Greater Gifts: Spiritual Ontogeny

There are two features of the gift list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that are particularly worthy of notice and dissection. Even though I've talked about one of them before here and here, the truth always bears repeating, so here I go again...

This list presents the gifts in an extending or telescoping fashion. The ordinals modifying the list are not rankings of gifts per se, but a demonstration of how they arise in time during the development of a church. The counsel in v. 29 may seem to indicate that a qualitative discrimination is intended, but I don't think it fits the context. Would Paul have spent all that effort to illustrate gifts with the body analogy-- pointing out how needed each gift was, how much care and respect each one needed from the others, how necessary it was to be the gift one was intended to be, only to chuck it all with one verse at the end?

In other words, would Paul have said, "Be a toenail, we need toenails, your unavoidable destiny is to be a toenail, but desire to be a head!" I don't think so! Even though Paul does use the comparative (meizon) in v. 29, he did not do so to negate all that he had said from vs. 12-27. If so, what was he saying and why did he follow up his arguments with chapters 13 and 14? My reading is that the Corinthian church was completely out of order when it came to the practice of manifestations and spiritual gifts.

When they assembled, everyone was trying to one-up everyone else in speaking with other tongues. The spiritual development of the body was arrested, the telescope jammed, and the full scope of gifts was not arising and functioning as it should have. Everyone was stuck on what, really, was an initiation experience that everyone went through. Yes, it was a sign (manifestation), but it had no practical import corporately, other than to evidence that someone had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. 

After the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the only good publicly speaking in tongues has is when it was combined with interpretation.

Interestingly enough, the fact that tongues is listed at all in v. 28 means that somewhere along the line in the development of the body, people will be gifted with an ongoing ministry of speaking (and interpreting) tongues. Granted, it will be when other body parts are more fully developed, but it is most certainly envisioned as a viable, body-blessing ministry. The rhetorical question of v. 29, then, is a self-evident corrective which reminds the Corinthians (and us) to practice everything according to its spiritual ontogeny.

What's the Point of Spiritual Gifting?

In a series of posts last year (here, here, here and here), I discussed the realities of how leadership (eldership) actually gets expressed in the modern church. Some of what is said this post will touch on some of the same material, but from a slightly different perspective. You may find it helpful to take a look those articles in conjunction with this posting, hence the links for your convenience.

When he dealt with the subject of spiritual gifts, Peter divided them into two classifications: speakers and servers. Paul divided them into two different classifications (what this post will develop) of two classifications. In Ephesians 4, he presents them in terms of the equippers and the equipped; and in 1 Corinthians 12, he presents them in terms of the foundational and the following. 

As I have argued before, the ordinals used in v. 28 refer to sequence of emergence, not comparative importance. Paul's point in using this demarcation was to show the proper development of gifts in the body from first appearing to appearing after some development, not to set up a hierarchy of value. Certainly, his aim wasn't to offer v. 29-31 as a qualitative gradient that would allow future cessationists to dismiss the miraculous.

The body of Christ, in any area, starts with one, or at best a very few people. Generally, that one was sent there by God to be his representative and to establish his kingdom in that place-- the very definition of the ministry of an apostle. When the apostle starts his work in any given place, he is the body of Christ, and whatever ministry comes forth, comes forth through him. As the Word, signs attending, begins to reap a harvest of souls, folk are added to the one and the body grows.

As the body grows, God raises up people from among those the apostle's ministry has added to speak as he leads them for the strengthening, encouragement and comfort of God's people-- the very definition of the ministry of a prophet. The church is thereby established as ministry is expanded beyond the apostle to the prophet. Therefore, it can be said that the apostles and prophets are foundational to all that is built upon their work in the time which is following. 

As growth and development continue, God raises up folk who can teach those who have come to believe in Christ what he has commanded and how to apply that word to daily living-- the very definition of the ministry of a teacher. Once the body is at the place where some greater measure of folks have become disciples of Christ, ministry expands into a host of more specialized giftings. At that point, the fact that not all are apostles, or prophets, or teachers, or work miracles, or heal, or speak in tongues, as a ministry, becomes self-evident. 

A obsessive fascination with, or a "self-appointment" to a particular gift out of place or prior to its time only hinders the proper Spirit-directed development of the body; hence, Paul's dissertation to the Corinthians on the subject. 

The list of gifts found in Ephesians 4, which we tackle now, is perhaps the most misunderstood of them all. Today, especially in some of the newer church movements, these gifts are seen, it seems to me, as expressions of authority rather than as functional utilities. Polity is established on having people serve in the "offices" of apostle and prophet, rather than understanding these things as endowments which serve a need in the body.

I believe this is a misappropriation of the scriptures, and practically, breeds cult-like authoritarianism rather than Christ-like service. Rather than misappropriating the names of apostle and prophet, why not borrow the tried and true and use the term, bishop. Church leadership is established, very clearly, by the New Testament in the office of elder (or bishop). If one can see that folks with differing gifts can serve as elders, the fight for biblical polity and proper understanding of gifting is half won!

There are four gifts mentioned in the list in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers. Listing them this way, rather than as five, acknowledges the particular grammar of the passage, even though other lists mention teaching separately. Evidently, in the context of Ephesians 4, it is the teaching aspect of pastoring that is being highlighted by Paul, rather than more administrative functions.

What these gifts have in common, and what is focused upon in our text, is that they serve a preparatory function within the body of Christ. The named four (some, in the text) are equippers, whereas the unnamed mass (of whom some will eventually be one of the four), are the equipped.

Believe it or not, Romans 10:17 provides a rationale as to why Paul would present the equipping gifts the way he did.

What is the means by which equippers take the raw material of Adamic flesh and build it into the body of Christ? It is the Word. The proclamation of the Word to the unbeliever brings new birth; the presentation of it to the novice is what inculcates truth; the application of it is what guides the established. In the kingdom, faith is what matters, and faith arises on the wings of the Word. So, the most fundamental quality of these four gifts is not authority of position, but in God-given ability to proclaim the word in the context of the gift.

Presenting pastoring in the unusual fashion he did (with teaching emphasized), I think, clinches the argument.

Apostles proclaim the word among a people which has not heard it in order to establish the church of Christ among them. Evangelists proclaim the word to folks that have not heard it so they might receive the good news of the gospel. Prophets proclaim the word, fitted for the moment, which helps folks be built up in it. Pastor/teachers proclaim the word to people who need to apply it to living with understanding. All of them endeavor to move folk along on the pathway to maturity and to their own service in the body through functional gifting.

So spiritual gifting is never about the titles or authority of leaders, but always about maturity, health and function of the body.

Manifestations of the Spirit vs.Spiritual Gifting

How are we to understand the concept of spiritual giftedness given the complex descriptions of them throughout the New Testament? Peter speaks of them once, Paul four times, none of what is said in one place overlays what is said in the other places neatly. Confusing! Perhaps, but I think we can clear things up, so let's take a deeper look.

What is a spiritual gift in the first place? In a nutshell, spiritual gifts are resident abilities granted by God to the born-again, which are different from person to person so that every believer is needed by every other believer in the body of Christ. They can be looked at from different angles and thereby appear quite distinct, which explains why Peter and Paul were able to present them so differently every time they mentioned them.

Peter saw them in their most fundamental nature. According to that angle, spiritual gifts (charisma) either result in someone speaking or someone providing some non-verbal service. That's a helpful division because it means the preacher isn't the only one used by God in the church. He's not even the only one who speaks! Peter specifically states that each one (so EVERYONE) in the church is gifted by God as either a server or a speaker.

Paul saw things a bit more layered. According to that angle, the results of being "inspirited" (pneumatikōn) by the Lord can be seen in three different facets of functional inspiration. On one hand, these are expressions of grace (charismaton); on another, they are utilities, or services rendered (diakonon); and lastly, they are the spiritual influence, or energy, that produces the outcomes (energematon). Regardless, they were all inspired by God in EVERYONE (just as Peter asserted), and each of them have the privilege of manifesting the Holy Spirit (vs. 7-11).

In his other writings, Paul gives lists of gifts three times. Some of the details in each occurrence are repeated, or are similar, some are different. In each instance, he approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective. I'd like to think those perspectives correlate to what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. In other words, I see one of Paul's lists emphasizing the grace that is responsible for the gifts expression, in another the utilitarian result of their inspiration is emphasized, and in the third the motivating, or enervating, quality that compels them is what is in view.

If this is so, and it is, there are two types of inspiration behind those entities generally called spiritual gifts today. One type of inspiration are the endowments of utilitarian grace, which could properly be called gifts. The other type are those spontaneous, momentary inspirations of spiritual power that is better, and more accurately, called manifestations of the Holy Spirit. A gift is something that is resident within the gifted person and correlates to the gift/service/working level mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. A manifestation is a momentary effect or evidence that the Spirit of God is in action through a person and which correlate to the list in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11.

Gifts are taken to the self and possessed. They remain over time, though they may develop (hopefully anyhow) but they are without repentance from God's perspective. Gifts are the body part a believer is. Every Christian is gifted by God with some resident ability or abilities that make that believer of indispensable utility to the body of Christ. Giftedness is just part of the nature of being born of the Spirit.

Manifestations flash on and then dissipate. Like a neon sign announcing the Spirit is open for business, they flash off when that business is done. They may or may not be indicative of that person's resident giftedness, they may or may not be something that recurs. They are the privilege, one or all of them, of any who are born of the Spirit and so are gifted.

I would liken these spiritual skills and manifestations to the plying of a trade in the world at large. Though each trade has it's own skill and art, generally limited to that trade, each tradesman still has a toolbox. The individual tools in a tradesman's box may look a little different from similar tools in others' boxes, yet every tool box has a hammer, some kind of wrench, a screwdriver, a cutting implement, some kind of tape, a measuring device.

You get the picture-- all the tradesmen use the same basic tools despite the differences in what they do. I liken this tool "interchangeability" to the manifestations of the Spirit. It is the task at hand, as determined by the Holy Spirit, that decides which tools get used and how. No tradesman uses only a hammer, nor is one sentenced to use only a saw, just because he or she used one once, or even because he or she happens to be a carpenter.

The Apostle Paul, not wishing us to be ignorant about how the Spirit inspires what he does, laid out this basic concept: in God everyone is gifted, and all the gifted can manifest the Holy Spirit. Your gift doesn't determine what you manifest, the Holy Spirit does, in the moment according to his will. Your gift will be apparent to others over time, what you manifest is never apparent until the moment it comes out. Some gifts, of course, will manifest some things more than others, but any of the gifted can produce any of the manifestations.

I think we need to expand our horizons and whet the appetite of our expectations in regard to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God means more for us than we are generally satisfied to receive. The Holy Spirit isn't cheering us on from the sideline, he's in the game with us-- in fact, he's our uniform and padding. We're all meant to play, and he intends us to win! Regardless of what position we may play (how we are gifted), we are all meant to evidence the miraculous moving of the Holy Spirit (through manifestations). 

In my next post, we'll look at those lists and see what they tell us about how many gifts there actually are, at least we'll sketch it out.

Where Did Evil Come From?

There is evil in the world. Everywhere. A biblical Christian would even say that there is a cabal of unseen conspirators promoting it. Where did it come from, and how did it manage to sprout like weeds under the eye of an omniscient, omnipotent God? To answer "the Devil" is too facile and actually leaves the question intact, unanswered. The Devil is evil, why it's in his very name! He certainly is the source of much that is evil, but then, where did his evil come from?

The Bible tells us that mankind is inherently evil-- an uncomfortable thought when applying it to oneself, yet readily understandable when applying it to others. Nonetheless, they are, and I attribute their evil to the same source as the Devil's. It wasn't God, for he is inherently good, at least it wasn't him directly. God is the ultimate free moral agent: he is conscious, rational, with powers of will and choice. 

That God made mankind and angels with similar powers as he possessed and set them free in creation with is the root of all evil.

How can those abilities which so distinguish humans from the plethora of the living be responsible for evil? A definition would be helpful before proceeding: evil  is that which is not good, and most fundamentally, that which is out of harmony with the ultimate good, which is God. Evil is the "un-God." When choice and will were expressed by man or angel independently of, and in opposition to God, evil was born. 

Evil, then, is the risk inherent in freedom.

All that was made was made as a home for mankind, the crowning achievement  of God's creation. When humans embraced evil and thereby shattered the crystal of that pristine environment, they alienated both the creation and the creature from God and what was good. As a result, sin, death and evil, which are the fruit of such a choice, have spattered everything in the universe with their rot, alive or  inanimate. Man, beast and the environment we live in have all been tainted by evil. 

Creation still bears the fingerprints of God, but its smudges betray, all too clearly the cost of image bearers going their own way instead of God's.