Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: Hearing the Gospel
30 Sep 2009
Steven has again raised such a wide range of ideas and insights that I hardly know where to start. In picking out just one or two for comment, I don’t want to divert attention from other parts of what he’s said (so I’m glad people have already commented on other aspects – hopefully that will continue).
The cultural wind of ‘freedom’ that was blowing from the 1960s onwards may not have been entirely coincidental, in influencing the ingress of freedom themes into our Christian consciousness and church practices. After all, one would be naive not to recognise culture’s impact upon theology. Not, I hasten to add, as a compromise of the latter to the former, but a recognition that to be effective within culture means that theology must speak to contemporary society’s actual concerns (not what those concerns used to be, or even – in our Christian opinion – should be).
As An Aside … It is disappointing when Christians seem more concerned to say what they believe people ought to be hearing, and to insist on saying it in a certain way, rather than being concerned with what people need to be hearing and how they need to hear for it to be meaningful to them. Our calling is not to speak the gospel, it’s for people to hear the gospel. The concerns people had in bygone eras are not the concerns of people today. Our right answers are not right answers, if they are answering questions no-one is asking, addressing needs that are no longer felt.
In the context of ‘freedom being in the air’, then, from the 1960s onwards, it is not surprising that the freedom of the Spirit should have risen to the forefront of Christian thinking and praxis at the same time (alongside theological themes such as liberation theology, the emergence of which tracked charismatic emergence), particularly when part of that freedom of the Spirit involved the release of the laity into direct, personal, unmediated and fresh experience of God. NB the Sixties, onwards, were decades in which people sought experiences.
One did not have to be a theologian in order, quickly and readily, to grasp the essential essence of the experience of the Spirit in charismatic release. To receive the Baptism in the Spirit (by whatever term known) and a simple explanation of a few verses in 1 Cor 12 was all one needed.
And in this, we find both the great achievement and the problematic legacy of the charismatic movement.
As Steven rightly observes (see the bullet-points in the centre of his post), there many, many “ripples in the pond” – I might suggest these are all charismata – that are the direct result of the Spirit moving on the waters. I would commend us to consider all of them. There is an ongoing need for ‘faith to seek understanding’ in relation to the Spirit, in which the theologians need to help popular charismatic Christianity to broaden its understanding of the full range of the Spirit’s “ripples.” That is to say, beyond the visible, experiential gifts of verses 8 through 10 of 1 Cor 12 and related ideas, on which popular charismatology has perhaps over-focused.
This will be particularly the case if, as has been proposed, we are now in a post-charismatic period, for of necessity that would demand a de- and re-construction of our charismatic pneumatology if we are to maintain a vital ongoing experience of the Spirit at work amongst us.
I suggest that the Spirit has a much bigger agenda, and that a valid post-charismatic reconstruction will seek to identify and correlate this agenda in line with the Spirit’s own prioritization. Which will, in turn, be a reflection of the Father’s purposes and priorities. We shall need to set our reconstructed theology of the charismata of 1 Cor 12:8-10 in its appropriate place within this broader context.
I do believe there is so much more to come for us in experiencing the moving of the Spirit, but I equally believe he wants to be understood afresh. Given the Spirit’s character, I suspect this may be something he is waiting for.
Semper reforandum.
Tagged: charismatic, Holy spirit
14 comments
Trackback
Comment by Jason Clark
4.51 pm on 30 Sep 2009
The 1960’s onwards with Charismatic renewal, were a renewal I suspect as evangelicals found themselves in decline after 200 years of growth and influence, certainly the UK.
If evangelicalism (ala Bebbington) did emerge in the 1730s in the UK and US, the charismatic was the large stone in the pond then that began the ripples, that were felt again in the 1960s.
The Charismatic renewal of the 1960s saw the leaving behind of the sacramental, much to it’s loss I fear. Now we have sacramental renewal that is mostly -charismatic. I’m wondering if we need a new experience of the Spirit, a renewal of the Charismatic whilst holding onto the sacramental renewal that has taken place.
Comment by steven hamilton
5.40 pm on 30 Sep 2009
i like that direction: experiencing the sacramental with the charismatic. there seems to be something deep and mysterious…compelling and good about it.
it also resonates with the immanent and trascendent nature of God that has been brought up in this conversation.
steve – i really appreciate your fleshing out regarding the fact the in the 1960s, experimentation and seeking fresh experiences was a significant issue.
Comment by Chris E
5.46 pm on 30 Sep 2009
In what sense were they particularly in decline? The decline had sort of bottomed out by the late 40s and after that you had both the tail end of the fundamental movement, plus the post war evangelicals (Graham, Stott and others)
Comment by Chris E
5.53 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Except that the Gospel is – in a sense – answers to questions that people are not asking themselves. We shouldn’t underestimate our status as Hauerwaus’ Resident Aliens.
and again, the desires of a culture can soon become the idols of that culture, and the Gospel will always speak out against idolatry where ever it occurs. The answer for people’s desires for new experiences is not simply an sensory experience of God, it’s a transforming encounter with the true God that not only redirects their desires, but re-prioritizes them.
Comment by steven hamilton
6.08 pm on 30 Sep 2009
yes! i have been pondering the same issue that we need to re-embrace our status as resident aliens…spot-on.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.19 pm on 30 Sep 2009
“The answer for people’s desires for new experiences is not simply an sensory experience of God, it’s a transforming encounter with the true God that not only redirects their desires, but re-prioritizes them.”
I could not agree more, and this is one emphasis of the Spirit’s work that should receive higher billing in our thinking.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.32 pm on 30 Sep 2009
“… the Gospel is – in a sense – answers to questions that people are not asking themselves. We shouldn’t underestimate our status as Hauerwaus’ Resident Aliens.”
Is that, in fact, the case? Has the gospel ever been answering questions that people are not asking? I should like to hear that evidenced (I know conservative preachers say it a lot, I’m just probing the basis for it).
I suggest a problem with this line of thinking is that it has been used to justify some Christians being more concerned with speaking the truth than people hearing the truth. So, if we say it like it is, and people don’t get it, then that’s their fault (rejecting the gospel), or the devil’s fault for blinding them to the truth.
I would put it slightly differently. The problems of humanity are essentially the same through the ages, but the characterization of those problems, how they are felt, understood and articulated, change from age to age. People do not see the world the same way today as they did even 50 years ago.
The gospel is universal and timeless. That means it is capable of being explained in all ages, to all cultures and to all peoples. But to do so requires that we start from “how our audience hears”, not on delivering a version of the gospel taken directly from the KJV, or the God Channel, or an old tract of the Four Spiritual Laws, or whatever. The medium is not fixed and timeless.
I also worry about saying (except quietly amongst friends who understand the lingo) that we should be happy to be thought of as aliens. Too often, that’s exactly how the unchurched see us – unfortunately, they are more likely to get on the phone to the X-Files than on their knees.
Comment by Chris E
8.29 pm on 30 Sep 2009
I’m not sure what sort of evidence you want – empirical, or some kind of pragmatic argument based on numbers ? I don’t see that society as a whole is asking questions that the grace that reconciles us to God is meant to answer primarily, nor is that an acceptable answer to society. Societal desires generally boil down to three questions; What can I do to get what I want? What can I do to improve myself? What can we/I do to improve society?
Yes, there are hatred of suffering desires for justice, longing for beauty and other indicators that Tom Wright and others have picked up on in apologetics books. However, whilst the gospel has implications for all of these, it’s primary purpose is still to reconcile us to God through actions that are not our own. Historically, churches that have inverted this relationship have ended up devoid of a congregation and far from orthodoxy, generous or otherwise.
The answer isn’t to cling to an old mode of communicating the message – which is just syncretism in another form, but even the clearest communicator will recognise that the ability to make people believe the gospel isn’t in their hands.
“but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”. I’m not suggesting that we revel in being misunderstood, but simply making the point that our answer will necessarily be counter to the values of this world.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.54 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Thanks Chris. I am not trying to be argumentative, by the way, so I apologize if it comes across that way. I am reflecting some of my experience in the questions I’m raising.
Let me give you an example, in relation to the gospel. We no longer have the death penalty in most Western jurisdictions, and where we do it is only for the most egregious offenses, so as Christians we have some difficulty selling a divine justice system where the death penalty (if not eternal conscious torment) is inflicted for the least offense against the divine law (of which many people would say they were unaware when they first began ‘offending’). So, a solution couched in the need for cosmic justice to be seen to be done, and Jesus taking its penalty upon himself, seems to lose credibility in not being based on a justice that people can relate to in the first place.
This challenges our presentation of the atonement, to re-imagine it in different (but still biblically authentic) categories, other than the juridical understanding built around penal substitution; for as Steve Holmes says we have a serious problem if we first need to persuade people they ought to feel a certain way before explaining that Jesus is the answer to it.
Comment by Chris E
10.23 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Hi Steve –
I would agree with you to an extent; that there is a contextualisation effort to be made. Though I think that you pick a very weak example. Even in the ‘civilised’ West people can conceieve of categories of people who deserve the death penalty – as regular media driven feeding frenzies show. The problem is – and always has been – that most people find it hard to think of themselves in that category.
However you recast it – and all the biblically authentic presentation of the atonement are at their root some form of substition – you still have to account for why Jesus had to die (and rise again) for grace and hope to be present.
I’m not familiar with the original quote so am only commenting on your re-presentation of it. Whilst it sounds very good, the reductio ad absurdum of this is that we take whatever emotion people feel and claim that Jesus is the answer to it. It seems to me that faithful preaching has to – in part – recast people’s focus so that they see what their real problem is (which might also at the same time address why they have a certain longing/desire) whilst giving them the answer that they need rather than the one they seek.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.29 am on 1 Oct 2009
Chris, the reasons I picked atonement as an example are as follows.
Firstly, there has never been a set creedal position on atonement (the ‘how’ of ‘how Jesus saves us’), so it is possible to hold a range of biblically-sourced understandings on this, whilst still being within Christian orthodoxy classically defined.
Secondly, notions of both law and criminal justice have shifted over the centuries, particularly in late Modernity. We no longer believe that retributive penal violence is just, or theraputic. Whereas, once upon a time we hanged children for stealing loaves of bread. This change came about roughly concurrent with the introduction of prisons for sentences rather than the infliction of physical violens to the person as punishment, around 200 years ago.
NB A further problem of the ‘theraputic penal violence’ idea, today, is that this remains at the center of Islamic sharia law, which people see as barbaric.
Thirdly, and to address your specific point, you are quite right to say that not all biblical presentations of the atonement as ’substition’ need include a ‘penal’ element, but it is not correct to say that all biblically authentic atonement models are substitutionary. For example, Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor (Christ has won the victory over powers of death and sin) and Peter Abelard’s ‘Moral Influence’ (Christ died to show the Father’s supreme love and to draw us into loving relationship).
Because the problem of sin is itself multi-faceted in Scripture, so too is the way in which Christ deals with the problem. It is much more than a judicial balancing of the books.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Chris E
11.58 am on 1 Oct 2009
Hi Steve –
This discussion is a complex one, and probably this isn’t the most appropriate place to be having it.
On my specific point. I was suprised to see you bring up Christus Victor, as that is a straight forward substition model (Christ wins the victory we couldn’t win on our behalf). “Moral Influence” depending on how you treat it either becomes either a substition model or just a moralistic one.
Yes sin is multifacted in Scripture, and I agree that we need to use every model that scripture uses to describe the atonement.
That said when explaining it to culture at large you still have to account for the death of Christ – even if you don’t address it via penal substition you are still going to have to deal with the question people will have of ‘But, why was it necessary for Christ to *die* in order to do X’.
Reply here
Comment by Steve Burnhope
9.22 am on 1 Oct 2009
Are we confident we know what Paul meant by Christ crucified being “foolishness to Gentiles”?
And, how we should – faithfully to Scripture – ‘translate’ that to our contemporary situation 2,000 years on (if, indeed, it is appropriate we should do that at all) ?
Or are we saying that there is a straight read-through from the first century to our current situation, that “Gentiles” will always see the gospel we preach as “foolishness”, because Scripture is telling us a timeless truth?
Again, my concern is that “foolishness” in the way Christians present the gospel can be an excuse (or even a badge of honour, a kind of ’suffering for the sake of Christ’, or persecution, sense) when the reality is that our formulations of the Christian message are failing to make sense to people where they are at. This, to me, is our fault, rather than either the gospel’s fault or something Paul predicted would happen.
Comment by Chris E
12.03 pm on 1 Oct 2009
I think that the thrust of that passage is that Gospel values will always run counter to the values of every human society. It seems to me that to deny that you have to deny Original Sin.
Yes, anything can become an excuse to go off at a tangent, but just because something can be done badly or not at all is not an excuse for not doing it well. I’ll tie my colours to the mast; I think a very good example of faithfully preaching the Gospel whilst dealing with cultural longings and challenging the prevailing cultural norms is what Tim Keller is doing in New York (see his sermons that accompany Reasons for God). That can serve as a useful example as long as we remember that not everywhere is New York.
Comments are now closed.