Daily Devotional Inspirations

[OBW]

StG challenged us for a critique of the TAS devotional and his own comments on it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

My conclusion is simple: the only balanced book is the Bible. Every commentator is biased. Reading only one commentator is like taking two steps forward, and three steps backward. After a while, the readers are far worse off than when they started. What we thought was beneficial Bible knowledge may be nothing more than arrogant pride filling our hearts. Happened to me.

(I quoted more of Ohio’s post than StG did, just for a more complete look at what he was saying.)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Agreed. Men are biased and can't help it.

OK - now that we've worked TAS over for his comment, what did you think about my commentary on the Sparks devotional piece?

Ohio said a lot. It might be that many are not as biased as some others, but he is correct, they all have a slant. Even those that have modified over time and/or try to see beyond their bias still have some level of bias.

And StG’s one-sentence dismissal of the fact might be a hint that either he is unwilling to recognize the significance of any bias, or possibly that he is predisposed to like the particular bias of TAS. There are other possibilities, so I am not making a definitive accusation. But I think there is something there. And I will admit that I am predisposed to like whatever bias certain other writers have. So the only question becomes what is the bias and is it something that can be ignored or accepted without spiritual harm.

(BTW, someone made reference to “spiritually lost” concerning TAS. Other than lashing out at that statement as if they were accusing him of not being Christian, it was never really followed up on. My take was not to say he was not Christian, but that in terms of the spirituality of the topic being discussed, he seemed to be wandering around in strange territory. In other words, “lost” in the sense of not really knowing what he was talking about, not in the sense of having no salvation.)

Now to StG’s challenge about TAS’s devotional and StG’s comments on it.

After reading the entire context in which Phil 3:10 is found, I am not sure that it is about any kind of superiority of knowledge of Christ on the part of Paul, or hinted at by comparison to his learning through whatever means, including the limited description he gives elsewhere that involves some account that could not be uttered. I am not sure that some vision that he cannot provide descriptions for is of practical use to the Philippian believers. Instead, a comparison of the path of false teachings and evil workers — a false circumcision — is contrasted with a high calling that is always upward.

He describes the old ways and things as loss and rubbish (or dung, depending on the translation), compared to Christ and the righteousness found in Him through faith. He does not define how the “power of His resurrection,” “the fellowship of His sufferings,” or being “conformed to His death” are encountered. We have tried to work this out through many studies and sermons. The thrust of inner-life teaching is geared toward this kind of study. And the results are mostly internal. They are about a sense of some kind from mental, spiritual, and sometimes physical activities. That sense is often described as peace, joy, excitement, and so on. It has been described on this forum as a “bubbling-up.”

But what do those things do for the believer? That is the real key. We like to read about the spiritual stuff that we can’t describe as being practical to life here, today, on earth as image-bearers of God who are members of His Kingdom. Just a few verses later, Paul says to follow his example and pattern. Is he talking about getting excited about being taught about Knowing Christ, the power of his resurrection, the fellowship of his sufferings, and being conformed to his death? Are we excited that our citizenship is in heaven and therefore this life rally isn’t so important?

Or is the “fruit” of this speaking not really about knowing a lot of stuff. Or praising the Lord for it over and over at meetings. Maybe we need to continue on to the next page (chapter). There it is. Live in harmony. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. (And I don’t think that the word “spirit” was a reference to one of Nee’s parts of man.) Don’t be anxious (I could use some of that right about now), but let your requests be known to God. (Don’t just pray for “high” things.) The peace of God will guard your hearts and minds. Dwell on things that are true, right, pure, lovely, of good repute.

But if we take this one verse (Phil 3:10) in isolation, it is easy to understand it as some kind of challenge for a knowledge quest. To ignore life and seek the spiritual. And that is only truly possible in the false world in which the secular is not spiritual for the Christian. The world where normal living is a distraction from Christ.

I would not say that there is nothing in Phil 3:10 to contemplate. But to see it as mostly a challenge to “see” more and more of Christ without reference to its effects on our normal lives rather than understanding the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness which has everything to do with our lives is to miss the point. While the point is Christ, when stated in those few words, those of inner-life leaning take it to mean that the point is spirituality for the sake of spirituality. More knowledge connected to inner senses for the purpose of instilling those senses into others. It is not for the purpose of our living here and now.

Now TAS did not say that much. But he did go on to compare how much Paul must have already known about Christ because of whatever training he got in those 14 years, including this almost out-of-body experience mentioned elsewhere. TAS is of a tradition that, like Lee, Nee, and many others, is too focused on isolated spirituality and not on the full gospel of "Christ with man" to reclaim us as those bearing his image in the world here and now. Not just in the New J. And until then, not just in meetings.

In short (too late!), while I do not find anything entirely wrong about this short devotional by TAS, I do think that it misses the point in two ways. First, it is too focused on a mark on the bark of a tree in a large forest that is what Paul is trying to speak about. Second, with or without the first miss-focus, I believe that the goal is too ethereal and almost totally impractical. Not that ethereal is entirely wrong, or that the practical is everything, but that if there is no practical, it does not matter how right your ethereal is.