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.

Biblical Christianity is Inherently Mystical

Christianity is often analyzed as if it were an issue of philosophy, history or sociology. Some aspects of its doctrine, ecclesiology, or development are subject to such treatment, but it should be realized that such treatment can never actually touch the heart of what it truly is. That is because Christianity, at its core, is not about what a person assents to, what those assenting do together, or what impact they have on society and history. Christianity, at its core, is about what a person experiences in his or her soul.

Biblical Christianity, as practiced by the individual, is inherently mystical. And just so we're on the same page, let me define "mystical" as I am using it in this context. Mystical means that something is experienced, rather than merely known, but which does not have a seen or necessarily understandable genesis or impetus. By that definition, common aspects of Christianity are readily seen as mystical: conviction, faith, call, inspiration, grace all fit the bill.

Take a look at some passages of the Bible:
John 16:7-15                                    
John 6:44-47                                   
John 3:3-8                                    
Romans 12:3
Romans 14:17
Romans 8:3-17
1 Corinthians 2:10-15
1 Corinthians 12:1-13
Galatians 3:2-5
Galatians 5:4-6; 16-25
Ephesians 3:1-19

Anyone who truly believes that Jesus is the Son of God is by definition a mystic. Anyone who believes that they are born again is a mystic. Anyone who believes that God's Spirit enables them to do anything is a mystic. Anyone who believes that they experience the presence of God and have companionship with him is a mystic. Anyone practicing in real life what the Bible describes as life in Christ is a mystic.

Embrace the mystical foundation of Christianity. Christianity cannot be reduced to writing on paper, or even stone. It's written on the heart by God--it is inherently mystical. Do yourself a favor and let your inner mystic out.

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?

Love vs. Spiritual Gifts

It is not uncommon when speaking of spiritual gifts (and particularly tongues) to have the uninitiated or inexperienced throw up a barricade to their pursuit with a condescending air, "Love is more important, that's what I'm pursuing." The argument may sound good, and make one feel good if he or she doesn't want to wander off into the spookies, but it doesn't hold up biblically and is actually a surefire way to not pursue love.

It is true, according to the scriptures, that nothing is more important in the kingdom of God than genuine love. It is a difficult thing to practice and nigh unto impossible to master. Love involves committment and sacrifice. Love demands putting my whole being, my goods, my gifts, and my presence at the service of my brothers and sisters. A difficult thing to do consistently, especially when it's not reciprocated! But then love doesn't look to itself, it counts the other as better than itself, and looks to the other's benefit.

Spritual gifts are not intended for the advantage of the gifted. Not that there is not some blessing in passing them along, but they exist to benefit the witness of their expression rather than the channel of their expression. The actor is merely conduit or a tool in God's hand, the benefit is for the common good. In spiritual gifts the focus is never on me but always on thee. Could they be a more loving expression?

Gifts do no one any good buried. In fact, the one who buries the gifts acts in a patently unloving and selfish way in doing so. He or she becomes a robber rather than a blesser, devilish rather than dovish! Love and spiritual gifts are not mutually exclusive, so let's not take the shortcut of putting the axe to one or the other. It's not one or the other, it's meant to be both and that includes tongues!

What would it take for the church to be truly godly? Loving each other as Jesus loves us would certainly fit the bill. I actually believe the world has yet to see what Jesus truly wants to reveal in his church. However, when the covers come off, though it will look unmistakingly like love, it will also be unmistakingly supernatural.

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!"

Happy Reformation Day

Today, 492 years ago, an antisemitic monk tacked an op-ed piece on the door of a Catholic chapel in Wittenberg, Germany. The rest, as they say, is history. I am no fan of Luther or Calvin (although he did write a superb series of commentaries); really, it was the radical reformation (Anabaptists) that did anything that could be called restorational (although real restoration did not begin until 1906 and Azusa Street). Nonetheless, I think it's still better to celebrate Reformation Day than Halloween, and one doesn't need to dress up as a dead person to do so! So, Happy Reformation Day!

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. The people are not served well by asking nothing of them, allowing little for them to experience or offer, or by encouraging superstition by giving them the salve of religion so they move on with their real life without as much guilt. This is the body of Christ, not a supermarket, and we need to start acting like we believe that.

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 our conduction of our gatherings, we 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 outpouring on the body. Leaders need hearts more like Moses'! To lead meetings in a biblical fashion will require some extra effort from us preachers: we'll need to test everything, we'll need to correct some things, we'll need simply to 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 to the Spirit's inspiration of the body as possible.

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.

Are you obeying them?

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

"May I Take Your Order?"

... all things should be done decently and in order.  1 Corinthians 14:40 (ESV)

Today, I align the cross hairs of my hermeneutic scope squarely on the congregation-squelching, Spirit-emasculating, glory-blocking concept of order. Not order as the word itself would mean, but all that which man puts in place in the name of order which only serves to quench the Holy Spirit. That kind of thing is thought good in many quarters, while that which would yield to the Spirit's spontaneous inspiration is called indecent. 

Are we that afraid to follow the Word and let the Spirit direct us?

What was the Apostle Paul calling for in this verse? Orders of Service? Lectionaries, liturgies, and canons? Does it serve as the excuse for minister-orchestrated meetings, for sergeants-at-arms to enforce adherence, or emcees to keep the show moving? I don't think so! Considering that he's spent all of Chapter 14 establishing that a congregational meeting is about participation, not observation, and that more spontaneous than prepared.

Paul attempted to teach a middle road between cacophonous chaos and church mouse quiet. He was promoting the fullest possibility of participation in ministry, without having the loudest or the strongest take over to everyone else's detriment. In other words, our services should be arranged (κατὰ τάξιν), i.e. so ordered, with full participation in view. Participation should be offered in good form (εὐσχημόνως), so decently. Ordered for participation done decently, that's what the Apostle was trying to convey.

Paul was not telling us to substitute the direction of our meetings by the presiding officer for the leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not the former is what we're most comfortable with. God in charge means mystery, uncertainty-- the possibilities that our hearts will be laid bare with no place to hide except in the love of Christ. If the Spirit is in charge things might get emotional, might not stay on agenda. We might not get out in time to get a table at our favorite restaurant! 

When the Holy Spirit moves in our meetings and "takes" our order, unlike that favorite restaurant, he's not about to serve our appetites. Rather, he's about to impress his order instead of ours. When he does, his intention is to spontaneously express his manifold grace to the body through the body. So when the Spirit says, "May I take your order?" The correct answer is always, "yes, please do."

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 trigger, it's time to shoot.

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."

The List of Spiritual Gifts

It's time for the list. This, of course, represents only my cobbling together of what the Word says about the subject. One could see it somewhat differently and still be correct. Hopefully, this will help you see things from the broadest perspective, while giving you the detail necessary to grasp what each gift is.

THE SPEAKERS

Apostle: one sent by God to a people to establish the church among them. There is an administrative (supervisory) aspect to this gift, but it not directly associated with hierarchical office (as with the Mormons)-- its authority is confined to its function. (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Evangelist: one who announces the good news to the public (which hasn't heard it yet). It's not foundational (like the apostle or teacher), because it's tasked with making people believers, not making believers into a church. (Ephesians 4:11)

Prophet: one who proclaims and interprets what God is saying to the church. The prophet speaks to strengthen, encourage and comfort God's people. This gift is not about prognostication, nor has it anything to do with hierarchical office. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Exhorter: one who speaks to urge others on in matters pertaining to God. I really see this as a subset of the prophetic gift, but can see someone being an exhorter without being a prophet. (Romans 12:6-8)

Linguist: one who speaks and interprets tongues in public. No, you will not see it listed this way in the scriptures, this is my synthesis of what is said about it there. Not everyone who speaks in tongues in public will be a linguist, but those who are linguists will be interpreters. This (as in the case of the exhorter) is a subset of the prophetic gift, but it is possible to be a linguist without being a prophet or a prophet without being a linguist (I Corinthians 12:28)

Pastor: one who tends the flock of God. This gift has both administrative (supervisory) and speaking (teaching) aspects. Whereas the apostle establishes the church, the pastor maintains it. That is not an institutional task, but an interpersonal one-- it's about the sheep not the sheepcote. This gift is directly associated with the supervisory church office (elder/bishop) which is as close as the Bible gets to validating anything hierarchical in the church. The pastor is always a teacher and a leader, but it is possible to have teachers or leaders who are not pastors. (Romans 12:6-8 [leader], 1 Corinthians 12:28 [teacher/governor], Ephesians 4:11)

Teacher: one who instructs the church in the commands of God and how to apply them to daily life. This is a subset of the pastoral gift, but it is possible to be a teacher without being a pastor. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

THE SERVERS

Server: one who attends to things that need to be done (similar to a Deacon). Everyone in the body serves in some capacity, but this gift does it in inspired, focused fashion. This is not necessarily the same as the office of Deacon, that is supervisory, this is functional, but I would think the office of Deacon would often be filled by those who are gifted as servers. By way of interest, Philip, the evangelist was a notable example of one who served in the office of Deacon, but was gifted as other than a server. (Romans 12:6-8)

Giver: one who shares his or her substance with the church. Some folk are appointed by God to be channels of blessing to the rest of the church. Everyone gives, but the gifted do so in ways enabled only by God. That, however, does not equate with being rich! (Romans 12:6-8)

Sympathizer: one who alleviates the suffering of others in the church. This is a mercy ministry. Everyone in the family of God is expected to show mercy to the family of God, sympathizers do so at an exemplary, Spirit-inspired level. (Romans 12:6-8)

Miracle Worker: one who exerts supernatural power. Everyone in the body of Christ can move in the supernatural, this gift does so on a marked, consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Healer: one who heals the sick. Everyone in the body of Christ can pray for the sick, anyone in the body can be used by God to bring a miraculous healing to someone who is sick, but the healer ministers this wonder on a consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Helper: one who addresses the petitions of the needy. Everyone in the body should respond to the needs of their brothers and sisters, but some are enabled to do so in a particularly dedicated fashion. This may seem a replication of the gift of giver, but I think it involves more than substance and sustenance. Though this ministration is part of the duties entailed in the office of Deacon (as with the server), the gift is functional whereas the office is supervisory. Possessing this gift doesn't mean one will hold that office (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Leader: one who steers and superintends the church. The offices of Elder (overall oversight) and Deacon (service supervision) are the actual supervisory positions in a church, but their biblical descriptions do not necessarily specify what gifts one must possess in order to serve in them. In its formative stages, a church will be supervised by its apostle; thereafter, it may be supervised by some other gift acting in the office of Elder. The qualifications for that office specify functionally that an elder be instructive, but that is not quite the same as saying the elder must be gifted as a teacher. I could see the possibility of someone being gifted as a leader, capable of passing on effective instruction, but not gifted as a teacher, or any other speaking gift for that matter. What that implies in regards to the concept of church leadership vested in a plurality of elders I'll leave to you. (Romans 12:6-8 [governs], I Corinthians 12:28 [administration])

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

One could debate the way I condensed this number and these particular gifts from the stew of the three passages we have been discussing. Since all of the lists are representative and none is exhaustive, the possibility exists that there could be gifts that are not found in any of these lists. I don't think that's true, but I can't prove it. Someone could see the cross-referencing differently than I have as well. Regardless, what we all should be able to agree to is that God intends each of us to express the gift he's placed within us, and whatever your gift, God has given you the manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all. I hope this series helps you express both.

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 (μείζονα) in v. 29, he did not do so to negate all that he had said from vs. 12-27. Then 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 1 Corinthians 12:28 refer to the sequence of emergence, not to comparative importance. Paul's point in using this demarcation was to show the proper development of gifts in the body from those first appearing to those appearing after some development. He was not setting up a hierarchy of value as much as he was trying to get the Corinthians to not be fixated on tongues to the exclusion of other gifts, important gifts needed for the church to properly develop. 

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 forth 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 this text is that they serve a preparatory function within the body of Christ. The named four (the "some" in the text) are equippers, whereas the unnamed masses are the equipped. The aim is that some in the mass will eventually be one of the four, and all of the mass will become functioning parts of the body doing the work the Spirit of God has gifted them to do.

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 God-given ability to proclaim the word within the context of their 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.

Although the passage in Romans 12 leads into its gift list by associating them with the expression of God's grace (as does the Ephesian passage), and although it focuses upon how the gifts are used (as does the greater Corinthian context), its take on gifts is unique in demonstrating how we actually "act" in the gifts. It's not a list of nouns but verbs. It's not about prophets, servants, teachers, exhorters, givers, rulers, or empathizers, but prophesying, serving, teaching, exhorting, giving, ruling, and empathizing. That may be a subtle distinction, but an interesting one regardless.

What do I think that distinction tells us?

Among other things, it tells us to use the gift in producing the results of the gift. I could go on and on about what that says about our modern fascination (er, distraction?) with strategy and techniques, but I'll do my best to stay on task! Suffice it to say that the ability that grace deposited in us (gift) is not only sufficient to produce its intended result, but it should be relied upon to do so. The gift within us should not remain idle; it should not be suppressed (by ourselves or others); method should not be substituted for it; and its compulsion should not be considered secondary. Instead of wondering what the experts think about a ministry endeavor, we should be asking ourselves what the gift of God within us is inspiring.

That is not to say that we should be uncooperative and unsubmissive to the body of Christ around us, that is contraindicated by the concept of body itself. It does mean that what the Spirit intends to get done through us won't get done because the Grand Poobah (read vision-caster) has a plan we become cogs in, or that a consultant figured out a really good way to do that kind of a thing, or that we have achieved some level of preparation that now qualifies and certifies us to do it. No doubt, those things can be useful in building a successful organization, but what do they have to do with a temple indwelt by the Spirit of God?

All of us have had our fuse lit by the Spirit of God. In grace towards us, God dropped a bit of spiritual nitro into our souls which infused us with an energy that self-organizes the matter of life into its foreordained design. The gift itself compels us to produce the effects of the gift. Jesus experienced this, Paul did too, so should we. The gift is the tiger in our tanks, so with faith in in the promise of God, take that tiger by the tail and go for the ride of a lifetime.