fellowship can light have with darkness?

The Christian faith is an extreme. There is no middle ground between truth and lies. There is no straddling the wide and narrow gates. There is no balancing of the Ying and the Yang. It’s either all in or all out. Lukewarm is spit out. That is the message of the bible.

Christian groups have warts, I understand that, but when a movement is built on mysticism, false visions, and a false gospel then like cancer it needs to be removed from the body in it's entirety. As with any tumor some good tissue will be removed along with the cancerous tissue, but that’s always better than risking relapse.