Stirred not Shaken

What would it take for you to act upon an impression that you thought might be the Holy Spirit? If absolute certainty is your threshold, you will never move upon any inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Even if your condition to act is merely that you have to apply thoughtful consideration before acting (that seems wise, right?), anything that is of an urgent nature, i.e. that requires an immediate response, will never be done either. We can easily undermine our experience of things spiritual and miraculous in the name of caution and prudence. 

Things of the Spirit (pneumatikos) are anything but certain. According to Christ, it takes faith to cast out demons, heal the sick, and move mountains. In the realm of things the Spirit inspires, there is a gap between what is and what could be that only faith can fill. If we are not willing to strike out in faith on the basis of an inspiration, call it a holy hunch, we will never experience the kinds of supernatural things that are mentioned throughout the New Testament.

Substituting our judgment for the Holy Spirit's is not prudence or wisdom, nor is it faithful--what it is, is a surefire way to quench the Holy Spirit and live a life without the miraculous.

It is a misapprehension to think that a lightning bolt from heaven would strike (or something nigh unto it) if you were meant to heal the sick, or speak a prophetic word, or exercise power against an unclean spirit. Not many, if any, of us are ever going to experience anything like that! Jesus didn't experience that, Peter didn't experience that, and Paul didn't experience that. Elijah learned the hard way not to expect to. 

We need sensitivity to the intimate voice of God within us to catch the stirring of the Spirit.

When God's whisper falls on our "ear", we have to act in faith or we'll miss the opportunity to do a greater work. If that happens, something Jesus went to the cross and ascended into heaven to make possible ends up being missed entirely. We are not meant to live satisfied with the Cessationist's paltry gospel, which is little more than an academic exercise in criticism, history and philosophy that devolves into endless debates over the meanings of words. What we are called to be is powerful witnesses of Christ to the world after that the Holy Spirit comes upon us. 

The Holy Spirit has a way of making himself heard to the hearing ear. To those that have one, much more will be given. To those who turn a deaf ear to God the Spirit, what could have been theirs is lost, like a fruitful field of grain that went unharvested. We're partnered with God, someone we can absolutely trust. When that hunch that might be the Holy Spirit stirs within, we must take faith in hand and act or we'll lose the opportunity.

James Bond, despite his iconic instruction concerning his taste in spirits, would be dead wrong in the realm of the Spirit: it's always better to be stirred, not shaken.

I Was in the Spirit

John uses the expression, "I was in the Spirit" twice in the Apocalypse. Once at 1:10, and once at 4:2. That he was referring to the same state of experience both times could hardly be argued against. What that state was we are about to explore, though it is not explicitly developed in the text. The sort of thing it results in, on the other hand, was explicitly demonstrated throughout the Revelation.

In both instances, the phrases are exactly the same in Koine. On their face, they refer to a locus in or among the Spirit. In the way that one can be "in the wind" or even "in the sun", the Apostle John was in the Spirit. What he is communicating by this was that he was experiencing a pointed (and I would say virtually tangible) consciousness of the divine presence.

This was not John's common or moment-to-moment experience of the Spirit. There are clear enough references to the inception of the experience in both occurrences. In the first usage, this something special happened to occur one Sunday on Patmos. In the second usage, the condition was initiated immediately upon hearing the voice beckoning him to heaven. In both cases, it seems clear that the experience as recorded represented a change from what was going on before.

The word used [ginomai] to describe the existence of John's state packs within it the idea of "becoming" rather than simply being. In other words, John emerged into this state (really, was born into it) at the moment in reference. It is not described in trance-like terms, though the word "ecstasy" is often bandied about while commenting on it. It is ridiculous to do so in my mind, for John betrays no rapture, no enthusiasm, no exhilaration nor any euphoria in conjunction with this experience. Really, there is nothing but matter-of-fact reportage associated with it.

More than anything else the state of being in the Spirit, at least from the accounts of John's being so, is about awareness of the very presence of God--not theoretically, not by faith, but in actuality. If we can generalize from John's experience to any of our's (and I think we can), being in the Spirit is like having a light go on in the dark which suddenly reveals things one would otherwise be unaware of. Those things could be revelations regarding heaven or earth or about the activity of God in a moment past, present or future.

If there is anything precedential or paradigmatic about John's experience, I think it can be said in regard to its application to us, that coming to be in the Spirit (really, acting on charismatic distinctives) is about coming to an acute awareness of God's immediate presence and what he is up to. As a result of that awareness prophecy, or healings, or works of power, or miracles are then manifested in this world. Those manifestations do not break into existence because someone exercised enough faith to produce them, but because someone had come to be in the Holy Spirit.

The Insufficiency of the Word

I knew cessationist, who, in the name of the sufficiency of scripture, promoted a practice of Christianity that doesn't really resemble what is described in those pages at all. The Word to him is like a book of charts, which by careful use of a trained intellect and skill, can be used to navigate the course of one's life into the will of God. Never does he have a conviction, an inspiration, never a check, a nudge, and certainly never a revelation--he has his mind, the determination of his belief, and a map.

In light of his deterministic outlook, I suppose it doesn't make sense to worry about this, but I cannot see how the concept of regeneration he holds Calvinistically can be consistent with such a view. Regeneration, according to his view (and mine as well for that matter), is necessary, foundational and completely, solely the purview of the Holy Spirit. One would think that something established on the basis of the Holy Spirit communicating something into the human soul would be open to other things being communicated as well, building, as it were, upon the foundation of experience the Holy Spirit laid in regeneration.

But no, apparently something started by the Spirit can be carried on by foreseen and manipulated human effort, at least that is what it appears like to me. Let God stay in the heavens, we have the Scriptures and they are sufficient! But those same scriptures describe the Holy Spirit interactively making what is described in them possible for us to experience. It seems to me that is their point, for instance, note the following passages: Matthew 13:9-17, 1 Corinthians 2, John 15:26-16:15, Galatians 5:13-25, 1 Corinthians 12:13-31.

The Word truly is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. But, whereas the Word is sufficient to describe the kind of things Christians can and should do and believe, the Word can never substitute for the experience of the things it describes. It's not enough to talk about spiritual matters, we need to experience the life of the Spirit. In saying that, I am not suggesting that the Word is not important, I merely am saying that we need to understand its importance rightly.

It is not the hearers of the Word that are blessed, but its doers! That is those who experience what it talks about. The Word is there to tell us what we will and can experience in Christ if we believe. We need to act on what we read, AND we need the Holy Spirit communicating his goodness, desire and power into our being so we can. With the scriptures' encouragement, may we, with freedom and boldness, endeavor to do the things described in the book and to do them as led by the Spirit.

Why Cessationism Bugs Me

There are many brothers and sisters who don't see the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the same way that I do. That's OK, although I wish for them the experiences I have had in the Holy Spirit, and even better ones. Honest Christians who don't see from the Word the way into such experiences, are acceptable to me. What isn't are smug naysayers who justify in their own minds an experience of Christianity which isn't like that reported in the Word. All the while, ridiculing those who dare to believe that such an experience could be theirs.

Demands are made for proof, for documentation, for willingly undergoing a spiritual colonoscopy to satisfy the lack of belief in the naysayer. Jesus never felt compelled to bend to similar demands from his naysayers, I see no reason for the spiritually experienced to do so today. I say that any explanatory onus is not on the one endeavoring to live experientially in line with what's in the Word, but on the one who isn't experiencing what is described in the Word. In light of the divergence their experience demonstrates from what is reported in the Word, it is the cessationists and spiritually inactive who have some explaining to do!

I understand, there have been all manner of fleshy demonstrations, goofiness, and out and out fraud among charismatics, but how is that record any worse (or even different) from that for cessationist Christianity. The plain truth is that for cessationists God is mutable, and perhaps even disabled. Without warning or explanation he pulled the rug out from under the disciples' mission and changed their assigned techniques for evangelism and practice within the church. What could be the reason for that, did he run out of power?

If anything changed, it was Christians, specifically their faith in God to demonstrate what he said he would demonstrate through them. It is not surprising to me that when and where Christians dare to believe that what is described in the Word can be their experience, it becomes their experience. God has not changed, neither has his mission for the church, nor the power he makes available for them to do what he's commanded. I think what needs to change is us.

The Sufficiency of God II

In highlighting the sufficiency of God, rather than that of the scriptures, I am addressing a shockingly erroneous viewpoint of Christianity that has folk endeavoring to live a life that looks nothing like that presented in the scriptures. These folk are always cessationists, and more often than not, Calvinists. For them, living a godly life is getting out a slide rule and compass, as it were, and applying them to the scriptures, trying to calculate how to do Christianity without exhibiting hardly any of the features that were practiced by the Apostles and the early church and recorded in scriptures. 

The Bible is all-sufficient to guide our faith--what we should believe, and sufficient to guide our practice--these are the kinds of things we should experience and these are the things to avoid, but it is meant to produce a life like it describes. That includes God speaking in real time, the Holy Spirit influencing direction and decision, and inspiring speech and deeds. To pursue some folks view of the sufficiency of scriptures, one, in effect, must white-out huge tracts of the word, all in the name of the word being sufficient. Sufficient for what, I might ask, producing life pretty similar to life without God? Honestly, the only motivation I can see for such action is unbelief!

The wrong view of sufficiency ends up with the believer treating God agnostically, as if he came, dropped off this book and then disappeared, unheard from ever since. The practical effect of such a view is that we are not brought up to the lap of God, through Christ, but stuck behind a curtain trying to figure out life by our best reckoning from the book. That seems to me an empty thing to attribute to the living God.

If we are holding up the word as sufficient in defining and directing Christianity, that sufficiency should entail producing a life that matches what the word describes and exhorts us to experience. Anything else, anything less is a disservice to the Word, not an homage to its sufficiency. When cessationists arrogantly cast aspersions on those endeavoring to walk in the promises of the word, while they staunchly cling to their lack of biblical experience, I must admit I get irritated. If all they offer in their view of the sufficiency of scripture is a "glass empty" vision of life with God actively removed, I think I'll gladly stay with the sufficiency of God.

Some Thoughts on Pneumatology and Monergism

How does the Holy Spirit work with people? Does he have different techniques with different people, or differing approaches for different intended affects? I don't know that the scriptures tell us enough to get too dogmatic about such questions, but they tell us something.

We have instances in the scriptures where the Holy Spirit appears to act almost monergistically in the life of a person. Bezalel and Oholiab (perhaps), Saul, and Caiaphas are examples, none of whom can we say with any confidence were "right" with God and therefore likely to be among those walking the streets of gold. And then we have instances and references in the scriptures where the Holy Spirit is repudiated by people he was trying to influence like Jonah, the Jews, and the folk in the church. Hmmm, man thwarting God Almighty--seems weird, and a little scary!

We also have instances in the scriptures where there appears to be a working partnership between the Holy Spirit and the person he's inspiring. Really, that's how the scriptures got here in the first place, but we also have the examples of Moses, David, Elijah, Elishah, John, Jesus, Peter, Philip, Paul, John, and more. Even though one could try to infer a monergistic-like experience in Acts 2 or Acts 10, I really don't believe that was what was going on (see Acts 2:4 or 1 Corinthians 14:32).

What we don't see, clearly, in the scriptures is an imposition of the Holy Spirit upon someone who is a Christian. So, if  the Holy Spirit monergistically convicts, infuses, and regenerates the born again apart from the any decision or cooperation of the saved, how is it that everything else the Spirit does is resistible?

Saving the Enemy

My analysis of biblical end-times prophecy has brought me to theorize that the Antichrist will start out as a nominal Muslim and that his initial empire will be among the Muslim nations in the Levant. Such a thought holds the potential of eliciting an animosity toward Muslims in those persuaded by it. Seeing them as the accomplices of the Antichrist's end-times villainy doesn't cast them in the best of light after all.

I've also stated that opposing the rise of the Antichrist is like spitting into the wind. I believe the rise of the Antichrist will seem logical and even good in its day, and it is part of God's stated plan to wind up redemption history an initiate redeemed eternity. God wants all men saved and all the saved in eternity with him. To poke a finger in the dike trying to withstand the rise of the Antichrist is tantamount to crying "Nahchetlawd" instead of "Maranatha!"

With this in view, what should our attitude be toward the Muslim tribe? Is God's attitude and reaction to Saul of Tarsus any clue? This post by my blogging friend, Dr. Michael Davis, may be of some help in answering those questions. The old iconic image of an alarm clock, with its two bells sounding the alarm, might be a useful illustration. A resurgence of jihadist Islam sounds one ominous tone; the miraculous, Holy Spirit launched rescue mission among Muslims closed off from the evangelistic forays of the church sounds another.

The harmonious ringing of discordant alarms says to the the church, "Wake up, our redemption draws nigh!"

What Church Should Be Like

To those of you who may be wondering how what I've been sharing on 1 Corinthians 14 can be implemented in today's church, I'm going to sketch out some clear action points, but first I need to tackle a couple of things that are NOT putting this scripture into practice.

Creating little pigeon-hole jobs or "helpful" little tasks to which the broadest swath of the congregation possible may be recruited to is not putting this passage into practice. That everyone should be active in the body in some way is a biblical concept, but where in the scriptures does it say that the pastor is the one who speaks, conceives the vision for the church, directs everyone else's action and everyone else just helps him or her?

Acts of service cast as helping the preacher (or for more sophisticated congregations, helping the ministry) is not only unscriptural, they're pathetic. 

Most of the attempts I'm familiar with by churches to involve people in ministry actually fall into that variety of thing, basically, top down, "make 'em feel a buy in," "keep 'em busy so they don't cause trouble" manipulations. Is that what the body of Christ is supposed to be about? Why not just pat the good folks on the head, melodiously intone, "good dog," and tell them to be happy handing everyone who walks in a flier about the Great Church Yard Sale.

Plugging people into such jobs by means of giftedness testing is not putting this passage into practice either. I can't even find a whiff in the scriptures to support the practice. It's worldly, developed from psychobabble and secular human resource management. It treats the church as just another organization of people, subject to the same psychosocial manipulation such groupings are, rather than treating it as the Spirit-indwelt body of Christ that it is.

Spiritual giftedness has nothing to do with what you like or dislike, what tasks you're good or bad at, or anything about your track record. It's giftedness from the Spirit, not you! If Christians have no inkling of their spiritual giftedness, it's because they haven't asked God to clarify it, or are insisting upon being something God isn't making them. It does help to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but if one does what one senses to do in his or her closest moments with Christ, that one will discover what gift he or she is to the body with ease.

Try things while yielded in your heart and mind to God— you'll find your giftings just fine!

Now to those action points I promised...
 

When we come together, i.e. meet as a church, everyone should be able to participate, vocally as well as in cooperative action. Some may have special areas of service; ushering, sound room, nursery, instrumental music, etc., but everyone has the potential and should have the possibility of participating vocally. If our meetings are too large to make that realistic, maybe our meetings are too large. If that is the case, we have to ask ourselves whether it is better to divide and be scriptural in practice, or to cherish egotism and convenience and be too large to act scripturally?

If our meetings are too structured to make this possible, we've bowed down at the idol of order rather than at the feet of Jesus. Believers are not served well by asking nothing of them, allowing little for them to experience or offer, or by encouraging superstition among them by giving them the mere salve of religion. That only allows their hearts to wander, it can't get them where God wants them to be. Flocks belong to God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit that he has supplied to the body must always take precedence over the tastes or conveniences of the undershepherd.

When we come together, anyone, maybe even at anytime, could be inspired by the Holy Spirit to open up his or her mouth and share.

That offering may take the form of a spiritual song (in known or unknown language), it may be something prophetic that instructs, or uncovers, it may be an utterance in a language unknown to the speaker (and anyone else for that matter), or it may be an interpretation of something brought forward in an unknown language. The key point is that in presiding over our gatherings, elders should anticipate that any and every one, not just the preacher, could be used of God to vocally bring forth a message from God for the benefit of all.

People and preachers worry about disorder, and I understand that, but how is enforced silence more spiritual than chaotic participation? Quenching the Spirit, despising prophecy, and limiting anointing are not appropriate responses to the messiness of the Spirit's promptings within the body. Leaders need hearts more like Moses! To lead meetings in a biblical fashion will require some extra effort from elders: they'll need to test everything, they'll need to correct some things, they'll need to simply overlook others and adjust.

Order does not require that everything be planned neatly and tied up in a bow. That probably won't make good television, but really, since when is television "ministry" about anything other than bringing in some outside donations? It likely won't do much for convenience either, but a believer overly concerned about convenience probably isn't really a believer anyhow. Our approach to our meetings should be to be as accommodating and inviting as possible to the Spirit's inspiration throughout the body.

Church meetings are for the body's expression, not just the preacher's. They should be conducted so the body gets to experience and express the Holy Spirit, not so they can watch the preacher do so. This may be a radical concept to you, but read the manual, it's absolutely scriptural. The Bible does not tell us to eagerly quench the Spirit out of fear or for the sake of order, but to eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. God hasn't left it up to us to do in church whatever we like, we have instructions from him which tell us what church should be like.

Is your church obeying them?

Addendum: Check out Dr. D's post on John Wimber.

The Charismatic Trigger

The Trigger

Those of us in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement revere the "moving" of the Holy Spirit. Moments where God's presence is palpable, where signs and wonders arise unbidden and lives are transformed in a flash is the chocolate we crave. A chocoholic is not satisfied to wait with baited breath in hopes of the next chance to indulge her taste. She figures out how to ensure a ready supply of her desired confection.

There are all kinds of books, videos, conferences, and training schools advertising their ability to inculcate the necessary skills and understanding to replicate whatever example or model of Spirit visitation they're promoting. In fact, every time so much as a whiff of revival wafts on the air[waves], folk rush to the scent hoping to get a taste of the chocolate. If they're fortunate, they might just get some to take home with them.

Generally, what people learn from such things are techniques, or in other words, works. If they fast for so long or they pray so long, in concert with so many; if they confess all known sin and even the sins of others; if they clean up their acts to such and so a degree; if they begin to do this or that... you get the picture: Spiritual visitation comes in answer to works! What does the Bible say about such a construct? 

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?  Galatians 3:1-5

The Galatians didn't do anything in order to prime the pumps of the heavenly anointing. They just believed God's promise. That's the pattern of Abraham, it's the pattern of grace. We keep looking for that ever elusive, ever changing trigger that will launch the next Charismatic tidal wave, and we always end up looking at ourselves for the answer. The truth is that God wants to anoint us, wants to bless us, he promises to do so.

If the target is a new season of the Spirit moving among us, the only trigger that needs to be pulled is the trigger of faith.

The Trigger Finger

...eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy   1 Corinthians 14:1

Christians have different opinions about what's really important in practice. No one could deny the centrality of love, for God, and for each other. Faith is absolutely essential, for whatever is not of faith is sin. Holiness cannot be done without, for without it, no one will see the Lord, (thankfully it's derivative). I wonder why we so rarely give "that which is of the Spirit" (πνευματικός) a seat at the table, despite what the Apostle Paul says about it in the verse above?

"Eager desire" is not even close to describing most Christians pursuit of spiritual things. At best their pursuit is hit and miss, completely negligent, or even purposeful avoidance. Given that, is it really perplexing that God doesn't move in his church the way he once did? Do we even want the Holy Spirit to move amongst us, really?

What is called for, at least according to the Word, is zealousness-- a roiling, boiling, heated passion to see and experience the things Holy Spirit can inspire.

We can't, and we're not meant to, do this alone, as singular entities. The scriptural pattern is zealousness in concert. There were 120 in the upper room, and the verse above is addressed to the church in Corinth. As much as God loves any of us individually, there are promises and experiences in the Holy Spirit he intends for us to realize together.

The expressions, the sensible exertions, the remarkable evidences of the Spirit's presence and activity are not going to rain down on the indifferent, nor drop on the doubtful, nor inspire the insipid. Religion is truly a vain, sickening spectacle. Are we satisfied to go through the motions, and rituals, and lifeless assemblies, when according to the plan, we're meant to experience and demonstrate the very presence of God. 

Faith embraces the promise of God— not one of those hands-on-the-shoulder-dip-inward facsimile hugs, but one of those bear hugs my old friend Demetrius used to lift me off the ground with. We have been promised in the Holy Spirit more than we have let ourselves be satisfied with. We have found comfort in the dull and unchallenging, we've been reticent to leave ourselves behind and launch out in trust in the Spirit. It's time for some passion.

And when faith puts its finger on the Spirit's trigger, it's time to shoot.

Who Are Tongues Addressed To?

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:2 (NIV)

Who are tongues addressed too?

Some Pentecostal scholars have suggested that the audience of tongues is God, and therefore, the interpretation of tongues should address God as well in order to be legitimate. Under such a regimen, an interpretation that addressed people (as in prophecy) would be considered out of order out of hand. Is this intimated in scripture and should this be the standard leaders apply in accepting or rejecting intepretations? No, for two reasons.

1) Although this text says straightforwardly that a tongue speaker speaks mysteries to God, in saying so its intent is not to dictate the direction of tongues. The passage states very clearly why a tongue speaker, in effect, speaks to God-- only God can understand him. No one else does; to the people hearing it, it's merely babble. God alone understands the tongue itself, even if it was directed to men.

To extrapolate from that functional reality and say that tongues must be directed conversationally toward God is to say more than, and other than the scripture says in context. Although there are passages which anecdotally imply direction toward God, that is not the same as asserting that the direction must be toward God just because it was in those instances.

In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 (NIV)

2) When Paul quotes Isaiah to point to an Old Testament presage of tongues, he clearly reverses the direction of communication. In other words, God speaks to men through the strange tongues that men are speaking to other men. If the model for tongues in the Old Testament has it directed from God to men, why would anyone doubt that the fulfillment of the image in New Testament Spirit-filled tongues would do the same?

Since God inspires both the tongues and the intepretation, it is up to him to determine what is done with them, including the direction of the communication. The only objective tests we are given in scripture regarding any spoken utterance deal with content, not direction. If we listened to the proponents of this directional theory, we would wind up paying undue attention to the pronouns in a message rather than its actual content. What excess or error could that possibly address?

Aren't there enough real problems for charismatics to deal with that we don't have to go around turning stones over looking for intellectual trifles to stumble over?

The List of Manifestations of the Spirit

There is but one list of manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the entire Bible. It is broad enough in its descriptions to include virtually every sign or evidence there is that the Holy Spirit is active. And that is, after all, what manifestations (phanerosis) are, signs that the Holy Spirit is producing something in the moment. These miracles are like a neon sign: the breath of God sparks into visible light which evidences that the Holy Ghost is at work, then the spark ceases and the light goes out. Shine on, shine off!

Though the Holy Spirit is resident in the believer, the spark is not. It ignites according to the will of the Spirit for the common good at whatever moment the Spirit deems appropriate. It is therefore an error to look upon the list of manifestations as ministries, THEY ARE NOT!!! They may reoccur in a believer's life, they may not. A believer may manifest all of them over some interval, he or she may manifest only a few. They are merely the signs that follow them that believe. The annotated list below, cross-referenced to scriptural examples of that sign occurring is offered for whatever benefit you might derive.

THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

A Word of Wisdom: a discourse of reasoning (i.e. how to best go about a thing) inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is not the same as being wise or experienced, nor is it the garden variety of wisdom--it is an instance, a flash, of dam-busting, mountain-moving inspiration whose insightful benefactions accrue to the church rather than the inspired. It's the sort of thing the human mind would not produce apart from the inspiration of God. (Acts 15:28-29)

A Word of Knowledge: a discourse revealing information or awareness that would be impossible to know apart from the inspiration of God. This is not about being intelligent, or well-learned, or psychic. It is God dropping, like a coin into a slot (clink, clank!), something into one's consciousness that he or she would otherwise never know, and which benefits the body rather than the "knower". Healings are wrongly attributed to this manifestation in many circles. If a healing is called out, that IS NOT A WORD OF KNOWLEDGE, that is a gift of healing! I suppose I shouldn't get too ticky-tack about that, at least those doing so have faith and are moving in the Holy Spirit, but sort of bugs me nonetheless. (Acts 5:1-11; 13:8-12)

Faith: a conviction inspired by the Holy Spirit which in turn inspires the body. We all need faith, it's the currency of heaven. It's what makes things possible, but there are moments when the Spirit zaps one of us with a faith which inspires the rest of us to believe and act. (Acts 27:21-26)

Gifts of Healings: God's grace multiplied through a variety of healings for the benefit of the body. This does not refer to therapy over time, but to instantaneous or timely cures, miracles not medicine. There is an unusual feature in this manifestation: both the word "gifts" and "healings" are plural, they don't travel alone! Like Santa with a satchel, the grantee of this manifestation passes out these gifts until they're all gone. When the Holy Spirit manifests healing, expect an outbreak--not just a healing, but healings.

There are gifted healers (see this for the discussion of such), but that is not quite the same as the manifestation in question. Undoubtedly, those so gifted will be visited by this manifestation over and over again, but the manifestation could fall on any at anytime, not just the healers. I should also point out that this is not the same as an answer to prayer. Healing is ours through the atonement of Christ and accessible to all through faith and prayer, but that is not the same as a Holy Ghost outbreak of healing determined according to his will rather than our prayers. (Acts 5:15-16; 19:11-12)

Operations of Powers: exercisings of God's powers resulting in miracles which benefit the church. The plural thing is working in this manifestation too, although the context is not as discreet as in healing. The performance of a miracle, let say raising the dead, actually involves more than one power (e.g., reanimation, reconstitution, healing, etc.), whereas a healing has remedying a malady in focus (e.g., leprosy). Therefore, the plural is not as indicative of an outbreak as it was in healing. On a side note, as much as my modern mind would like to classify casting out demons as a working of power, the Bible, almost uniformly, lumps that miracle in with healing. (Acts 20:9-12; 28:3-6)

Prophecy: a public discourse emanating from the Holy Spirit, spoken for the strengthening, encouragement, and comfort of the body. This is NOT prognostication nor handicapping the Spirit's move! The kingdom is not the stock market nor a horse race, and that kind of behavior is just out of order and illegitimate. I wish national ministry figures, like Pat Robertson, would stop fomenting that awful error! There is no need for prophecy to even mention the future, although it may. There is no NT precedent for prophetic words spoken privately, that would go against the stated purpose of manifestations profiting withal. Personal "words" spoken in private are out of order out of hand.

Prophecy is not to be taken as authoritative. Prophecies can never stand against Apostolic witness (the NT) and are subject to the scrutiny of the body to determine whether or not they are legitimate. If they don't measure up, they should be tossed aside as easily as a preacher would toss the rough draft of a sermon in the round can file. If a speaker is found to have spoken apart from the Holy Ghost, that does not mean he or she should be taken out and stoned! That's OT, and a different dynamic in prophecy. Correct the error, shrug it off, and move along.

Personally, I don't believe prophecies should be prepared in advance of delivery (note the exception below), recorded for posterity, nor vetted by the few, the proud, the ordained. Other prophets can judge prophecies without cloistering them for deliberations like the college of cardinals, and making the speaker or the congregation wait with baited breath to see what color smoke rises from the chimney. Even if something is really foul, we can always call fire down from heaven, or inspired by Ananias and Sapphira, call for the offenders to be slain in the Spirit. That certainly would produce an edifying, howbeit chilling, affect withal!

I could see one who is gifted as a prophet speaking prophetically without necessarily manifesting prophecy. At its root, prophecy is fundamentally public speaking; spiritually, the assumption is that the speech is inspired divinely. Since a prophet has an ongoing ministry of speaking prophetically, he or she may be inspired at times other than at the moment of speaking, and may in fact be prepared to speak in advance of delivery. For the non-prophet, however, I would anticipate prophesying to occur in the moment of inspiration-- shine on, shine off. (Acts 4:8-12)

Discernings of Spirits: discriminating what spirits are active [in people] to benefit the church. How do we tell whether or not a manifestation is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, or an unholy spirit? How do we know that someone is demonized? If we don't see the obvious, we won't, and cannot with certainty, without God revealing it.

This is not psychic ability, there are no mind-readers or heart-sifters in the Kingdom of God, no freaky Rasputins that have the ability to stare into your soul. This is not sharp insight or perceptive wisdom. It is discerning of spirits, not discernment alone! It is an instant distillation of Holy Spirit acuity into what spirit is acting in a person, condensed in the consciousness of the recipient, for the moment it's needed for the good of the body. Shine on, shine off.

Plurals are present in the phrase for this manifestation too, for similar reasons, I think, that they are present in the gifts of healings. Since this will often be a companion miracle to casting out devils (one sort of healing), its manifestation is a prerequisite to, and must synchronize with those instances of healing that involve demons. (Acts 16:17-18)


Kinds of Tongues: an utterance in an unknown language. Whereas there are occasions when some hearer of the utterance will know the language, the speaker never does. This is always manifested when a believer is baptized in the Holy Ghost, and is volitional for the believer thereafter, but that does not translate into any believer speaking tongues at any time for public consumption. That is the error Paul was trying to correct at Corinth. To speak in tongues for public consumption, the Holy Spirit must inspire the speaker to do so specifically in that moment.

The use of the plural for kinds and tongues signifies that a person manifesting tongues need not speak in the same unknown language he or she has spoken before. The speaker does not even need to end an utterance in the same language that he or she began it in! Another level of mystery and marvel is added to this remarkable sign when we consider that kinds includes tongues that are not human language!

It is disrespectful and incredibly arrogant to label tongues as the mindless babbling of the ecstatically overwrought. Instead, we should see it as a miracle wrought by God. Any church that despises prophesying or prohibits tongues is clearly out of order and operating against the command of God. Any church doing so, and any purported teacher teaching so, is in rebellion and needs to repent.

Interpreting Tongues: giving the meaning of an utterance of tongues to bless the church. This is not literal translation (the interpreter is not given the power to parse the tongue), but a revelation of the meaning conveyed. The interpreter has no more understanding of the tongue spoken than the speaker! The plural in this phrase is limited to the word tongues, i.e. not the interpretations of tongues, which means there is but one meaning for an utterance, not a selection of possibilities. There may be more than one language spoken, but there is only one message.

The interpretation is always in a language known to the interpreter. When a tongue is spoken for public consumption (as opposed to personal blessing at a reduced volume), it must be interpreted. (Acts 2:14-28)

********************************************

There you have it, the list of signs and wonders that make up the toolbox of the gifted. Any of the gifted may be inspired to use any of these tools in his or her ministry, but some gifts revolve around the consistent, repeated manifestation of certain of these signs. When the Holy Spirit decides it is time for one of the gifted to pick up one of these tools, the lights come on; when that instance of use is over, the lights go out. The tool is taken out, the tool is put back in the box. When practicing the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, we always need to remember this simple motto: "shine on, shine off."

Sail in the Breath of God

The one thing most essential and yet most feared in revival is the Holy Spirit. People have been misinterpreting the indications and expressions of his presence from the beginning of the church age. His activity and influence are often seen as excessive, ecstatic, and irrational. That's not what's actually happening in revival, but why is the Holy Spirit's influence often mistakenly perceived as raw emotion or irrational foolishness?

One possible answer is that the Holy Spirit, moving among us, makes God tangibly real. That is a spooky, scary proposition for sinful mankind. We're more comfortable with some distance and some room for interpretation. That's been the case since the beginning of the human race. God walking in the garden wouldn't seem a frightful image, but sin distorts our perception and makes us cower in fear hidden away from what is actually a very approachable God.

Perhaps even more frightful is showing up in the camp in power. His presence, all too real, is overpowering, so we'd rather let someone else deal with him. We're comfortable at a distance, capable of ignoring him from our little corner, able to go on with life unaffected. Religion doesn't make one any less likely to adopt such an approach, if anything, religion is that approach, and the religious always fight revival. It is better in their minds to classify revival as emotional excess so that it can avoided proscriptively and dismissed out of hand if it should sneak past resistance and break out in some quarter. 

Another possible answer is the human desire for control. That, too, has been around since the beginning of sinful humankind. It's not consistent though-- folk will let anything and anyone lead them down the primrose path, as long as it's not God. When they do follow God, it tends to be the boxed variety, not the One who can meet us up close and personal and rock our world. There are real consequences to God being real, and some folk will avoid them at any cost.

Emotions can be difficult to control, if not impossible. That's why big boys (as I was told when I was young) and big girls (thanks Fergie and Frankie Valli for the info) don't cry. Cross the threshold of uncontrolled emotion and there's no telling where things might end. Don't open that Pandora's box! For the unwilling, all that is necessary is to equate revival with emotionalism and the rationale of suppression is turnkey ready.

To step past the cherubim and see God, to walk with him in the garden, we are going to have to humble ourselves and let God be God. That is a frightening prospect, I understand. But blast the consequences, God is beyond our control anyhow, whether up close and personal or not. Control is just an illusion that keeps us from being real with God and God from being real to us. So, hoist the main sail and let your ship ride on the wind!

Revival awaits some souls hungry for a visit with God, who cast off fleshly mooring lines that keep them bound to the manageable and mundane, and who, with faith in hand, set off unafraid to sail in the breath of God.

Bring on the Wooden Spoon

It's humid today in Pennsylvania, downright soupy. In fact, the air's so thick, if God was minded to, he could drop a big wooden spoon out of the heavenlies and give everything a good stir. Maybe that's just what we need--a heavenly stirring! A whirling breeze exchanging the stale for the fresh, the energy of air on the move, roiling up the grace of new savors throughout the pot. As much as a change in the weather of wind and air would be nice, a change in the weather of Spirit would be even nicer.

Am I longing for revival? Perhaps, but there are some drawbacks that make me pause. Revivals have occurred frequently throughout the age of the church, so much so, that we can look at their characteristics and make some observations. There are some negatives!

Revivals fade. Generally speaking, they last for for about 3-6 years, and then, in about the same amount of time, whatever spiritual impact they've made on society has vanished, like the Titanic on the northern Atlantic. It might have been a big deal while it was afloat, but there wasn't even an oil slick marking it's passing shortly thereafter.

Revivals spoil the taste of their participants. Like candy does before a meal, revival makes everything else, even of substance, seem tasteless. The intensity and excitement of the revival experience hooks the desire of the participant like heroin does the addict. Afterwards ennui sets in, and the one revived becomes bored with, even critical of, the taste of life in the interregnum between revivals.

Revivals infect people with a self-centered spirituality. Participants become like kids in an amusement park. They bounce from one thing to the next looking for a bigger thrill. Experiences are compared on the basis of the thrill delivered. Preachers transform into carnival barkers, cheerleading about the rush to be felt at their meetings. Some turn into reverse-engineers trying to replicate and improve the thrill gotten at another venue. Spirituality riding on a roller coaster!

Revival displaces Jesus as the object of one's affections. Idolatry pure and simple: some of the "revived" relish revival more than they do friendship with Jesus! Their eyes on not fixed on the author and perfecter, but on the next possibility of revival.

Then, I look up from this soup, flicking my hands in frustration, spattering the world around me with sweat and tears, and realize just how badly we need a stirring. Our biggest thrill should be knowing the King of Glory personally, as a friend, rather than the gifts he lavishes on us, but we're thrilled with little if anything at all. Something's gotta change!

We could use some renewing:
A new start of obedience;
A fresh dedication to sharpening one another;
A new sensitivity to the Holy Spirit;
A new enthusiasm for knowing Christ personally;
A new hunger for making Him known to others.

All things being equal, I guess my hope is that God would bring out the big wooden spoon and stir up a revival.