The Holy Who?
March 19, 2007
Posted by Dan Edelen in : Best of Cerulean Sanctum, Boldness, Charismatic, Christianity in North America, Church Issues, Discernment, Godhead, Godly Character, Maturity, Revival, Supernaturalism, The Holy Spirit Functions : Trackback,
Print This Post
,
Email This Post
How can it be that in a charismatic generation we’ve forgotten the Holy Spirit?
—Leonard Ravenhill
Love Ravenhill. No one cut to the chase better than he did. That’s the kind of thinking I pray gets exhibited on Cerulean Sanctum daily.
I wrote on the Holy Spirit last Thursday, but driving home from church today I got overwhelmed with a similar message, so I’d like to go into more detail.
Many people already know that I claim to be a charismatic, though I dislike the term immensely, and hate much of what the charismatic movement has transmogrified into in recent years. You can’t be around charismatics very long and not run into some—for want of a better phrase—serious wackos. Loyal readers will know that I routinely hold the spiritual feet of the charismatic movement to the fire. I simply possess no tolerance for charismania, as I call it.
On the other hand, this post addresses the other side of the issue.
A few questions:
1. Why is it that you can surf a hundred Christian blogs and not find a single mention of the Holy Spirit?
2. How is it possible that you can go to your average Christian bookstore and buy a dozen Christian books and find virtually no mention of the Holy Spirit?
3. Why is it that the institutional churches have either turned the Holy Spirit into a “fairy godmother” or gutted His power to do anything more than help us remember a few Bible verses?
4. In fact, how is it that some Christians routinely allow the Bible to replace the Holy Spirit in the Trinity?
5. How can it be that we can talk about eschatology, soteriology, epistemology, and a hundred other Christian -ologies, but someone casually asks to define pneumatology and entire swaths of mature Christians will scratch their heads?
How are any of these possible?
The inescapable truth is that every aspect of Church that we practice today existed before the Holy Spirit was given, yet we had no Church! The Church exists for one reason only, and that’s the Lord placed His Spirit inside us! 
Community existed, religious practice existed, love existed, service existed, even the Scriptures existed, but the Holy Spirit did not make his dwelling place in human beings.
Folks, the mark of the Church must always be the Holy Spirit in us. Everything else can be copied by other religions. But they do not have the Holy Spirit. He’s the promise. He’s the seal. He’s the power!
How then can we talk about everything else BUT Him?
One of the most compelling reasons for the Western Church’s comatose state can be found in our non-existent pneumatology. We’ve reduced the Holy Spirit to some index cards with a few memorized Scriptures on them. We’ve taken the Holy Spirit and accepted His seal on us for salvation, but then we move on as if He’s done with us.
Consider this well-known verse:
…Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.
—Zechariah 4:6b
We’ll quote that till we’re blue in the face and then go right out and minister from the flesh.
I’m not a supporter of the Emerging Church, but I’m sympathetic to some of the reforms they’re calling for in the Church as a whole. Yet I’m utterly mystified that a reform movement could be so lacking in any concept of the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology in the Emerging Church? I’ve not heard one peep about it. As far as I’m concerned, any reform movement that perpetually leaves out the mention of the Holy Spirit is nothing but flesh-centered hogwash.
And you, the institutional church guys. Stop laughing, because you’re the ones who forgot what the Holy Spirit is all about. No wonder your spiritual offspring in the Emerging Church are clueless about the Holy Spirit. You gave them nothing to work with. You’re the one’s who shoved the Holy Spirit in a closet and forgot about Him!
Yeah, I’m a little peeved about this. I hear a lot of pointless talk on the Web about revival and how to rouse the sleeping Western Church, yet almost nothing about the Holy Spirit. I promise this: if we start preaching on the necessity of the Spirit to empower our lives to holiness, evangelism, and true manifestations of the Spirit’s power to a generation unimpressed with talk without walk, we’ll see revival.
Ask yourselves how the Church grew from a couple hundred disciples at Pentecost to around 20-25 million adherents by the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Most people couldn’t read, no NT canon existed, the Gentiles had passing references to the Scriptures, persecution of Christians flourished, Christians didn’t meet in megachurches, and yet Christianity flourished. How?
Not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit!
How is that we’ve forgotten this? Worse, how is it that we’ve forgotten the Third Person of the Trinity altogether?
Amen! I am still learning myself because He was neglected as I was growing up. I preached an introductory series on the Holy Spirit last fall and found a great thirst among the congregation. People have heard so little that they soak up anything that is said. That may also be why there are some misinformed views, but anyway.
We need the Spirit just as much as we need the Father and the Son.
thanks for your post
Yes, we assume people know about the Holy Spirit by osmosis, but unless we teach about Him, I fear most people cling to strange ideas. Thanks for writing.
About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff were very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th Sep 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].
Peace Be With You
Michael
Thank you so much for sharing your dramatic encounter with the Lord. I pray you continue to grow in grace and knowledge of Him.
Great post. Another thought provoking theme and content. I have often been speaking in my Sunday School class and saidsomething like “being in tune/ step with the Spirit” and gotten blank stares of wonder and confusion. Not that it is a real excuse in any way for neglecting the Spirit but at least in my corner of the Evangelical world there often seems to be a fear that if we emphasize the Spirit we will be lumped in with the “Charismania” crowd.
Keep up the great work, I enjoy being made to think. That is one of the truly lost arts in the Church today.
It’s odd how some people fear the Spirit unreasonably, yet others act like fools around Him with no fear at all. Once again, reality lies somewhere in the center.
Dan -
I have nothing to add but a hearty AMEN! Thanks for saying what needs to be said!!!
Blessings!
~Heather
Thanks for being such a dedicated reader.
Dan,
I have always wondered at the vacancy left in the Trinity by the excused absence of the Holy Spirit-especially in Southern Baptist churches. When the “battle for the Bible” was “won,” an unintended consequence was the neglect of the Holy Spirit’s ministry to the intended purpose of “preaching with power.” I think the self-satisfaction gained caused a fleshly turn with the emphasis on what man has accomplished rather than what the Spirit intends.
There is a strong emphasis on expository preaching in Southern Baptist churches, as well it should be, but it is often to the detriment of the Spirit’s ministry in that same preaching; well illustrated, heartily explained, but oftentimes just sound and fury, devoid of “power.” A hundred power-packed illustrations and stories do not substitute for substance and the fingerprint of the Spirit upon the message.
One of the most influential books I’ve read on the subject is the late Stephen Olford’s Anointed Expository Preaching.
I will need to look up that book recommendation. We don’t talk about “unction” at all in the Church today. I had that kind of unction on me as I lay in bed unable to sleep Saturday nine days ago as the post on conferences just burned in me.
Too many churches have an underdeveloped view of the Holy Spirit. I suspect this is because we don’t do a good job teaching what we fail to understand! Perhaps if we knew Him better, we’d have a more robust pneumatology.
Dan:
I basically have no argument with anything you have said here and am commenting (a) to respond to some of your thought-provoking questions, and (b) because I’m as narcissistic as anyone and think my opinion matters or makes a difference. But, hopefully, I’ll clarify a few things here and there.
Responses to your numbered points:
1. At least in my cybercircles, most of the blogs I frequent are authored by Reformed individuals; they, for reasons I’ll speculate upon in a minute, steer clear of the Holy Spirit.
2. Most “Christian” bookstores are more trinket shops than they are bookstores. The only way to find any books that reflect actual scholarship is to order them online. Otherwise, books on the Holy Spirit are sensationalistic, experiential, and exegetically bankrupt ramblings - but they sell! Thank you, Benny Hinn.
3. A lot of “institutional” churches (which is not the same as churches needing to be institutionalized) don’t mention the Spirit who is God out of reaction to charismania. This would include the aforementioned Reformed churches, Baptists, Bible churches, and a host of others. Believing that charismatics have fallen from the port side of the boat, they promptly fall off the starboard side. Pretty common in church history, actually (and sadly).
4. For at least 25 years Americans have been referred to as “bibliolators” by European believers, believing that we have begun to worship the Bible rather than He who is the subject of the Bible. I’m a member of a Bible church and frequently stir things up by announcing that, if God were to cease to exist, the Bible would be just another book. They don’t like that idea but it is true: it is the Holy Spirit that makes the Bible the living word; the Bible does not possess aseity, i.e., life in itself. That is an attribute of God alone.
5. The silence re the Holy Spirit may be a function of what one reads or listens to. The systematic theologies I read - and even the brief doctrinal surveys - are quite thorough in their treatment of the Holy Spirit. The ST classes I have taught and now teach spend more time on Him than on eschatology - and I’m a dispensationalist! (Sounds almost heretical, I know.)
By and large, the relative silence about the Holy Spirit doesn’t bother me as long as people are knowledgeable of Him, i.e., who He is and what He does. His purpose, after all, is to draw attention to Jesus Christ and not to Himself. To the extent that people are talking about Jesus, He is being allowed to achieve His purpose. To the extent that people are talking about themselves and who they are or what they possess, He is being grieved and quenched.
You wrote,
Careful: you are sounding almost dispensational when you make such a claim! Covenantalists believe that the church includes believing Israel in the Old Testament (just by a different name) and not that the church first came into existence on the Day of Pentecost. Dispensationalists maintain that the church started in Acts 2 and that the age in which we now live is - even more than the Age of Grace - the Age of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit certainly came upon people in the OT but only after Acts 2 does He take up permanent residence in believers and thus establish the institution of the church.
But I digress. My apologies for the length of this comment but your post was heuristic, to say the least. Thanks for the post and the space.
The distinguishing characteristic of the Church is the presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling and among those within the Church. The Spirit may have rested on the patriarchs, but I don’t believe He did so in the same way that He indwells today. The prophecy of the Church in Joel makes this clear to me.
Why then are we so weak? That’s a good question each of us must examine carefully.
Dan:
You are right about the patriarchs: what distinguishes believers on this side of the Cross is the fact that the Spirit permanently indwells us and seals us in the Body of Christ. I don’t think believing Hebrews (the people, not the book) had any less of the Spirit available to them but He was not permanent and there was no sealing. Samson is probably the clearest example of both the power and the impermanence of the Spirit back then.
Why so weak? To me, it comes down to two things: ignorance of the Bible and ignorance of (better, unfamiliarity with) the Holy Spirit. Since those are the two vitals factors in spiritual growth, our growth is stunted accordingly. How do we know if we’re grieving or quenching the Spirit apart from Scripture? We pay a high price for our lowly ignorance.
Dan, I agree with you, but just to an extent. Before Jesus ascended, He said that the Spirit would glorify “Him.” (John 16:14). Some years ago, a pastor friend and I discussed how today’s church does not speak of Jesus and I don’t see where that has changed. When the church does speak of Him, it is in the sense that He is still back at Calvary. The strength of the early Pentecostals was that they preached “Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and forever.” That is consistent with what we see in Acts where the disciples gathered in His Name and preached in His Name. When and if the church returns to the “mystery of Christ,” the Holy Ghost will confirm the Word as we see in Acts.
No doubt that the Holy Spirit points to Christ! I still think our pneumatology needs a serious bolstering. If it’s not robust, then we miss what He has to say to us about Christ.
Dan,
Great article! But, you could have least let some of us off the hook.
You are absolutely right. Apart from the Holy Spirit, there is no church - no institutional church, no charismatic church, no emerging church, no house church, no simple church. Without the Holy Spirit there is simply religion and ritual. We seem to be very good at religion and ritual.
-Alan
Why do you think we have such an underdeveloped understanding of the Spirit today?
Dan,
I don’t think there is a simple answer to your question. First, there is probably some overreaction against misuses and abuses in the name of the Holy Spirit. (This probably goes all the way back to the Montantists of the 2nd century.) Second, it is probably also due to an overemphasis on the written Word. Third, the enlightenment and the age of reason probably play a role in an underdeveloped pneumatology. There are probably other reasons as well, such as the subjectivity involved in following the Spirit.
-Alan
Dan,
Where I would agree with much of what you’ve said here, I would suggest, as a post-charismatic, that charismania plays a rather large role in the apparent missing third member of the Trinity in much of the Western Church.
However, let also me say that you have broad-brushed painted the emerging church as devoid of the knowledge of the Spirit - calling it “nothing but flesh-centered hogwash”. Which sounds an awful lot like the ill-informed prognostications on the emerging church of John MacArthur - using language that Jason Hughes would be very comfortable with.
Many leaders of the missional/emerging movement in the church are keenly aware that absolutely nothing can happen in the church without the Spirit of God at work. In fact, the very definition of missional is to look and see what God (by his Spirit) is doing in your community and align yourself with that. Rather than the apparently more common modern decision to start something and hope God blesses it.
My comments on Emergent and the Holy Spirit come from my own experiences:
1. I’ve read several of the most prominent books within the movement. Without exception, they are loaded with a preponderance of reliance on scientific rationalism and nothing on the Holy Spirit. It’s almost a foregone conclusion that if I pick up the hottest Emerging church tome, I’ll find nothing said about the Spirit, His work, or anything. Whenever the author discusses why something needs to be done within the Church, it’s never the Spirit prompting the move, but some response to some survey, demographic study, or sociological analysis. It’s almost pathological. Yet the Church is simply not meant to operate in that way. The science may be helpful at times, but only by the Spirit’s leading. I don’t see this reflected in the books I’m reading, though. In many cases, missional means trying to discern the times with charts and graphs straight from the latest institutional study instead of relying on the Holy Spirit. Bill, I see this constantly.
2. I’m NOT saying that all emerging churches operate this way. But if we jettison the Spirit in favor of scientific rationalism, we’ve lost the Lord’s built-in guidance. We fall back on the arm of flesh that will certainly fail.
3. I know solid emerging churches that operate by dependence on the Spirit to lead in everything they do. And I know ones that get their leading from whatever speaker or study is hot, regardless what he might or might not say about the role of the Spirit.
4. Even within the Emerging Church, some well-known leaders are decrying the underdeveloped pneumatology that afflicts the movement in general. You can read the sites of these leaders. Yet I see next to nothing done to fix the problem. People address it, but then don’t know how to proceed. (This problem doesn’t just afflict the Emerging Church, however. But as a reform movement, the very fact the problem exists calls some of the reforms into question.)
[...] Rather)???????????????????? ?·?????Southwest Interactive???South Festival????????????????…Comment on The Holy Who? by Bill Kinnon Dan, Where I would agree with much of what you?ve said here, I would suggest, as a [...]
Dan,
Perhaps it would do us well to remember a few verses from the mouth of Christ Himself:
John 14:26, ESV: “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.”
John 16:14, ESV: “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
I am not meaning to deny or diminish the importance of the Holy Spirit’s work, but we must remember the Spirit will always draw our attention and affection to Christ and His Word.
The major problem with contemporary charismania (in your words!) is the overwhelming tendency to emphasize the Spirit Himself without ever getting to where the Spirit is pointing (and the One whom the Spirit is glorifying) — to Christ!
A truly Christ-centered ministry then will be a Holy Spirit-driven and empowered ministry … at least in theory anyway!
Thanks for the reminder! I sincerely appreciate your work!
Everything you said is true. I still believe our pneumatology is lacking. The ignorance of the Holy Spirit in our churches today more than proves this. Most people in the seats can’t provide even a rudimentary apologetic on the Holy Spirit. And that’s a crime.
Even Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit.
A better understanding of the Trinity would have us understand this more thoroughly.
Dan,
Forgive me, I’m a Canadian so perhaps my understanding of American conversation is lacking but this:
Doesn’t seem to line up with this:
What am I missing?
One is general and one specific. On the whole, the Emerging Church is a loose affiliation of churches. Some of the churches themselves might be stronger in their pneumatology than others. A few charismatic emerging churches exist, but even leaders within the movement note their rarity.
As I read the leaders within the movement, they either seem to leave out mention of the Holy Spirit in their materials, or they do mention the Holy Spirit in the context that Emerging Churches have a woefully underdeveloped pneumatology. The problem comes when no leaders from the Emerging Clan are attempting to remedy that lack. If there’s a book on the Holy Spirit from an Emerging standpoint, I have yet to see it. Nor do I see any action being taken to developing an Emerging pneumatology. Any other -ology, yes, but why the lack of discussion of the Spirit? I find it curious.
“curious” vs “flesh-centered hogwash” - one is a legitimate concern the other a rather harsh indictment of an entire “movement” in the church. And, for the record, I would not identify myself as “emerging”. I’m horribly allergic to scented candles, for one thing.
But you didn’t actually respond, Dan. You said one is general and one specific. You say you haven’t heard “one peep about it” and then say (on my blog) that Andrew Jones - one of the loudest voices in the emerging church conversation - “has lamented the woefully underdeveloped pneumatology in the Emerging Church”. Andrew’s voice isn’t “one peep?” Or Scot McKnight? Or Dan Kimble.
My concern with your “charismatic” perspective would be that many of us who self-identify as post-charismatic would label the charismatic movement overly focused on the Spirit with little focus on the Father and the Son. The Pauline letters would be at the centre of much charismatic ecclessiology rather than Jesus and the Gospels. Many in the e.c. have been attempting to restore the balance - without ignoring the Spirit. (See Alan Hirsch’s book The Forgotten Ways.)
Very good post, Dan, and I like Dr. Mike’s take on the matter as well; I especially like how you both write in word-pictures. It makes for interesting and (probably unintentionally) entertaining reading for someone like me whose brain seems to be hard-wired to translate words into images. I got a definite chuckle out of the boat reference.
I have a question, though. I believe it ties into the discussion at hand so perhaps someone can shed some light…? My question is this: If a particular person had, in the past, received a particular gift of the Spirit through the laying on of hands (and yes, I know there’s a great deal of controversy coursing through that subject to begin with) and at a later date decided against using that gift because he/she became uncertain/confused about the whether or not the gift was a). received appropriately and b). really and truly intended for today, have they or are they sinning by deciding to refrain from the use of the gift? Are they quenching the power of the Spirit in their own life and demonstrating an attitude of unbelief - OR - is the exercise of the gift optional once it is given?
I am referring to the gift of “tongues” exercised privately in prayer time with the Lord - AND (while we’re at it) - is this an appropriate way to exercise the gift, inasmuch as it seemed to be a very “public” means of edification in the early Church?
Thanks in advance.
Blessings,
Holly
(Almost notWonkyhead anymore!)
In his book Born After Midnight, A.W. Tozer tells of a man he knew who had a powerful ministry with the gift of healing. The minister received a call in the middle of the night, and deciding he’d rather sleep, did not come to the aid of the people who called him. He found, in the aftermath, that the Lord had stripped him of that healing gift and his ministry was never the same.
I believe that a few people have a gift that stays with them. I believe that more people can have any of the gifts as long as they stay open to the Lord using any of the gifts in them.
I also believe it is possible that if we neglect or despise a gift, the Lord will take it away from us.
As to tongues, I believe that this gift has both a public and private expression. Praying in tongues in private has meaning for the pray-er, plus it can edify the Church when done publicly. Rarely do I see it in that latter context today, though. At least tongues I would consider to be genuine, and not rambling sounds.
Thanks for the response, Dan. I am asking because I know of several people (one of whom is in ministry as a pastor) who were raised with or exposed early in their walk with the Lord to some of the excessive practices of the Pentecostal movement, and eventually reacted by doing a 180 and walking away from everything. I think there was a great deal of confusion in their minds about the gifts - and how to reconcile their experiences with what the Scriptures say about the Holy Spirit, as well as how to best honor God with their lives. I also believe they were the recipients of some poor teaching and were fearful that either their flesh was involved, or the gift was counterfeit and they were deceived, and so decided the “safest” course would be distance and plenty of it.
I just wonder if they are actually sinning, if God is displeased with their decision and if their walk with God must be affected in some way as a result. I confess I don’t have a lot of theologically sound teaching in this area either, and most churches (at least in my experience) either do not believe in the charismata and so don’t address the issue, or they do believe but don’t provide adequate teaching on issues such as the one I have raised before they encourage people to seek the gifts. A real disservice, either way.
Dan said…
Why then are we so weak?
to which Dr.Mike answered…
To me, it comes down to two things: ignorance of the Bible and ignorance of (better, unfamiliarity with) the Holy Spirit.
To the first point, I heartily agree. To the second, a slightly different, but I think significantly different perspective…
Ignorance and obedience are different things. When we are born again, we become indwelled with the Holy Spirit. It becomes part of us, and it counsels us daily. Hard to be ignorant of something that we are filled with. Whether we listen, or obey, is another matter.
We either obey its voice, or we don’t. The more we do, the more we receive His power. The more we ignore it, the weaker the power becomes.
Why are we so weak?
We choose not to exercise the power. The Thessalonians received the Holy Spirit and exercised its power through obedience to turn from their idols. Our distracting idols are as alluring these days as they were then. Many who have been given the gift set it aside because it counsels them against their idols of preference.
The entire Bible tells us we receive strength through obedience; the Holy Spirit confirms that. His grief is that we reject Him daily, in so many “little” ways.
I don’t believe Christ would leave His sheep ignorant of the staff of their shepherd. I do believe some of the sheep will ignore the staff and run off in pursuit of their pleasure.
Great post, Dan, thanks…
To obey is better than sacrifice, yes. God rewards obedience. He will not contend with Man forever. While He is gracious and slow to anger, He will not tolerate someone who perpetually thwarts His purpose. I had a relatively well-known NT prof in college who contended that God might very well take out disobedient Christians. That’s stuck with me till this day.
Cognizant of the risk of having this deteriorate into a semantic debate, I’ll nevertheless offer the following response to SirChuck’s correction of me:
1. I was not equating ignorance with disobedience, as you imply with your statement, “Ignorance and obedience are different things.” I equated ignorance with lack of familiarity, which I could say is evidenced by your referring to the third Person of the Godhead as an “it.” He is a senient, verifiable Person. Please get this right: you can call me an “it” if you like - many are those who have questioned my humanity - but there is no question about He who is the Holy Spirit. He is not an “it.”
2. Sir Chuck wrote,
Two things: first, you seem to be equating indwelling with filling, something the NT does not do; second, assuming knowledge as a result of indwelling is a non sequitur: a person can be filled with wine just as one can be filled with the Spirit, but being filled with wine doesn’t mean they automatically know anything about wine or even how the wine is affecting them. If they knew the latter they wouldn’t abuse it; if they knew the former they might open their own distillery.
3. To the NT mind, obedience was implied in knowledge. To truly know something, you had to do it; not doing it was proof that you did not truly know. I’m not delving into the Greek words for knowledge; I am just reflecting how the term was used during the age when the NT was written. Knowledge was - and should be - proven by obedience.
4. You say, “We choose not to exercise the power.” How exactly does one do that, i.e., choose to exercise? The command to be filled with the Spirit is a passive imperative: that suggests that I do not so much choose to “use the power” as I choose to allow myself to be a vessel through whom the Spirit can work - if He chooses. I don’t dictate to the Spirit; He dictates to me. I am to be compliant, like clay. I can choose whether or not to become more informed about God through His revelation but I cannot choose to exercise His power. It is His power and will always be His power.
5. At the end of the day, however, I do agree that we need to be obedient. But we need to know (1) to what we are obedient and (2) to Whom we are obedient. Obedience - like zeal - is useless if not wedded to both the written word of God and He who is the Spirit of God.
DrMike,
I whole-heartedly agree with your point #5, and in agreeing with you to avoid the “semantic debate” I’ll pass on points 1-4.
No “correction” was needed or intended, only a different perspective.
Your brother in Christ,
SirC
This is great Dan. My blog today talks about what you’ve said. But I really couldn’t add much - you said it all…:)
Very true… bring that revival!
Good thing we have the Holy Spirit too…
I know I need revival!
Wow I love your blog. I always go away thinking about my walk with Christ. Thanks! I was asked at chruch to preach on the Holy Spirit and I went to look for books at my local Chrstian bookstores and found nothing of value on the Holy Spirit. I can not wait to get started I have it setup to start after Easter.
Thanks for making us look at ourselves
Juan
Thanks for the kudos and for being a reader.
If you want a good book on the Holy Spirit written by one of the old schoolers, look up R.A. Torrey’s The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.
Dan,
My book on Post-Charismatics will be out later this year. I am but a wee tiny minnow in the larger emerging/missional ocean, but I would definitely qualify as a pro-Holy Spirit writer within the emerging/missional stream. You would also find numerous posts on the Holy Spirit at my blog.
I may be in the minority, and I may not be (in)famous, but I’m here and I’m writing about the Spirit nonetheless!
What do you make of Andrew Jones’s comments that the Emerging Church has been neglecting the Holy Spirit?
I am a third-wave girl (shaped by time in independent charismatic/Vineyards/influenced by Int’l House of Prayer in KC) who has logged time in evangelical and fundamentalist churches, who loves to read theology and eccelsiology, writes about the parables, works in a bookstore at one of the flagship evangelical seminaries in the U.S. - and I have emergent sympathies. Do I need medication?
Weary of charismania. Weary of crusty-dry religious ritual. Growing weary of the talk-talk-talk of some among the emergent movement.
The weariness tempts me toward cynicism.
This is not the life God has for me - for any of us!
Keep bringing this topic to your readers. May it spark a hunger to go beyond our need for control and manage the Spirit (in all the camps of Christendom) to a willingness to surrender.
And robbymac - I visited your site last year, and was impressed at your analysis of the Charismatic world’s recent history. I’ll have to visit again.
I absolutely understand that weariness. I get weary, too. Strength in numbers, though. If enough of us get weary, we’ll be forced to do something about it!
Excellent stuff as usual. I remember reading a book recently about church and committment to the church, which included a list of things to look for in a church. There was absolutely no mention of the Holy Spirit or a church’s committment to fervently pursue an experience of God’s presence through the Spirit. This disturbed me especially since the book was written by a ‘charismatic’.
I would like to say that I often mention the Holy Spirit on my blog (when I get time to write, that is). Now I have to do a search on there to see if I’m telling the truth hehe… I agree wholeheartedly that we lack teaching in this area. I still remember a moment at Bible college when God revealed to me that I didn’t have a proper understanding of the Spirit. If I said out loud “the Holy Spirit is God” it felt and sounded wrong to me. At that point I knew I needed to study Scripture about him and experience more with him. I still feel I have a great weakness in this area.
Your “the Holy Spirit is God” confession is an interesting one. I wonder how that would work for other people who struggle with this?
[...] I’m not a supporter of the Emerging Church, but I’m sympathetic to some of the reforms they’re calling for in the Church as a whole. Yet I’m utterly mystified that a reform movement could be so lacking in any concept of the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology in the Emerging Church? I’ve not heard one peep about it. As far as I’m concerned, any reform movement that perpetually leaves out the mention of the Holy Spirit is nothing but flesh-centered hogwash. -Dan Edelen, “The Holy Who?” [...]
Thanks for a good post. I’ll go with you and Ravenhill on this.
I’d use stronger language, like an ill-formed, under-developed, anemic pneumatology. And I might go a little farther and say we don’t want it any other way. I think there is a willful side to this which needs investigation. I might even go a little farther and say we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. I am not sure how we get away with it. Can you tell I am a lot irked?
We tell God, “Thank you Father. Thank you Jesus.” and then we go on our merry way or we replace the Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible and go on our merry way. Do we ever stop for a moment and even let God tell us how He feels about that kind of treatment?
I just graduated from one of the world’s best know seminaries. It has a great reputation but when it comes to the Holy Spirit and conversing about Him, eyes glaze over and fear mounts. Charismatics are either dissed or patronized along with Pentecostals. There’s something amiss if some of the greatest biblical scholars we have find difficulty getting the words “Holy Spirit” out of their mouths unless they are teaching a systematics course on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. There’s something wrong when some of my teachers felt it necessary to patronize, gloss over and marginalize a part of the Church. When anybody has to patronize somebody else or their convictions just to prove a point it usually means their own argument is weak and under-developed and perhaps just not worth the breath. Is this kind of stuff supposed to happen in a place where we ought to be free to learn, discuss and experience the reality of the third Person of the Trinity?
I hear what you’re saying about seminary. It goes on in undergrad, too. When I was at Wheaton, no one really talked about the Holy Spirit. When people found out I believed in modern-day speaking in tongues and healing, you would’ve thought by their reaction that I was a Martian or something. People constantly poked and prodded me theologically in class to see if I’d suddenly burst into glossolalia or something.
Very, very, very odd.
Hello,
I hear what you are saying, but I have to wonder why you haven’t come across my blog when you mention a hundred that don’t mention the Holy Spirit. I do and regularly acknowledge his leading of my life. Have a check for yourself. http://mylifeministries.org/blogs/fireknights/.
Love in Christ,
Pat
The Christian blogosphere has a HOST of blogs. In a random sample, you’d get plenty debating a Bible passage or some aspect of morality or some ritual or practice, but not many that routinely discuss the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying NONE exist, but the general silence is pretty alarming.
Now I know what my next Bible study is going to be on.
I am aware of the Spirit in my daily walk and look for His promptings. But in no way am I knowledgeable.
One time I was going to read a book on the Russian leader Lenin.. As I opened the book I had a deep sense of forboding. I took this as the Holy Spirit saying don’t read it. I never did.
When I wake up in the morning there is at times a song of praise in my heart. I take this as from the Holy Spirit. I have asked the Holy Spirit to give me a praise song when I woke durning a hard time in my life and He has.
When I do something and I have peace I take this as a conformation I am on the right track from the Holy Spirit. If I don’t have peace I take this as a signal that I could be on the wrong track, if I have prayed and meditated on the scriptures.
When something keeps coming back to my mind, I take this as from the Holy Spirit.
If something comes to me that is against the Scriptures I take this as NOT from the Holy Spirit.
Sound to me like you’re doing fairly well! In my own life, I find those days when I wake with a song of praise on my lips to always be the best days of all.
I too have seen a lack of emphasis on the Holy Spirit in emerging circles. I consider myself sympathetic to the emergent cause and conversation but one of my earliest observations was that some practices might be replacing the work of the Spirit.
I would call for a continuation of the emergent conversation but a fresh call for the Holy Spirit’s work to accomplish what needs to be done.
It’s not just me or you. A number of Emerging Church leaders have commented on the lack of noise concerning the Holy Spirit. Andrew Jones of Tall Skinny Kiwi fame especially has noted this, wondering why so few charismatic churches exist among emerging churches.
Dan,
Let me throw this out there.
Time for a cliche. It’s a 2-way street. I think without saying it, the emergent folks are saying, “Get lost!” Some of them have old and unhealthy habits.
The charasmatics on the other hand, are afraid of stepping into the fray for a couple of reasons. They fear the charge of “charismania” and don’t know how to deal with it because there are real whack jobs out there that have done enormous damage. Second, charasmatics (and I am speaking as one, like you) tend to have a weak or too experience-based pneumatology and the non-charismatics can smell it a mile away (like sharks drawn to blood). Would you want to swim in that kind of water?
Perhaps this is a little simplistic, but I think the solution is as simple as beginning to invite the Spirit to lead the emergent conversation.
Bill’s comment above is a valid one. Emergent folks right to be cautious. I hope emergent folks are able to embrace the genuine work of the Spirit despite the abuses.
Hopefully we can take our cues from Scripture not denominational social branding from either side of this issue.
Jeff,
I agree with your closing remark. We have a huge opportunity to exhibit oneness to the world.
Let me propose this. The Holy Spirit did start the conversation but we like to converse on our own terms. While the emergent side has the right to be cautious I still am not convinced based on some of the conversations I’ve had with some of the Emergent folks, that they are properly equipped. Old habits. Also, I suspect the emergent conversation is not as inclusive as they like to advertise. The Holy Spirit opened the door but we may be sticking our foot in the way.