Re-imagining The Holy Spirit: What is past is prologue
21 Sep 2009
It’s an honor to join all of you on this series and hopefully an adventurous conversation into re-imagining the Holy Spirit. Before jumping into a full-blown exploration of re-imagining the Spirit, being charismatic and spiritual gifts, as one trained in the craft of history, I want to begin by taking a few steps back to get some context, and tease out some questions after reflecting on our deep church history. There are several undercurrents in our deep church history that I want to appeal to and then propose some linkage with our present context and see what we think.
The three undercurrents in deep church we want to take a look at all have a few things in common. The commonality is in the experiential factor: the seeking to connect and experience God. The undercurrents/movements I want to cover are the monastic impulse, the mystic impulse and the impulse toward sacred space.
Without getting blogged-down in too much detail, I think we can historically understand the development of monasticism as reacting against the corruption of the world and the Church while seeking depth and an experiential relationship with God in the harsh environs first explored by the Desert Fathers and Mothers (yes, there were women hermits!). They sought freedom from worldly entanglements but more significantly, they embraced depth of experience and relationship with God. This impulse is witnessed again when the undercurrent emerges more fully in the mid-to-late medieval period with monastic cloisters and even later with monastic orders being founded. We witness this with most clearly in the Cluny reform movement which sought to separate from a church that had become corrupt and from wealthy benefactors.
Moving to the next undercurrent, mysticism in the church, particularly in the medieval period can also be seen as a reaction against one thing and a seeking of Another. The mystic impulse reacted against the over-intellectualism of Scholasticism but also to the leadership crisis within the Church, particularly witnessed during the time of multiple Popes at Rome and Avignon. Note two issues here: 1. the mystic impulse is not anti-intellectualism, but rather is defined by professors like Nathan Feldmeth of Fuller Seminary in California as intellectual learning plus emotional experience, brought from a desire for an experiential relationship with God. then, 2. the leadership vacuum or crisis within the Church brought about the curious return to ‘charismatic’ leaders, almost like we were back in the period of the shoftim/liberators/judges witnessed to in sacred scripture.
The third undercurrent I want to bring our attention I am calling the sacred space impulse. Mainly I want to point to the Cathedral movement in medieval Europe and to the Celtic spirituality of space. The issues – as you might be catching on to with the previous undercurrents – in both the cathedral movement and celtic spirituality are of an experiential element with God in spatial environment. The ancient cathedrals and labyrinths as well as icons and stained glass were created - indeed crafted - with the intent of both communicating about God yet also ushering people into an experience with God through art, architecture and the creation of sacred space.
You might have picked up on the main theme and linkage I want to make to our current context: seeking an experience with God. In terms of seeing things from where we are in our context of postmodernity, there are actually two main points I want us to tease out of these recurring undercurrents: 1. they reacted against something, and 2. they sought an experiential relationship through some spiritual means with God. I believe that the gifts of the Spirit flow from an encounter with God and His Presence (and hopefully follow-on with a deepening relationship with God) all happening in and through Christ Jesus.
OK, here’s the pay-off for today: I think we have been and are experiencing all of these undercurrents welling up in our present context of postmodernity. As an example are the neo-monasticsand their rise after the compromises of modern mission and witness by Christian movements who have been scandalized by corruption through greed (health and wealth) or sexual scandal or the fragmentation and compromise in living in our present time. I have a friend who actually hosted a conversation at a conference entitled “Un-pimping and Re-monking the Church”!
So, now is your chance to respond…here are a few questions I want to propose to get us started:
- If monasticism, mysticism and the impulse toward sacred space were reactions against the over-intellectualization and corruption of the Church, are the present undercurrents of neo-monasticism and the spread and acceptance of mysticism and creative sacred space reactions against present corruption and/or over-intellectualization in the fading light of Modernity?
- How does this dynamic play out in postmodernity and in your emerging/missional church environment?
- Like the Cathedral movement or Celtic spirituality in Medieval Christendom, which were connected to the mystic impulse of seeking to conect with God, most emerging churches seek to create sacred space/atmosphere in a gathering that ushers people into a experiential encounter with God. Architecture, lighting, space and creative atmosphere are tools used to experience and express spirituality…so is the emerging church movement an expression of classic deep church mysticism?
- With Christian mysticism usually there is witnessed an outbreak of the charismata or gifts of the Spirit. One example is witnessed in Catherine of Siena in the 14thcentury, who is said to have went into ‘plague houses’ laying hands on people and healing them, even raising some from the dead. Is this just legend and myth or do you believe Catherine exercised some of what Paul calls the “gifts of healings” and possibly “the gift of miracles” in 1 Corinthians 12?
36 comments
Trackback
Comment by Steve Burnhope
9.27 am on 21 Sep 2009
Great post, Steven: some challenging questions, and thought-provoking contextualisation, set deep within our Christian heritage.
Three initial thoughts spring immediately to mind, that I hope have a bearing on all the subject matter you are raising.
Firstly, in re-imagining the Holy Spirit you must be absolutely right to begin with “an experiential relationship with God”. As Tom Smail puts it, “the primary work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament does not have to do with charismatic manifestations but with our initiation into the two central relationships that are summed up in the two confessions, ‘Abba, Father’ and ‘Jesus is Kurios, Lord’ … A Christian becomes charismatic – that is, he enters the dynamic field of the Spirit’s action – not when he speaks in tongues and prophesies but when he confesses Kurios and Abba” (‘The Giving Gift’, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988, p.13). However modest the Spirit may be in terms of not attracting attention to himself, and however mysterious (if not, elusive) he may be as to our deeper understanding of his person, it is always the case that he brings us into relationship with Father and Son – as Tom puts it, as his ‘primary work’.
Secondly, as we reject (and react against) the exaggeration of the isolated individual in Modernity we are thrilled to find, in the Spirit’s work, a communal element to discover afresh. Smail reminds us that “The Pentecost of Acts is not solitary ecstasy” – contra the assumptions of the Chrismatic movement, building upon an evangelical gospel conceived in broadly the same terms – “it is corporate receptivity. In the New Testament the Spirit typically comes to groups of people together, not to individuals alone” (ibid., p.20). Accordingly, as with so many other theological matters at the moment, we find ourselves curious about what happened before Modernity’s evangelicalism. We want to peek behind the Reformation curtain, to see whether there’s a ‘deeper magic’ to be found. We are no longer afraid of having a corporate element to our communally-situated faith.
Thirdly, I perceive that all three of your undercurrents are influenced (as you touch upon, but I suggest could state more strongly) by reaction against scandals and corruptions within Modern versions of ‘church’. Not simply financial and sexual misbehaviours, but also against the hegemony of the autocratic Christian leader, typically seen at its worst in pentecostal and charismatic streams and typically claiming authorisation from the Spirit’s (supposed) revelatory actions. Hence there is here, too, a critical need both for a reimagining of the Spirit’s role and a rehabilitation of the Spirit’s reputation.
Community experience of the Spirit, then, offers an antidote to (1) the over-individualisation of our concept of the Spirit’s activity amongst us, and (2) distorted, unbiblical contemporary manifestations of Christian leadership. It also reminds us that the Spirit’s primary concern is relationship and experience of God.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.47 am on 21 Sep 2009
steve –
thanks for the great comments. i want to delve deeper into your last about communal experience in a future post in a couple weeks. because i too believe it is a critical antidote to go from spectator and audience to inspired activist in following Jesus.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Valerie
10.05 am on 21 Sep 2009
My background is in design and architecture and my PhD focused on restorative and therapeutic environments. I have been exploring conceptions of ‘spiritual space’ recently and have formed some preliminary thoughts. These have not been fully worked out and are, so far, just random impressions.
Most of the big, impressive, awe-inspiring cathedrals were built at a time when people, as a rule, lived in largely rural communities in daily contact with nature, often in a daily battle with nature just to survive and feed their families. They were all too aware of changes in weather and the passing of the seasons. Nature was not necessarily perceived in terms of beauty, but in terms of threat (I am aware that these are generalisations). Access to imagery such as books and pictures was very limited, story telling was an oral/aural tradition.
Cathedrals were conceived as magnificent buildings which would declare the glory of God. The tallest, grandest buildings spoke of the majesty of God. The visual imagery in the stained glass, tapestries and carvings told the story of God in a striking way. The building provided a safe haven from the vagaries of nature.
Now people live and work, inundated with visual stimulation (sensory overload). Beautiful buildings are mostly built by banks and big corporations so fancy architecture is associated with financial dominance. People work long hours enclosed in urban centres, in centrally controlled air conditioned environments with no ability to open windows or access nature easily.
There are many theories that investigate the potential of natural surroundings to restore balance and promote recovery from stress (see Kaplan and Kaplan, Herzog etc.). Most of these are based on the biophilia hypothesis (see Edward Wilson) which suggests an innate human preference for natural environments.
My thinking, at the moment, drawn from many discussions with Christians and non-Christians, is that many people who are held captive in these artificial environments now find freedom and experience a sense of the spiritual most in natural settings – on top of a hill, in a forest, beside a stream. This is where people find peace, and a stillness which allows them time and space for reflection and rediscovery of the inner voice. This is where they are free from the visual and auditory demands made by advertising (the ‘hard fascination’ driven by demands to direct our attention to certain products as opposed the qualities of ‘soft fascination’ which allow us to retain interest but think our own thoughts – Kaplan and Kaplan again).
So, in considering how to connect with people who are seeking to explore their own spirituality, what is the best setting for this? As a church should we be getting out of our buildings and engaging with those who are using their Sundays to escape from urban environments and find peace in nature (although our presence might initially represent a threat to that very peace)? I think the resurgence in interest in Celtic notions of spiritual community and retreat point to this very impulse to encounter God in nature.
As I said, these are just preliminary reflections but I would be interested in continuing discussion focusing on the sense of ‘sacred space’.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
12.03 pm on 21 Sep 2009
i love this line of thinking seriously and reflectively on this topic!
i think there is something to the biophillia hypothesis as retreat as sacred space has been a common experience for me in natural, wilderness environs. i have been to mountain retreats and God has met me in powerful ways, yet i have a friend who runs a retreat house in an urban environment, and just as significantly God has met me there. i’d like to know more about the hypothesis…
of course, in a theological way, my imagination is spraked to think about what a “city of God” might be like (since, biblically-speaking, humanity began by being placed in a garden but in the end of days will be welcomed into the city of God…)
i think there is a lot for all of us to ponder in your reflections above…thanks for sparking our imaginations!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Alex
10.53 am on 21 Sep 2009
RE: “If monasticism, mysticism and the impulse toward sacred space were reactions against the over-intellectualization and corruption of the Church, are the present undercurrents of neo-monasticism and the spread and acceptance of mysticism and creative sacred space reactions against present corruption and/or over-intellectualization in the fading light of Modernity?”
That’s too intellectual for me…however, I’m sure my reaction to it will not involve either mysticism or seeking of sacred space or monasticism (whether neo or not)! It might just result in me leaving the debate to those who have studied these things.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
12.23 pm on 21 Sep 2009
yikes, my hope is that we don’t over-intellectualize!! haha…thanks for sharing alex, but please join the conversation and add some much-needed heart…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Chris E
11.15 am on 21 Sep 2009
Hi Steven -
Though I understand that the scope of your piece is limited I thought it might be worth adding a couple of comments, as I imagine that not many of the other writers will delve quite so far back into history as you have done.
Firstly, each of these movements monasticism, mysticism and the spirituality of space, have in turn then become the what the next wave of spiritual immpulse has struggles against.
Secondly, on a theological level, all of these movements (and especially the last) ran out of steam very quickly. By divorcing the quest for an experience of God from the normal means by which God promises to reveal himself they rapidly became ladder-like forms of works that sought more than Scripture actually promises in this life. To that extent they serve as useful warnings for modern movements seeking the same goals.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
12.21 pm on 21 Sep 2009
chris, really good observations…i wonder how the “running out of steam” phenomenon plays out. it makes me pause to consider whether we begin to codify, commodify and “institutionalize-the-life-out-of” whatever it is very quickly, or if the actual movement goes back underground or whether it becomes so integrated into the life of those touched to the point of being naturally supernatural as i have heard before.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.10 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Is it not human nature to try to ‘bottle’ whatever we find that’s good? That may be why the good so quickly becomes the enemy of the best.
I remember someone once saying that in Christian institutions (he had in mind denominations) “the name typically defines where the revelation ran out”. That may be true or may be harsh (or, both), but I would certainly say that as Christians we have a tendency to institutionalise, or, to become settlers once we find a patch of ground to inhabit that we like.
Being pioneers is so much more challenging, both in perspiration and inspiration. Whether as cultural pioneers, or theological pioneers. And it risks the wrath of the settlers in both camps. Of course, one can never do anything wrong if one never does anything.
Maybe a less loaded metaphor than ‘pioneers and settlers’ (where there’s a clear implication who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy) is that of nomads. Are we perhaps called to be nomadic, rather than the institutional alternative, city-dwellers?
I think it’s significant that although Abraham was looking for a city (with foundations, whose architect and builder was God), he never found it in his lifetime. He remained nomadic. Hebrews 11:8-10.
Are there implications here for our ecclesial praxis and our spiritual journeys?
If so, it’s a bit scary, but be encouraged that Hebrews 11:8 tells us that Abraham didn’t know where he was going, either …
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike McNichols
3.30 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Steve, I appreciate your comment about our tendency to “bottle up what is good.” The historical responses to the institution of the church, resulting in monasticism, mysticism, etc., appear to be flights away from the domination of religious/cultural powers (along with the seemingly inevitable corruption) and toward something that might be an expression of authentic, dynamic faith.
My observation is that we are probably seeing much of that today as the church at large, especially in the west, seeks a fresh identity. Since there is a great deal of reaction against church as status quo, there is also an understandable reaction to groups that have caricatured the Holy Spirit into the facilitator of exotic manifestations.
In my view, we need not only a renewed and robust pneumatology, but also a new receptiveness to the unpredictable move of the Spirit.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
6.13 pm on 22 Sep 2009
Mike, that’s so true. One problem, it seems to me, though, is that one person’s “unpredictable moves of the Spirit” may be another person’s “exotic manifestation” caricatures.
If only we could avoid so much of the “reaction” and “flights away” (from wherever one or other group is currently at), and engage in meaningful dialogue and shared exegesis, from as open-minded a viewpoint as we can manage, to develop richer communal understandings.
I think that greater permeation of the idea of “always passionate beliefs, but always held provisionally” would help this no end. But in Christendom we seem so keen to leap to a crusader-like defence of cherished positions. Defenders of the faith.
Are we too fearful of theological dialogue? Have we been trained to react too strongly, even aggressively, to any suggested revisioning of our positions? Is there really so much to fear, are the supposed ’slopes’ really downhill inclines, and so slippery that we can’t take steps along a path of discussion?
Jaw not war – or, conversation, not reaction – seems to me the ideal.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Mike McNichols
9.33 pm on 23 Sep 2009
I agree, Steve. Perspectives grounded in both experience and doctrine might create the hermeneutical grid for our awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2, some heard words of life while others heard the slurs of drunkards.
I think it is challenging to engage thoroughly in a theological pursuit of the Spirit while also entering into the risky environment of the praxis of the Spirit. It seems to me that the pneumatological reflections on the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures are subsequent to the initiating work of the Spirit (one example is the Spirit’s overwhelming work in the lives of the gentiles in Acts 10, launching a fresh theology of the Spirit in Acts 11).
It might be interesting to see what happens when a pneumatological conversation is preceded by the prayer, “Come, Holy Spirit!”
Reply here
Comment by Chris E
2.59 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Hi Steve –
I agree that it’s human nature to institutionalize a move of the spirit into a ‘movement’ with its own rules. However, that was not what I was getting at – at least not directly.
Natural revelation, mysticism, and religion pursued in seclusion devoid of input for the sources where God promises to reveal himself (Word and Sacrament), can rapidly become their own theologies of glory.
And theologies of glory naturally lend themselves to institutionalization – given that they are basically forms of works righteousness.
That is what you see in each movement as they progress – monasticism becomes more and more extreme in its pursuit of experience, mystics start to value the form of experience over the goal of experience and spiritual space becomes a consumerist expression of a middle class experience economy.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.22 am on 23 Sep 2009
i think you are right on here chris, the tendency toward theologies of glory can be a powerful temptation. so, how do we infuse the theologia crux into our practices and experiences of monasticism, mysticism and sacred space, so as to follow after Christ Jesus?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Robin Nesbitt
1.36 pm on 21 Sep 2009
This is my first ever post (not just on this blog but anywhere!!), so I’m a little nervous commenting on such a complex issue and I will definitely fall into the heart category rather than the intellectual one!
As an ex-architect I too am fascinated by space, ‘sacred space’ or ‘third space’ (Oldenburg) and it’s power to impact yet it strikes me that looking at the dynamics of the physical ‘outer’ environment seems to be less important than looking to the spiritual ‘inner’ environment, is this not what God is more interested in? Is there not a danger that we look for the ingredients to create a ‘sacred space’ and it becomes yet again another formula for meeting God either personally or communal y, and this seems to be what we are reacting against both now and throughout history. I would love to think I could create a sacred space for people to meet God whether it be in a cathedral, a house or on a mountain top but am I not in danger of forgetting the Spirit blows where he pleases and the sacred place He is looking for is in me/us not in a external physical place. Should we be looking for spaces to meet God when He can meet me right here and now, is this not the gospel (great news) of the kingdom, it’s not physical, contolled or packaged but it’s open, accessible and unlimited, whether it’s just me or 1,000 of us.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
1.59 pm on 21 Sep 2009
robin…i think this is really, really important. although i am a both/and sort-of-person, and i think creatively we can use ‘outward’ expressions to craft a way into experiencing God (using experiential ways such as silence as well as atmospherics), but we cannot and must not forget what you are saying here about inner space, because as we tend to the sacredness of inner space, i myself, the ground of my very being becomes sacred space; and i take that wherever i wander and to whoever i meet (sounds very st. patrick’-ish, meeting jesus in others…)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Robin Nesbitt
1.41 pm on 21 Sep 2009
This is my first ever post (not just on this blog but anywhere!!), so I’m a little nervous commenting on such a complex issue and I will definitely fall into the heart category rather than the intellectual one!
As an ex-architect I too am fascinated by space, ‘sacred space’ or ‘third space’ (Oldenburg) and it’s power to impact yet it strikes me that looking at the dynamics of the physical ‘outer’ environment seems to be less important than looking to the spiritual ‘inner’ environment, is this not what God is more interested in? Is there not a danger that we look for the ingredients to create a ‘sacred space’ and it becomes yet again another formula for meeting God either personally or communally, and this seems to be what we are reacting against both now and throughout history. I would love to think I could create a sacred space for people to meet God whether it be in a cathedral, a house or on a mountain top but am I not in danger of forgetting the Spirit blows where he pleases and the sacred place He is looking for is in me/us not in a external physical place. Should we be looking for spaces to meet God when He can meet me right here and now, is this not the gospel (great news) of the kingdom, it’s not physical, controlled or packaged but it’s open, accessible and unlimited, whether it’s just me or 1,000 of us.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
2.52 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Robin, I think you’re absolutely right that we’re reacting (at least in part) against ‘ingredients’ or ‘formulae’, of one sort, and do face the perpetual danger of simply recreating the same issues with a different sort of ‘ingredients’ or ‘formulae’.
The idea of controlling sacred space, or institutionalising it (where it is, what it is, what it looks like), should be anathema.
And yet, it is also true to say that the contemporary chuch (or at least, the particular expressions of it with which I am most familiar) really don’t ‘do’ sacred space very much at all. Hence, the perceived need to swing the pendulum a bit in that direction – or, as I would prefer, a lot in that direction!
I do think there’s some scriptural support for seeking out a quiet place of reflection and even solitude to meet with God intimately (Jesus, for example, would seem to have practiced that), but I would not press the term ‘biblical’ here, since it seems to me that it’s a fairly universal human characteristic to find quiet, aesthetically beautiful and peaceful physical environments beneficial spiritually (in the very broadest sense of the term, including a contemporary extra-biblical sense).
God can meet us anytime, anywhere, without too much difficulty. The challenges come on my side of the relationship. Holding an intimate conversation by the side of the M4 motorway (freeway) isn’t easy.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Rick C ruse
4.59 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Help me get the bigger picture here. We’ll be looking at several “undercurrents in our deep church history…then propose some linkage to our present context.” Today’s contribution is a “few steps back to get some context.” The reminders of how the church has engaged in “self-correction” over the centuries does raise some helpful talking points, but I’m left wondering if the discussion will range (historically and logically) between what’s termed as “deep church history” and the present context only. If so, some baseline, foundational matters may be overlooked, in particular, the Spirit’s own revelation in the Scripture regarding His role, in particular as the central character is the unveiling and implementation of the new covenant (esp, Acts, 2Corinthians and Hebrews).
In fact, the “running out of steam” issue mentioned above brings to mind one clear difference between the “ministry of the letter/death/condemnation” as exemplified by Moses (the fading glory) and the permanence of the ministry of the Spirit/life/righteousness.”
In this light, I appreciate very much Steve B’s comment and helpful reference to / extension of Tom Smail’s comments: “However modest the Spirit may be in terms of not attracting attention to himself, and however mysterious (if not, elusive) he may be as to our deeper understanding of his person, it is always the case that he brings us into relationship with Father and Son – as Tom puts it, as his ‘primary work’.”
Jesus’ own statement regarding the Holy Spirit seems apropos here: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn 15:26).
“…a renewed and robust pneumatology…[and]a new receptiveness to the unpredictable move of the Spirit” require biblical moorings.
As said, I may simply not understand the goal and methodology for this conversation. Thanks.
Robin’s comment reminds me of a statement tacked to the wall over my desk: the most essential activity for the Christian…is the cultivation of his own soul as the dwelling place for God.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
5.11 pm on 21 Sep 2009
apologies for any mis-understanding. i suppose you cannot read my ind, but as an historian, i was taking a few steps back to get some contextualization before re-entering a conversation regarding the Spirit and our present context historically. i also assumed (possibly wrongly) that many had read through our sacred scripture and come to this conversation with some measure of familiarity with what scripture says about the activity of the Spirit and roles, etc., even though scripture must be interpreted, so that we do not loose our biblical morrings.
so thanks for making explicit what i assumed at the begnning, and very much grounding us in scripture.
i think the conversation will be wide-ranging, and may the Spirit blow them…to where, i do not know…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
5.22 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Rick, your thoughts are helpful. Perhaps I can just affirm for my part (and I am sure Steven’s too) that we very much want to refer to the Spirit’s own revelation in the Scripture regarding His role – I assure you it will by no means be overlooked. The only question is how we apply that revelation. My own view is to use scripture as a ‘test’ book rather than a ‘text book’.
Sola scriptura, if you like, but as the authoritative ‘litmus test’ for our ideas, experience and provisional beliefs.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Rick C ruse
6.09 pm on 21 Sep 2009
Thanks for your gracious responses. As I’ve not read all the earlier conversations, I was trying to understand the parameters of the playing field, while expressing my own hopes. I also wrote in light of Jason’s earlier statement “… how little there is within emerging church resources about the Holy Spirit.”
As you suggest, the majority of those interacting with you are likely quite familiar with the Scriptures, and I’m not suggesting the need for a “Introduction to the Holy Spirit 101.” Given the broad range of readers (and their experiences/understanding), I was interested to know whether there would be any statements/suggestions of your foundational biblical framework. Clearly, the Scriptures are not a textbook but, rather, God-sourced revelation to equip us via appropriate interpretation and in the power of the Spirit, to engage profitably and to good effect with the world around us.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
6.54 am on 22 Sep 2009
For my part Rick, I will most certainly try to include statements/suggestions of my foundational biblical framework as you suggest. I think that’s very helpful, and, to the extent it doesn’t happen, I hope that others will join in the conversation and contribute from that angle. After all, we are “a people of the book”, and though we may theologise concerning in what manner, exactly, the scriptures operate authoritatively in Christian faith and praxis, there should be no question that they do.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
7.56 am on 22 Sep 2009
Steve – really good post! I appreciate your sensitivity to the greater perspective of history. A few thoughts/questions:
This short list seems awfully Western. Are there parallel occurrences in Oriental Christianity? I would imagine so, but I honestly don’t know, and I think it would be pertinent.
Also, I’m wondering if you’ll be tackling more contemporary Holy Spirit movements as a “part b” to your “past is prologue.” While I think you’re correct in identifying these historical movements as attempts to experience God, it seems the overwhelming majority of the church’s exploration of the Holy Spirit has occurred in the last 100 years or so.
To Chris
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say these 3 traditions “ran out of steam,” because each of them has an essentially unbroken traditions leading up to the current time. Maybe they became less notorious, or were absorbed into the larger church, but they still remain – and in some cases thrive (I’m thinking of monasticism in particular).
Also, I’m wondering what you mean by “the normal means by which God promises to reveal himself.” Scripture? If so, I think you’d find yourself with some pretty vigorous debate on your hands. Many have argued that mysticism (in a gentler form than that practiced by someone such as, say, Francis of Assisi) is the “normal means.”
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.34 am on 22 Sep 2009
i’m with you in wanting to explore other horizons outside a western-centric orientation. i have begun some initial research into the more eastern church (beyond eastern orthodox) and one intriguing and possibly provocative comment was: “how would christianity look without the long shadow of influence that early western leaders like augustine?” so while fascinating, i’m not sure i can speak to it with any real sense as yet.
you’re right that there are so many historical movements and undercurrents (the moravians, various revivals, renewals and awakenings, and the historian in me wants to include them all somehow, yet while i may stop off at one more contextualizing point before jumping full-blown into our present context, i’m not sure how many people would appreciate this conversation becoming a church history. but, maybe we can grab a beer and chat sometime, if i ever make it to your coast again…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Chris E
12.24 pm on 22 Sep 2009
Hi Jason –
It’s true that each of those movements continue to the present day, but it’s also true that the distinctives and initial impulses and concerns that gave rise to each movement didn’t carry that movement forward for very long. Yes, they have been absorbed into the church as a whole – but the fact that there were multiple ‘revivals’ of each of these movements demonstrates that their concerns have never been wholely accepted within the church. After all, continuity doesn’t simply mean that a different set of people go down the same set of steps over and over again over history.
So let’s have the debate – it would be futile to even have a ‘conversation’ about pneumatology unless each of us understands the others pre-suppositions and convictions.
Which again is fine as an intellectual position, but note that thus moves beyond the bounds of Protestant Orthodoxy (and the ECF). That’s not a stick to stop people from talking, but a recognition that they then need address all historical objections to their position in order to be taken seriously.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
8.58 pm on 22 Sep 2009
hmmm, i was looking forward to joining the vigorous debate, but despite your stated good intentions, i think it may have cut short some of the conversation with your big stick…so let me say that it is right and good for you to draw the circle of your own bounded set of “protestant orthodoxy”, my hope is that in a conversation reflecting on deep church, we all practice a generous orthodoxy so that we can see our little circles overlap and interweave into something very beautiful.
so, to enter the debate, i have a few questions. i’m unsure what your “ECF” stands for: Early Church Fathers?
i am also a little fuzzy on exactly what jason coker and you began to debate, but am i right in saying that it seems to move toward “the normal means by which God promises to reveal Himself”? if so, i really like that..because i think it can take us in interesting directions in this conversation.
i’d like to hear jason define his gentler mysticism, but when i read that what i reflected on was the fact that God is a revealer, and while He is the most Free Person i know, He chooses to reveal Himself via spiritual means. of course, in saying spiritual, i am taking us back to the Holy Spirit. i like what roman catholic theologian luke timothy johnson has to say in his book Living Jesus: Jesus does not simply live on in the memory of loved ones, nor by what we know about Him, but behold, He is with us even to the close of this age; Jesus’ life amongst us now, knowing Him intimately and personally, comes via the Spirit. “The first Adam became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). The Holy Spirit is the mode of Jesus’ resurrection presence to the world”…if we say that the Holy Spirit is the mode through which the risen and ascended Lord Jesus is present to the world, we are not yet saying enough, but we are saying something real. of course this is a mysterious aspect of the Trinity, and much confusion and heresy has been brought about in seeking to understand such matters. but my simple point is that history and scripture witness that God reveals Himself mainly through spiritual revelation…indeed: “I have much more to say to you, more than you can bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth” (16:12-13).
Reply to this comment
Comment by chris e
2.42 pm on 23 Sep 2009
Hi Steve –
My point was about the need to recognise and describe the pre-suppositions we each bring to this discussion, because it seems to me that is the only way in which we can really understand each other.
I guess Jason was picking up on the epistemological aspects of this, which I agree are important in their own right.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
4.54 pm on 23 Sep 2009
Sorry for the delay, I’m afraid I haven’t been very good about checking back.
Hi Chris –
You make a good point about these running out of steam, but where you see a warning about divorcing the experience of God from normal means I see a warning about the abuse of power in traditions that are created to protect it. Either way, it seemed to me (perhaps I was mistaken) that your point was meant essentially to discredit these movements as genuine means of contact with God – evidenced by their having burned out – precisely because they had forsaken the more normative means of contact with God. The implication, of course, is that these means aren’t really those by which people connect with God at all; they’re merely a bit of religious bunting meant to dress up the real thing (presumably scripture). But to me that issue hasn’t really been settled, and the Protestant tradition, far from settling it, merely safeguards the answer to which it is most vested.
I’ll admit, I’m not very concerned about the bounds of Protestant Orthodoxy…only the bounds of mere Orthodoxy, within which I see tremendous room for exploring various means by which God has demonstrated he can and does reveal himself. I think there’s a massive difference between affirming scripture as being authoritative in our understanding of God on the one hand (which is only one part of revelation), and saying it is the “normal means” of relating to God on the other (which is another part of revelation). Maybe that’s not what you were suggesting. To be honest, I’m still not clear on what you consider to be the “normal means.”
Finally, must one really address “all historical objections in order to be taken seriously?” That’s quite a burden…and not very Protestant. It would seem to me that I’m only required to address scriptural objections.
Hi Steve -
Chris is right, I am driving this toward an epistemological conversation which means I’m probably pushing this off track. For that I apologize.
Maybe “soft mysticism” would be a better term. If “hard Mysticism” is best represented by St. Francis then I would suggest soft Mysticism is best represented by Brother Lawrence and his ongoing, internal conversation with God.
Reply to this comment
Comment by chris e
7.21 pm on 23 Sep 2009
Hi Jason –
Apologies, I don’t think my earlier statements were clear enough. By normal I meant something more like your use of authoritative – though presumably you interpreted it differently in your use of ‘gentle mysticism as normative’. Additionally, I do think that if God is both transcendent and immanent that it is important to pay attention the ways in which he promises to be immanent.
I don’t mean to discredit those earlier movements, beyond pointing out that they were solutions to problems that in their own way were imperfect – some more than others – and so simply re-adopting them is a refusal to learn from the past. I see a lot of value in monasticism, especially around the idea of a third order, but the fact that every monastic movement has traced roughly the same trajectory should act as a cautionary tale to anyone who wants to adopt them whole cloth. Similiarly soft mysticism, the world is filled with soft mysticism based religion, but the fact that none of them have independently come up with Christianity should tell us something. There are holes in every tradition – but those were the ones mentioned.
Yes – again I was unclear, but there have been a lot of (scriptureal) critiques of a lot of the movements mentioned over the years, and it seems to me that one has to address them, rather than simply adopt a tradition, and profess ignorance to everything that has gone on in the past.
Again, this is probably out of scope, as I imagine Steve intended his post to be largely descriptive
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Jason Coker
9.23 pm on 23 Sep 2009
Well…ONE of them came up independently with Christianity : )
Seriously, thanks so much for the clarification, that is very well said and, frankly, I don’t find much to disagree with – although I do find an awful lot more I would love to explore in dialogue (for example, I tend to agree with Steve B below that what we’re seeing is never a whole-sale adoption, and I think there’s a significant limit to what we can learn from the failures of those who lived in such radically different eras and cultures). But as you say, that would take us pretty far afield.
If I know Steve he’ll have plenty to say in the coming installments that will bring us back round to some of these issues.
Comment by chris e
10.16 am on 24 Sep 2009
Not quite
Mysticism came after the action of a God who condescended to reveal himself to us through Word and Spirit.
Reply here
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.04 pm on 23 Sep 2009
Chris, you write: “I don’t mean to discredit those earlier movements, beyond pointing out that they were solutions to problems that, in their own way, were imperfect … and so simply re-adopting them is a refusal to learn from the past.
I suggest it’s not so much a case of re-adopting imperfect past solutions, but looking afresh at them to see whether they have something to teach us. Did the Reformation unwittingly throw some babies out with that prodigious amount of discharged bath water?
As Modernity’s long-unquestioned assumptions (which include new and future is better, old and past is inferior) are discredited generally, elements of Christian thought and practice dating from pre-Modern times come back onto the agenda for reconsideration. Not slavish adoption, just revisiting. Maybe they passed away for good reasons, or maybe not.
Learning from the past can, as you say, be through not adopting old approaches, but the reverse may be true too. I’m curious to peek at things, to see which it is.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Re-imagining The Holy Spirit: Emerging into a post-charismatic world? at Deep Church
8.45 pm on 23 Sep 2009
[...] Hamilton’s post on Deep Church earlier this week has raised some great questions. Let me contextualize my initial response in some [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mel
2.08 am on 28 Sep 2009
I love and appreciate the comments above. Thank you. Truly we embrace the past good ways to serve God and continue to search for better ways to experience/find/and follow Christ in revelation of His word.
Is not the Mystic impulse tied to our minds and how faith grows to express the “mind” of Christ our Lord thru us? His spirit comforter loved us so much that he is willing to take the time to cleanse our inner temple, and our purpose to re-direct our minds to connect with and experience what it is like to love like our Lord did. To call out during prayer, Abba Father, help us– basicly the spiritual spaces we create daily in various meeting spaces somewhere on the earth, we meet the Lord, when we arrive on the same mind ground from which he speaks. Our thanks to Him when he through the torn veil allowed us to commit and to reconcile to Him, thru Jesus Christ the High Priest at his approachable throne of Grace. Gifting us with salvation, holiness, comfort; knowing that we, can devote to Him, thru the measure of faith he fills us with, to what depth thru meek,gentle,pure hearts, we encounter Him. Mutual exhortaion reaches to connect with others as we connect to Him. Surely morality, civility, community, values, contemplation, hospitality, engagement, blessedness, holiness, spirituality, togetherness (His church) and seperate one-on-one unite us with our awesome God.
The paths of Mystic impulse, Sacred space, and Word based guidance ultimately should influence our actions against corruption. Our desires renew to please God. I believe the inner cleansing of our temple hearts, the dwelling place of His spirit of peace inside will facilitate the sacred, set-apart, blessed happiness we are looking for and need. I definately find need for inner healing. Inner healing that heals the sin at war with my/our souls. Christ had Holy Spirit Zeal for His House, then and now. Renewing of our minds is necesarry for our Spiritual/Holy Spirit living.
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: Butterfly Effects…and all that jazz at Deep Church
6.07 am on 28 Sep 2009
[...] up) and making space for God to move among us. We began talking in last weeks discussions (here and here) about discernment vis-à-vis movements of the Spirit and exotic manifestations, et al. [...]
Reply to this comment