Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: lingua franca
12 Oct 2009
I was recently having a conversation with a new friend of mine who is a linguistics professor at the University of Florida. Brent said something that I have been pondering ever since:
“My own discipline is perhaps the best place this is illustrated. Through studying language, we have learned that human language, abstractly, has a highly mathematical, elegant underlying structure that is universal (you find evidence for it in every human language). Yet the brain itself is a messy, bloody, inefficient system of neurons. How are the two possibly connected? We just don’t know. I’m a theoretical linguist and I work in a department with two brilliant neuro-/psycho-linguists. Yet we have virtually nothing to say to each other about how language works. It’s like we’re in totally different disciplines.”
Now, I bring up my lingering reflection on Brent’s comment in our conversation only because I think this can apply to the theologian and the practitioner of pneumatology and charismatology also. We are all participants in the Church, yet even though theologians can see the elegant underlying pneumatology with regard to Church, the practitioners are working in the messy, bloody, inefficient system of actual faith community. One of the issues that has been high-lighted for me in our conversations is that we must bring them together, even if they look at each other and shrug. To me, theology certainly helps inform our praxis, but even more so, praxis pushes our theology into new paradigms and beyond being “bottled-up”, but also facilitates and underscores the urgent need to embody our spirituality and wash ourselves of the continuing contamination of gnostic-thinking. Too often, when we speak of the Spirit moving in our midst, or carry on conversations concerning pneumatology and charismatology at every level we gnosticize. Yet we are embodied spirits – created that way and will be that way in the resurrection…we will have resurrected bodies – thus our spirituality, our pneumatology and our charismatology is embodied. If we lose this embodiment, we lose our humanity. My hope is that as we move forward as charismatics is that we embrace an embodied spirituality, as well as take hold of one of the strengths of the emerging church: bring together the theologian and practitioner for fruitful (and frustrating) interconnectivity.
Also regarding linguistics, and being a bit of a word-nerd myself, language – especially translation of foreign-language texts (like sacred scripture) into English – is important to me. Even further the use of other English words to explain and translate words and concepts can be useful, particularly when certain well-used words tend to have accumulated a lot of “baggage”. Could possibly changing the lingua franca vis-à-vis ’spiritual gifts’ (i.e. charismatology) be in order for the emerging church? I hope so, afterall, in a consumerist-culture run amok, a ‘gift’ is more about ‘me’ than the ‘Giver’. Not to mention that it seems to separate the gift from the Giver. I like what James Fowler has to say about it:
“Throughout the history of Christian interpretation of the charismata there seems to have been a tendency to translate and label these divine ministry expressions as “spiritual gifts.” This despite the fact that there is nothing inherent in the words pneumatika or charismata themselves that necessarily conveys the idea of a “gift.” We do not translate energematon (I Cor. 12:6) as “energy-gifts,” so why do we translate pneumatikon (I Cor. 12:1) and charismaton (I Cor. 12:4) as “spiritual gifts”? These words are more adequately translated as “spiritual-expressions” or “grace-expressions” which are, indeed, “given” (I Cor. 12:7,8; Rom. 12:6) by the grace of God.”
I guess my issue is that “Christ lives in me”, and thus gift-talk can make it about me and not about Him living in and through me. Again, I think James Fowler brings some clarity here:
“There is a natural tendency among men to want to objectify everything as independent entities or abilities. In so doing, they want to “get a handle on it, figure it out, identify it, organize it, mobilize it, and use it for utilitarian purposes of productivity.” Is this not what we have observed throughout Christian history, as the charismata have been objectified as separated “spiritual gifts,” distinct entities or commodities regarded as specialized tools, equipment or “power-toys” which belong to specific individuals as possessions, or even as prizes or trophies of spirituality and success? As is so typical of religion in general, the ontologically dynamic concept of Christic-function has been perverted into a dualistically detached category. When the so-called “spiritual gifts” are thus detached, disjoined and divorced from their singular divine source in Jesus Christ, from the very Being of Christ Himself, they are regarded as distinct abilities, endowments, enduements and empowerments allegedly given to individual Christians apart from Christ. “
At this point, I am reminded that Karl Barth in his tome Church Dogmatics references the charismata in terms of “vocation” and “calling” in the context of the faith community. This expands what I think the typical understanding of charismata are and places it in its proper context – not as individuals, but as people connected in a community. I think this also connects with the responsibility for discerning and evaluating charisma in a faith community context. As James D.G. Dunn comments in his 2nd volume of The Christ and the Spirit, Volume 2, p. 326
“As E. Kasemann has rightly insisted, so far as the Pauline community is concerned, authority resides in or belongs to the act of ministry itself – it resides neither in the person nor in an office, but in the particular charisma itself. Moreover, the concomitant responsibility to evaluate that charisma is laid upon all. Now this fact is true of all ministry, of all charismata, in the Pauline vision of community.”
What do you think? Can re-languageing be important? Is it important to you? Or are you more comfortable with the more well-used words? Is the context of faith community important when referencing “spiritual-expressions”? What do you think of an embodied spirituality? What about authority residing in the act of ministry – in the charisma itself, which comes through the Spirit from our Lord Jesus Christ…do you agree?
23 comments
Trackback
Comment by Steve Burnhope
9.52 am on 12 Oct 2009
Great post, Steven. I am really inspired by some of your ideas.
On the language point, I think introducing new words in place of well-used words is very helpful. I welcome it because it forces us into a re-thinking and a conversation about meaning. Words so easily mean quite different things to different people (words are, after all, not a thing in themselves, but merely signposts to some thing they are ‘pointing to’). This is particularly so with well-worn words.
Religious words are no different to any other words in this respect. However, truths in scripture reside not in the words themselves but in what those words point to.
As we all know, though, ‘new words’ in themselves are not the full story for reimagining subjects, such as the Spirit, in the postmodern context. We have seen in relation to culturally-sensitive mission that Modern (conservative) thinkers seem to believe all we need to do is change some of our vocabulary and illustrations (to which they are open-minded), rather than revisiting some of our theology and ‘ways of thinking’ about the faith too (to which they are not open-minded).
Reply to this comment
Comment by Robin Vincent
10.17 am on 12 Oct 2009
To echo what Steve suggested above about new words forcing a re-evaluation – that is goo. I get frustrated by the use of spiritual words that make it sound like we know what we’re talking about but often belie a chasm of unknowing.
As to authority existing in the act – it’s a lovely idea and i’ll think on that but my immediate counter is that it kinda divorces us from responsibility and the emphasis moves to “this is god working through me” from “this is me broken and human trying to articulate gods will through the gifts i so badly use”. But on the other hand i love the diminishing of ego of placing our “gifts” back into the hands of god.
Right, lots to think about – thanks for that, wasn’t planning to be here
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
1.08 pm on 12 Oct 2009
i think you are so right robin…too often we use these well-worn words to masque the chasm of unknowing (love that turn of phrase). this in particular is why re-languaging is fairly important, it challenges us to tackle what we know and do not know.
it also gives us permssion to wrestle with all of this without falling into name-calling and being labeled ‘heretic’, etc.
my take on kasemann and dunn with respect to authority residing in the charisma, is that number one: it puts authority back where it belongs in Jesus, and puts us in the place of derivative authroity via His Spirit living in us. number two: it highlights the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and possibly is a check on abuse of power/control within our faith communities. number three: it does not deny that one person may have a on-going ministry in which the Spirit empowers again and again over time. number three: it keeps us all open and watching and discerning for the move and direction of the Spirit and not falling back on any ‘cult of personality’, which is present in many churches i have visited. number four: it keeps me humble, acknowledging “this is me broken and human trying to articulate gods will through the gifts…” my last thought is that it also frees the Spirit in wildness and gentleness to be the most Free Person i know, and keeps us from trying to “bottle Him up”…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Robin Vincent
10.18 am on 12 Oct 2009
“good” not “goo”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
10.39 am on 12 Oct 2009
Hi Steve, Thought provoking post as usual, thank you
I love Reinhard Hutter’s pneumatological conception of the church as ‘the public of the Holy Spirit’. Perhaps the church is the speech act of the Spirit, the grammar and language of the Christian life made manifest and embodied, and act of formation?
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
1.21 pm on 12 Oct 2009
yes, i think both hutters’ pneumatological conception, as well as pinnock’s “face of the Spirit” concept are evident in kasemann and dunn’s observation regarding authority in the charisma/act of ministry.
it does make me wonder at how secularized many churches have become, shrinking to private space, withdrawing from public space, where the Spirit would be manifest…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
11.33 am on 12 Oct 2009
Not dissimilar to this is Clark Pinnock’s proposal (which I referred to in my last post) that perhaps the church is the ‘face’ of the Spirit.
E.g. Paul asks “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” (1 Cor 3:16). Pinnock suggests paraphrasing Paul’s question: “Don’t you know that the Spirit wishes to find his face made visible among those who believe?”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jonny
3.17 pm on 12 Oct 2009
thanks steven, i found the phases “spiritual-expressions” or “grace-expressions” very helpful, and I think right language can lead to right thinking; although it doesn’t guarantee it, it certainly works well as part of the process.
I like “expressions” because you can’t own them, as you mention the language of “gifts” become possessive and private, like Gollum’s ring “my precious, it came to me, its mine.” No one can own an expression, but an expression would be (/is) unique with each person.
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
3.51 pm on 12 Oct 2009
What about authority residing in the act of ministry – in the charisma itself, which comes through the Spirit from our Lord Jesus Christ…do you agree?
Does the above even after elder/communal ‘discernment’ not lead ultimately to only 2 options in response – this charisma is Gods will and needs to be obeyed OR it is not Gods will and can be ignored?
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
4.04 pm on 12 Oct 2009
i suppose in an ultimate sense, it could, but unfortunately or fortunately i don’t see it as that easy; it’s much messier, and clarification can happen on the journey, even after the fact.
as we all agree we are broken vessels, vulnerbable to “seeing through the glass darkly”, it could be the “essence” of what was given is true, but perhaps they did a little “interpreting” of what was received as they share, and we need to work back to the “essence”. this is why communal discernment is such a messy, yet interactive response that beckons us toward maturity. we need to be mature to question people and really get to the heart of things, without threatening them (or them feeling threatened)…
add to that the time factor, that the answer to discernment may quite possibly be: wait and see. look for more. for myself, one key is to ask God to clarify via His Spirit.
it may also be that the discernment is that the application of what is discerned is personal, local community-based, or wider-, thus that is a factor as well. as the circle of involvement gets wider, those who “discern with” are welcomed in…
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
3.59 pm on 12 Oct 2009
I was thinking of ‘prophetic’ ministry
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
7.20 pm on 12 Oct 2009
again, my call here is for relationship, some transparency (no manipulation), and maturity.
i like how wimber always told us to do this sort of activity in the utmost humility, by phrasing what we say in a humble question, not a “Thus says the Lord”. i also appreciate how much that empowers the people giving and receiving, and ceates space right away for discernment: if i phrase what i have to say like : ” somehow in my mind i keep seeing the picture of zzzzz, does that mean anything to you?”, this empowers the person to say: yes or no.
one of the other issues that the vineyard has tried to practice over the years in this type of charismatic ‘prophetic’ ministry is that we never take people where they don’t want to go. thus, i must have the maturity and greater trust in God that if i think i know that i know that i know something , and ask the person about it, they are empowered to say yes or no as to going further with that…i do not force them along within this prophetic ministry setting. if follow-on needs to happen it doesn’t have to happen right away…we need to foster patience for our imperfections…all of us
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.44 am on 16 Oct 2009
I really like Steven’s (two) responses to Rodney here – ‘amen’ to that way of looking at this subject.
One of our problems is that the charismatology of the charismatic movement has often stressed the reliability of the Spirit at the expense of the flawed humanity with whom he is working. Human failings, which include a love of power, affirmation and status have contributed to a great deal of abuse and error, in the application of supposed work of the Spirit, which I think ‘new Charismatics’ have a duty to correct. I’m sure you know the kind of things I have in mind (if not, I’ll do a blog on it).
Hence, I think we really do need to swing the pendulum away from talk of authoritative wielding of the gifts of the Spirit and choose the most humble path available to us. The Spirit is not likely to feel slighted by our ‘humbling ourselves’, even if we do so more than strictly necessary, and nor are his purposes likely to be thwarted by us choosing the most self-effacing and ‘provisional’ route to deliver what we feel (perhaps rightly, perhaps quite wrongly, perhaps only partially) he is ’saying.’
I think there are more than two options (“It’s right = God’s word” or “It’s wrong = error”). To use the NIV version of the verse Steven referred to (1 Cor 13:12), Paul said “Now we see but a poor reflection, as in a mirror … Now I know in part …” I wonder what it is that charismatics think this verse is referring to? It’s surely contrasting the fallibility of our knowledge of God and his ways, in our present limiting human condition.
So, a further option is that “It’s a poor reflection” of something of God.
Anyone with real pastoral sensitivity will be genuinely concerned at the potential damage to the recipient of a flawed ‘word from the Lord.’ So much so, dare I say, that (if they truly prioritize the love of Christ above all other priorities, which I think is what 1 Cor 13 is trying to tell us to do) then they will be more concerned not to harm through getting it wrong than they are to deliver ‘the word of the Lord’ and be proven right.
Christian ministry is not all about being right.
Can I throw one other thought into the mix? A little known (at least, rarely quoted) verse is 1 Cor 14:32, which says the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. Interesting. I interpret the ‘feel’ of this verse as saying we have some significant degree of choice over what we deliver ‘prophetically’ and how we deliver it. Once again, I would always advocate taking the most humble and sensitive path available. So, as a practical matter, this might mean instead of ‘prophesying it’, ’sharing’ the idea with people as a thought. Or, ‘praying’ along the lines of the idea.
It needn’t be delivered as a ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ word – because the spirit is subject to the prophet
Bearing all these Scriptures in mind, can we ever be wrong to follow the track of 1 Peter 5:5? – All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
Should that not extend to the way we do ‘ministry’ of ’spiritual gifts’, just as much as anything else?
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.06 am on 16 Oct 2009
amen!
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Re-imagining the Spirit – #3 of 3 « faithandstuff.org
8.12 am on 16 Oct 2009
[...] (http://deepchurch.org.uk/2009/10/12/re-imagining-the-holy-spirit-lingua-franca/), too often when we speak of the Spirit moving in our midst we gnosticize. But in God’s [...]
Reply to this comment
Comment by Mike McNichols
3.04 pm on 16 Oct 2009
Steve, I agree with you that human error and frailty has often led to an abuse of the so-called “gifts of the Spirit.” Again, our language often creates a paradigm of possession and power that results in a lack of humility and the abuse of power.
For example, I’ve heard people speak of someone’s “gift mix,” meaning the recognition of the spiritual gifts that, having been granted by the Spirit, are now inherent in the person. As as result, the person now becomes the person with the gift of X. However, I don’t believe that Scripture allows us such an interpretation. The charismata are at the discretion of the Spirit of God and come to human beings as God desires. One key correction for the “new Charismatics” to consider, as you point out, is how humility remains the proper context for the ministry of the Spirit.
When the charismata are evident, perhaps the proper response is wonder.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
3.23 pm on 16 Oct 2009
spot-on mike! i’m in touch with your remarks on “gift mix”…you raise a significant issue with regards to language: we often call “talents” or “abilities”, “gifts” and mix them up somehow with charismata, thinking: “spiritual gifts”.
knowing that God is Creator and put specific things in me like the ability of “being tall”, which comes quite naturally to me as i am 6 foot 3 inches (1.8288 meters), but that isn’t ‘charismata’…
but how do we discern between ‘charismata/pneumatika/energamaton and talents or abilities? for perhaps a better example from my life, people see how i do things with some measure of ‘organizational genius’ or ‘expert efficiency’ and say “he has the ‘gift of administration’”, to which i have often responded: i’m not sure that is the case…my mother was an efficiency expert for a major corporation in the 1980s and 90s and i was raised in the most efficient household known to man, and ‘being efficient’ was how my mother trained me, which while the Spirit has a role in shaping us toward abilities and talents, this isn’t charismata as we understand it biblically from the new testament…it may all be because of God’s grace working in me, but does that make it all charismata/pneumatikon/energamaton?
perhaps the answer is in what you propose: the response of ‘wonder’ to something naturally supernatural or supernaturally natural…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
7.02 am on 17 Oct 2009
Love these posts. As usual, Steve, you’ve given us much to ponder. Again, sorry I’m running late on the conversation.
I’m going to push back a bit on “gifts” as a problematic word. I agree that in Western culture it has often come to mean something individualized and owned, but as I see it the problem lies not with the word but with a few particular aspect of our secular culture – namely consumerism and neo-liberal economics in general – and at least one aspect of our ecclesial culture – namely, our Reformation obsession with combating a works-based righteousness (for those of us who are Protestants).
As I see it the problem is not that we’ve improperly rendered “charismata,” translating it into the problematic word “gifts” and thereby couching it into a commodified concept, but rather we’ve misunderstood the root “kharis” – which we translate “grace” – and have turned IT into a commodified concept – or more accurately, we’ve defined it as the ultimate anti-commodity and used it to fight the ghosts of indulgences past. Thanks to the Reformation, “grace” has become the antithesis of earning and/or the antithesis of punishment (depending on the topic at hand), when it’s better understood as the thesis of gift-giving. Kharis, strictly speaking is a “gift” concept and is best understood not within the framework of market exchanges but within the framework of a reciprocal gift economy.
Understanding the “grace” and “gifts” spoken of in the New Testament this way renders the entire economy of charismata as one that intimately binds God and man together by the Spirit in an eternal endowment of co-creation. Greek Orthodox Pneumatology has much to say about this kind of Trinitarian economy. This kind of reciprocity is what “gifts” mean anthropologically in virtually every society leading up to modern Western culture. Even today, this kind of binding reciprocity is what is practiced in many non-western cultures, where the idea of gifts that separate would be nonsensical; true gifts can never separate because their very purpose is to unite, just like true gifts can never be owned by any individual because the gift must always move around the community. As soon as the gift stops – that is, as soon as it is “hoarded” – it rots (consider what happened to manna when it was hoarded…this is a classic “gift” lesson found in other cultures folklore). This kind of gift-created binding is most obvious in ceremonies like marriage, where we often still say in the West that we “give” our daughters in marriage, and is even more clearly seen in countries where arranged marriage is still practiced to create familial and tribal alliances. Gifts unite. Even when gifts are used to abuse they don’t do so by isolating, they do so by establishing dominance.
Yet even though gift-giving in highly consumer cultures like the U.S. is prone to becoming “all about me,” I think that is only so in certain commercialized circumstances – particularly birthdays and (ironically) Christmas. In these instances giving gifts has becomes almost completely individualistic and gluttonous, however in the rest of our cultural day-to-day practice gifts remain closely tied to the heart of reciprocity. Think of potlucks, and house-warming gifts, and the bringing of a bottle of wine when you arrive at a friend’s house for dinner. These kinds of more common gift gestures are always implicitly understood to connect people in meaningful ways that foster community. They are meant to do the same thing in the church – and, indeed, perhaps it could be said, in the Trinity itself.
For these reasons I see gift-giving and the language of “gifts” as not only an accurate and appropriate rendering of the kharis words in the New Testament, I see this sort of language as extremely fertile missional soil – if only we can distinguish it from the trappings of Reformation fetishism. The good news is that those trappings occur mostly in the church.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
1.35 pm on 17 Oct 2009
as i mentioned when you first brought it up a few osts ago, i really appreciate and am intrigued by your “gift-giving culture” example from india and how it can be redemptive or turn controlling. i also lean the way of grace-ness emphasized, but i think i still come back to “No”
and my “no” is more like Barth’s “NEIN” in his debate with emil brunner. in fact, conceptually, i tend toward brunner, but i think barth was right in terms of context and culture. he saw the spectre of nazi germany and how that culture would be affected by the other side of the debate, thus i feel he came down more on the other side out of an incarnational and contextual approach (knowing the times he lived in)…thus:
i think this might be a really healthy approach in a “gift-giving” culture, but in current American culture, i think we need to be more counter-cultural in our faith settings and collective witness, and thus in re-languaging “gift” to “expression” the emphasis at this current times goes toward countering the zeitgeist of our culture that seeks control, self-obsession and convenience…
yet we cannot demy the other side even if we emphasie it differently now…which i have been reminded of recently as i am re-reading brueggemann’s “in man we trust: the neglected side of biblical faith”
what do you think?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
5.52 pm on 17 Oct 2009
You make a very good point Steve. Here are my scattered thoughts:
You and I definitely have a common desire to be counter-cultural. I find it interesting that where I see gifts as a powerful means of countering the Usonian zeitgeist, you see them as a capitulation. I suspect this may be because we’re viewing the phenomenon of gifts through different lenses. You may be right, I’ll give it very serious consideration.
I, too, fall on the side of Brunner in the debate about Natural Theology, and here’s why: ultimately I think Brunner’s position was more holistically biblical, whereas Barth’s position was a) merely more Reformed and b) essentially reactionary against culture. Personally, I’d rather run the risk of syncretism if (ironically) it means holding to a more biblical overall view than overemphasize pet doctrines because they effectively keep culture at bay. I don’t think keeping culture at bay is a primary ecclesiological task; I think mission is primary, and mission requires finding God at work in culture. Even though gift-giving is deeply co-mingled with consumerism, I still see it as deeply biblical and, in a particular form, deeply counter-cultural. Hence, I’m optimistic it can be redeemed from consumerism.
I should be clear that I’m not borrowing gift-culture ideas from India – although Indian society is replete with gift-ethics and economics. My understanding (which is certainly very limited) is that reciprocity as a gift-ethic is present in every society, including Western culture, and is highly prominent in scripture. Again, I may be wrong, but I see it as an anthropological common denominator between the gospel and culture.
I think it’s possible that much of the static that exists between reciprocal gift-giving and consumeristic gift-giving lies within the realm of self-interest and personal identity. We tend to dismiss anything that smacks of self-interest as a “selfishly” motivated act (hence gifts can be easily written-off as just another consumer indulgence), but the truth is that the pursuit of self-interest is vital to ethical society and vital to the gospel itself. The difference between virtuous self-interest and depraved self-interest depends on the definition of the “self.”
I suspect that language being what it is – evolving, subjective, and laden with baggage – that we would have this problem no matter how we translate “charismata” and other kharis-rooted words. Pick a different word and we’ll still find syncretistic danger of another kind. Personally, I still think the language of “gifts” is powerful and promising for the sake of accuracy and mission. Still, I’m open to better options. If we can “re-language” the terms of the gospel in a way that remains accurate to scripture and intelligibly transferable to the indigenous culture, then count me in!
Thanks for your thoughts on all this Steve. This series has been getting more and more stimulating for me as it has progressed.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
8.30 pm on 17 Oct 2009
see, i’m all ready waffling, for several reasons:
yes, i do come down on brunner’s side, particularly just for the reason you mention: no matter how we ‘phrase’ it, we risk syncretism and mis-understanding at some level…
i don’t want to merely be more ‘reformed’ in my thinking, i want to think, act, be ‘biblically-centric’ or have a ‘biblical-orientation’, perhaps that is a better phrase…see language again,
i am definitely not a member of the “reformed” mafia, i actually stand against them most of the time from sheer exasperation as their pharisaic-nature, not to mention the ones i have met seem to be particularly un-loving (so surely the world doesn’t know them by their love…not by their self-less gift-giving)
i believe that quite possibly gift-giving-in-the-way-you-describe, can be counter-cultural and significant…help my unbelief!
i do believe barth’s prophetic stand was contextual to his own people, whereas brunner had a more ‘global-perspective’ perhaps, and barth’s later writings seem to make room for natural theology (post-nazi germany)…
here is actually another piece of why i tend to move toward the “expression” over-against “gift” language vis-a-vis ‘charismata’: the human element. i haven’t really dug into the Greek (and maybe i’ll go do that now) of Ephesians 4, but its seems to me that the english (nasb) places ‘people-expressing-ministry-via-the-One-Spirit” as the direct objects of ‘gifts given by Christ’…it’s the combo of people+spirit-empowered ministry acts…in other words ‘apostles’, not just ‘apostolic ministry’…’prophets’, not just ‘prophetic ministry’, ‘evangelists’, not just ‘evangelistic ministry’…i don’t think this contadicts my suport for kasemann and dunn’s thesis that authority resides in the act of ministry/charism either, because we have to discern each time the Spirit moves with power in our midst…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
10.33 pm on 17 Oct 2009
Don’t get me wrong, I like Barth. I just think that his commitment to certain Reformed doctrines (like many Reformed folks) was higher than his commitment to the bible – which is an ironic and, in some ways, ridiculous thing for me to say because there was no more staunch champion of the Word of God than Barth. And I know you’re not part of the “Truly Reformed.” I didn’t mean to insinuate that. I wasn’t comparing you to Barth in that sense (though, you could do worse!), only extending your comparison of the subjects.
I appreciate your push to maintain the “human element” in charismata and agree wholeheartedly. My concern with Kaseman’s comment is that I detect a bit of dualism (i.e. people=bad, charismata=good). But I don’t know the larger context of that quote.
Overall, I still think you make a very good point, and I’m open to “re-languaging” as you put it. There’s a great deal here to parse out, and admittedly my perspective is shaped significantly by a kind of missional reading of anthropology. I’m certainly not ready to assert with confidence that the anthropological understanding of gift-giving is also the Biblical understanding of gift-giving. I suspect it is, because, among other reasons, it would be just like a missional/incarnational God to do that, and because so far my own (very limited) investigations have proven fruitful. But, I also expect there are important distinctions to be recognized and preserved. Moreover, even if they are synonymous, that doesn’t answer the question of whether that kind of “gift” terminology has been ruined in the West by consumerism as you suggest. Perhaps it has. If so, we’ll need another compatible, yet potent cultural term.
On another note, have you (or are you) writing a paper for the SVS conference, and if so, what was your topic and can I get a copy?
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.03 pm on 17 Oct 2009
a missional reading of anthropology coupled with pneumatology and several rounds of beer sounds better and better…
i have submitted a paper to SVS, it flows from a direction my thoughts have taken since my days as a graduate student at the baltimore hebrew university…are you planning on being at the conference?
i’ll e-mail you a copy.
Reply to this comment