Thanks Louis, sounds like a Christ like message to me. How can anyone go wrong showing empathy to the varieties of people who surround us. Pay our taxes gladly (especially the ones that contribute to the needs of the poor) and reach out to our neighbors with kindness and generosity. Thanks.
Thanks, Sam, for your thought provoking article on your experience of a dying church from your past. I take it that you think that many other churches that are declining are experiencing the same conundrum as your church, which is when the church leadership attempts to control the Holy Spirit.
But I’m not sure what you are getting at when you talk about controlling the Holy Spirit. Are you talking about losing a Christ centered priority? That seems to be what you are suggesting when you explain the Revelation passage, “Remember our first love - Jesus Christ.” Practically that could entail a lot of things. But when you speak of your personal experience, it seems to be a matter of speaking in tongues which may or may not be a matter of giving Christ the priority he deserves, or for other churches your concern may be a matter of not using or recognizing the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure what you are getting at in your article? Are you suggesting that churches that are not pushing in the direction of third wave theology or Pentecostal thinking are trying to control the Holy Spirit?
You realize that most churches from the time of their inception were growing and robust churches, and if they were mainline churches or CRC churches that growth took place without an emphasis on third wave or Pentecostal thinking. So to put the blame of trying to control the Holy Spirit, or the blame for declining membership, in the realm of resisting the third wave movement or wanting to remain traditional may be faulty thinking. Maybe along the lines of advice given to the church at Ephesus, churches need to get back to what they were doing earlier when they were experiencing growth. They need to, “Turn back to me and do the works you did at first.” Maybe Christ’s advice had nothing to do with the miraculous gifts. Depending on what you are saying, there may or may not be some fuzzy logic in your article. I guess it depends on what you mean by trying to control the Holy Spirit.
I have read your article, Sam, and Andrew Beunk’s corresponding article, and I’m left wondering what you conceive of as the power of the Holy Spirit or trying to control the Holy Spirit. What specifically is a Spirit filled church? Is a traditional and conservative CRC church any less Spirit filled than a charismatic Pentecostal leaning CRC church? And if Jesus advice to the church was a matter of getting back to their starting emphasis, then that likely had nothing to do with getting on the third wave train that a lot of our churches are getting on as of recent. So a little clarity would be helpful.
Thanks, Sam, for your challenging response. But I’m not quite sure how to respond to your comments. I guess, on the one hand, I could say I agree with your final comment that “there is no end of ways by which a local congregation can resist or attempt to control the Holy Spirit.” And then we could just leave it at that and try to remedy our ways, whatever they may be. But I don’t really think that was the point of your article. Somehow I think you were digging deeper. And maybe what you were digging at is rather controversial in our denomination.
First, let me apologize. I thought the one example you gave about speaking in tongues was your own experience. This, I now realize, was an experience of someone other than you. It helps to understand this.
As you may know there is a movement in the CRC toward being more open to the operation of the Holy Spirit, as if the CRC was not previously open to the Holy Spirit. Those on both sides of this movement have some skepticism toward the other side. Your examples and the general advice you give seem to fall in support of this new “third wave” movement of the Spirit. But you don’t quite come out and say it. In contrast, your last paragraph (of your last comment) is so generic that it doesn’t really have much meat. Sure we should all be looking for ways that our own churches can be growing in the faith and for ways we may be hindering that growth (another way of saying controlling the Holy Spirit). So is your article addressing this more generic concern or is it addressing churches that don’t seem open to this third wave movement that is moving among a lot of evangelical churches today?
As to the two examples that you gave in your article concerning spiritual gifts, are you sure that the leadership of these two churches were really trying to control the Holy Spirit, if even inadvertently? When someone in the congregation gives the opinion that his church only opened the door partially but not fully to the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, was that the feeling of most others in the congregation, or was it this person’s own opinion, and what is the basis of his opinion? What would it mean, for him, to open the door fully? And when a small group of teenagers from the youth group of a church started speaking in tongues (almost fifty years ago) and were told that they were playing with fire by the leadership, don’t you think it’s possible that these leaders had it right? Should have the leaders simply said, from now on we are going to have tongue speaking and interpreting of tongues as part of our regular worship services? And we are also going to make these teenagers the leaders of the church because they obviously have the Spirit of God present in their lives. Just because someone in church speaks in tongues does that mean the church should all of a sudden be open to the so-called miraculous gifts? Was there anyone in that church that could have validated the authenticity of the tongue speaking young people? Is it enough to say, I can speak in tongues, or interpret tongues, or prophecy, or heal the sick or have a better understanding of prayer? And are these the true signs of a church empowered by the Holy Spirit and a sure sign that our church is now ready to go places?
Again, I just am not sure what you originally meant by your article. Was it a more generic warning about being sensitive to the Holy Spirit as churches, or sensitive to what makes for a healthy church? Or was your article meant to encourage churches to be sensitive to this newer third wave movement in churches which in the minds of third wavers is being sensitive to the Holy Spirit? Originally I thought you were addressing this second perspective, now I think you may be softening that a bit. Thanks again for the dialog.
I just noticed your comment, Bonnie, before getting ready to post this. I’m a little baffled though. Does being open to the Spirit mean that there is no room for others in the church to validate a member’s giftedness? That might be fine if your being gifted affects only your own life. That’s like saying, “let your conscience be your guide.” That, too, is fine if your conscience is guiding your own life, but when it affects others, then there should be a system of checks and balances. If your having the so-called miraculous gifts affects others in the church or the church as a whole then there should be a way to validate the genuine character of those gifts. I get a little bit suspicious when I hear people telling me, the Holy Spirit told me thus and so, and then I am not allowed to doubt their opinion. I find everyone has an opinion (whether you say it’s from the Holy Spirit or not), but that doesn’t mean everyone’s opinion is right. And I don’t think such a perspective has anything to do with controlling the Holy Spirit, but has everything to do with common sense and logic.
Thanks again, Sam, for your insights. It’s interesting to listen to the perspectives of others. You obviously have some wisdom and insight from working with a variety of churches, and probably many of them in decline. But I also realize that giving advice to churches can be like a crap shoot, and not all advice is equally valuable. Sometimes (not always) looking to the past is not very helpful, especially when all we have is the present. There may have been a variety of things that caused a church or an individual or a marriage to get off track, but you only have the present to set a new direction. And for a married couple, as you suggested (or was that Jesus’ suggestion), they may need to get back to some of the things they did well early on in their marriage or life as a church. But sulking over past mistakes doesn’t change the present or future.
In answer to what resisting the Holy Spirit looks like, you gave a hypothetical example of 20 people of another race not being embraced by the congregation, and the congregation eventually fell into decline. Of course that may or may not be the reason for decline. And that same congregation will probably not face that same situation again in order to correct that past mistake. But what can they do now? But let’s add to your hypothetical example. Maybe that same CRC congregation today is faced with the prospect of twenty practicing homosexuals (ten legally married gay couples) wanting to be professing members of that church. They all love the Lord and only want to participate in the life of the church like all other professing members. What should the leadership of the church do? They know that eventually the CRC will likely admit gays into full membership. Are they going to turn away twenty people who love and want to serve the Lord and in so doing resist or control the Holy Spirit, or are they going to embrace them as full members of God’s family and put a smile on the face of the Holy Spirit? Personally, I’d love to see that church embrace their homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. But I imagine that the church, at present will turn them away (like the rest of our denomination). And then fifty years from now that same church can look back on a past serious mistake by which they probably disappointed the Holy Spirit and contributed to the decline of the church.
So, Sam, how do you advise this church today? Looking back on a past error of judgment, what will you tell them today?
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your article. I’ve enjoyed the correspondence.
Before I send this off, once again, I realize that both Bonnie and Jeff have posted comments. I didn’t realize this until I was ready to send my comment. Thanks for your thoughts and comments, but will wait to respond. I think I have already said too much.
Thanks Sam. I think your advice is probably as good as it gets. But the problem with declining churches is not so simple as trying to control the Holy Spirit or grieving or resisting him. I could imagine the church that in 1969 had a group of young people who spoke in tongues, or the church which in the opinion of one member didn’t open the Holy Spirit’s door wide enough, those churches could well have sought the advice of others, searched the Scriptures, prayed fervently, looked for denominational guidance, and did the best that they could at the time. Sam, I’m not sure if your work is within our denomination or beyond, but as you probably know we can make Scripture say whatever we want. Hence the variety of denominations, and the different positions, even in our own denomination, over the use of so-called miracle gifts, the use of women in the church, the acceptance of homosexuals in the church, how to approach prayer, and the list of differences can go on. On these issues and others most churches are interested in following the Holy Spirit’s leading. They don’t intentionally do what is wrong and in most situations make an intentional effort to honor the Lord in their decisions. So I would suggest that it may not be as simple as saying we controlled or limited the Holy Spirit by this or that decision in the past. As individuals and as churches we do the best that we can at the time and trust God’s guidance.
In the past, Christians, even those in the CRC, had a religious jargon that was offensive to those on the outside of the church. We used religious terminology as though everyone understood what we were talking about. Some even spoke a Christianese that reflected a King James English. Most Christians came to realize that such talk was more offensive than helpful to an evangelistic effort and simply drew attention to Christians in an unhelpful and unwanted way. Today, Christians of the more charismatic and Pentecostal leaning (becoming popular in our denomination) are coming out with a new kind of Christianeze, with talk of prophecies, or the Holy Spirit told me such and such, or talk of spiritual healing, or talk of demons, and the list could go on. And people of this leaning talk with a sense of authority or even superiority that is offensive to people not only outside the church, but inside as well. They know what they should do in a given situation because the Holy Spirit was their guide, and who are you to question the Holy Spirit, or doubt the prophecy given to me by God? Or there is talk of controlling the Holy Spirit, as though they have a corner on knowing the mind of the Spirit. And should another Christian talk about making decisions based on common sense or logic or what is reasonable, it is as though such a person must not be a Christian. But isn’t a Christian’s logic and understanding influenced by his/her relationship to the Lord?
So Sam, I think I was picking some of this thinking up in your article, and maybe some of your responding comments. I may be wrong, as I often am. And my offense at some of this new Christian jargon and thought may also be wrong, at least in the opinion of many. I also realize there is a growing openness to this third wave thinking in our denomination and that the church worldwide is growing especially where there are Pentecostal leanings. Maybe our denomination feels this is the direction we should be pursuing, as this growth worldwide may be a sign from the Holy Spirit. But for me, I want to throw up flags, and will miss the strengths we have had in the past. I guess I should be content that being a Christian is a personal matter and can feel the leading of the Holy Spirit to stay on solid ground, as I understand Christianity.
I really didn’t intend to have a lengthy comment. I’m sorry. I have enjoyed the conversation with you and feeling free to be open in my comments. Wishing you the best in your work and life. Roger
A response to Jeff and Bonnie. I can fall prey to the practices (or mistakes) that I often see others make, namely going to an extreme to make a point, when there should have been some balance in my statement. I do think that in counseling situations (whether with a couple, an individual, or with a church) counselors can over emphasize the past in trying to reach a present solution. I didn’t mean that we should totally ignore the past. To say that in a decision almost fifty years ago or even five years ago, that we grieved or were putting controls on the Holy Spirit may not be so helpful. We may say, with hindsight, that our decision was not the smartest or maybe we could have done something differently. But to say a well thought out past decision (probably after prayer and contemplation) grieved the Holy Spirit may well be reading too much into the distant past. But sure a look to the past is often helpful, especially if there were obviously bad decision making patterns in past history. But the emphasis, in my mind, should be on the present and what we are doing now. A church that is constantly looking back for bad history (control of the Holy Spirit) is not likely to be a forward looking church with a positive outlook. So perhaps a balanced approach with the emphasis on the present and what we can do now to curb decline would be my suggestion.
Thanks for your interest, Christy, in hymnology. But don’t you think that you are making a stretch to come to your conclusion? If God works out all things for the good of his kingdom (those who love him) then it is natural to conclude that they are also ultimately for my good, as a part of his kingdom. If you want to go with some alternate manuscript, which is not likely the most authentic or if you want to interpret “good” in a way not intended by the Bible (or a particular Bible verse), then you are simply putting your own spin on the words of the song. And then you might as well start scrutinizing a lot of songs and hymns we sing, even ones from the Psalter, because they likely don’t fit with your own personal theology either. Who is going to be responsible, in the church, to scrutinize the words of our hymns to the level that you have examined this one phrase? I might not agree with the theology of many of the hymns and songs we sing in church, but finding others to agree with me (or my theology) would be an impossible task. I think you, are facing an impossible task, as well.
Thanks, Sam, for your article on corporate prayer. Prayer, for most Christians, is a puzzling subject. Before answering your question of how ministers or worship leaders should pray in corporate prayer, let me make some necessary comments first. What do we accomplish or hope to accomplish through prayer? In what ways is prayer effective? Does God change his mind about our circumstances in life so that by prayer we can persuade God to change his preplanned actions. Does the one praying have to fulfill a list of criteria in order for his/her prayers to be effective? Is prayer for the benefit of God or for the one praying? The list can go on and on as to the questions and doubts one has in regard to meaningful and effective prayer. Although there are a number of different aspects of prayer (ACTS), what stands out in both the Old and New Testaments is the concept of petitionary prayer. Jesus taught on several occasions to “ask for whatever you want and it will be given.” It easy to give thanks to God, to give praise, to confess one’s shortcomings, but petitionary prayer is where the rub comes in. How often do we receive from God what we prayed for, that wasn’t likely to happen anyway? When it comes to petitioning God, does prayer really have any effect? It would seem that if prayer was effective in the simple and commonsense way that Jesus taught about it in the gospels, then Christians would stand in much better stead than those who weren’t Christian and who didn’t pray. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. So if Jesus’ instructions can not be taken literally how should we understand them? And so ministers and theologians come to a multitude of conclusion in regard to prayer.
That is the reason why different ministers and worships leaders pray in the various ways that they do. They are, perhaps, trying to reach God in the most effective way possible in order for God to hear and answer their prayers. Some might suggest that written and pre-prepared prayers do not touch the heart of God therefore are not as effective as Spirit driven spontaneous prayer. Others would say that the Spirit can inhabit prepared prayers as much as spontaneous prayer. So I would suggest that one reason that a minister might use one kind of prayer over another has to do with his concept of prayer and what happens through prayer.
A question I have in regard to extemporaneous prayers, as you suggest, is, are they any more effective than any other pattern of corporate prayer? Perhaps as you suggest in your last paragraph, what difference do it make? The difference that you imply, is it doesn’t really matter to God, but it might to the congregation.
Something worth remembering as to the difference between prayer and other parts of the worship service, is that in prayer you are addressing God and in the sermon you are addressing the congregation, two different audiences. So if in prayer, you are addressing God, then as you say, why does it make any difference? If you are trying to impress a congregation with a style of prayer, then maybe you have to pick and choose? But who are you praying to anyway? Certainly not the congregation. I really doubt that any one form of prayer has a greater effect than any other. But I’m quite certain that others would disagree.
Maybe the makeup of the congregation would also make a difference as to how a worship leader or minister would conduct prayer. A large traditional church, a large contemporary congregation, or a small farm community church would each make a difference in the church’s personality and likely would also make a difference in the spontaneity or formality of congregational prayers.
Thanks for your interesting article. It does make a person think about the topic of prayer.
Thanks Sam for responding to my long winded comment. I judge from your last response, as well as your original article, that apart from the theology of prayer, or who we are addressing in prayer (whether God or the congregation), pastors and worship leaders are directly or indirectly helping to shape the prayer life of worshipers. The reality, though, for most if not all in the congregation (including ministers) is that their personal prayer lives consist of impromptu prayers, rather than formed or extemporaneous. So if ministers are hoping to shape the prayers of those in the pews, shouldn’t they help them in the format they are most comfortable with? Do we really expect church members to use “formed” or “extemporaneous” prayers in their devotional lives? Following your premise of shaping the prayer lives of those in the pews, perhaps developing easy patterns of impromptu prayer (such as Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication) would be more helpful to those in the pews, especially if ministers used such impromptu patterns thoughtfully.
As to my personal opinion, as to what format ministers and worship leaders use in congregational prayers, I think they use what is most comfortable for themselves. Some find it much more comfortable to have their prayers prepared ahead of time, so they don’t find themselves put on the spot in the immediate moment of praying. Others use the formed prayers of others because they sound and feel meaningful to the ears and hearts of the congregation. Others feel more comfortable and adequate with impromptu prayer. Extemporaneous prayer, as you describe, seems to be a combination of those three. Whichever format one uses in public prayer it should be thoughtful, just like the rest of the worship service. I agree with you that ministers should never just “wing it,” (even with impromptu prayer). And if that is the point of your article, that congregational prayer should not be winged, I agree with you. Thanks again for making us think.
So how does this untangling or unblending take place? It seems it should be the responsibility of every individual or family to celebrate Christmas in a way that is appropriate for them. Are you saying there should be an enforcer that manages the untangling for our population or for our churches? For many citizens Santa Claus is as much or even more the reason for the season than is Jesus. Certainly there can be no untangling for such as these. For many, Jesus is as foreign to one’s Christmas thinking as Mohammed is to our thinking. We live in a culture of many religions and beliefs. So why would we try to take the fun out of Christmas for non-Christians? And what influence do Christians have today that they should even attempt to untangle the meaning of Christmas for non-Christians? It’s best left up to individuals and families.
Thanks Ron for your article questioning the loss of interest in the abortion debate. Although some of your concern is justified, I’m not sure if your (or John Zylstra’s) target of blame is altogether justified. I find that in many arguments a person who wants to justify their own position, does so by painting the other side at such an extreme that even the other side wouldn’t agree with the position painted. To think that if discovering evolution was a fraud would somehow remove the doubts in regard to committing abortions, that is going to such an extreme. I don’t think, for the most part, that committing abortions and belief in evolution are related. I can see how you might make such an argument, but I doubt that those who believe in evolution, Christian or otherwise, would agree with you. What discredits the Biblical creation account, is that it is tied so tightly to a very primitive perspective of reality that does not correlate to reality or reason as we experience reality today. Perhaps the creation account makes sense to someone explaining the sound of thunder as God bowling in heaven. But that doesn’t sit well with very many people today. So if evolution was completely disproved, that wouldn’t mean that people would return to a Biblical view of the origins of earth and life. People would still look for an explanation that correlates to reality as we know it today, and not some primitive explanation of reality. So, I doubt that abortion and doubts about Biblical creation really relate to each other, as you suggest John. I know that the issue of the image of God and the sanctity of life are embedded in the creation account, but I doubt that these issues will change the thinking in regard to the right to life debate. And I doubt, Ron, that questioning these issues will lead to the devaluation of human life or the unabated moral decay of humanity, as you suggest. Just a casual reading of history will call into question such a perspective. Perhaps, such straw men that you have presented will convince a narrow segment of Christianity, but not most people.
Posted in: You: The Empathetic Person
Thanks Louis, sounds like a Christ like message to me. How can anyone go wrong showing empathy to the varieties of people who surround us. Pay our taxes gladly (especially the ones that contribute to the needs of the poor) and reach out to our neighbors with kindness and generosity. Thanks.
Posted in: Controlling the Holy Spirit
Thanks, Sam, for your thought provoking article on your experience of a dying church from your past. I take it that you think that many other churches that are declining are experiencing the same conundrum as your church, which is when the church leadership attempts to control the Holy Spirit.
But I’m not sure what you are getting at when you talk about controlling the Holy Spirit. Are you talking about losing a Christ centered priority? That seems to be what you are suggesting when you explain the Revelation passage, “Remember our first love - Jesus Christ.” Practically that could entail a lot of things. But when you speak of your personal experience, it seems to be a matter of speaking in tongues which may or may not be a matter of giving Christ the priority he deserves, or for other churches your concern may be a matter of not using or recognizing the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure what you are getting at in your article? Are you suggesting that churches that are not pushing in the direction of third wave theology or Pentecostal thinking are trying to control the Holy Spirit?
You realize that most churches from the time of their inception were growing and robust churches, and if they were mainline churches or CRC churches that growth took place without an emphasis on third wave or Pentecostal thinking. So to put the blame of trying to control the Holy Spirit, or the blame for declining membership, in the realm of resisting the third wave movement or wanting to remain traditional may be faulty thinking. Maybe along the lines of advice given to the church at Ephesus, churches need to get back to what they were doing earlier when they were experiencing growth. They need to, “Turn back to me and do the works you did at first.” Maybe Christ’s advice had nothing to do with the miraculous gifts. Depending on what you are saying, there may or may not be some fuzzy logic in your article. I guess it depends on what you mean by trying to control the Holy Spirit.
I have read your article, Sam, and Andrew Beunk’s corresponding article, and I’m left wondering what you conceive of as the power of the Holy Spirit or trying to control the Holy Spirit. What specifically is a Spirit filled church? Is a traditional and conservative CRC church any less Spirit filled than a charismatic Pentecostal leaning CRC church? And if Jesus advice to the church was a matter of getting back to their starting emphasis, then that likely had nothing to do with getting on the third wave train that a lot of our churches are getting on as of recent. So a little clarity would be helpful.
Posted in: Controlling the Holy Spirit
Thanks, Sam, for your challenging response. But I’m not quite sure how to respond to your comments. I guess, on the one hand, I could say I agree with your final comment that “there is no end of ways by which a local congregation can resist or attempt to control the Holy Spirit.” And then we could just leave it at that and try to remedy our ways, whatever they may be. But I don’t really think that was the point of your article. Somehow I think you were digging deeper. And maybe what you were digging at is rather controversial in our denomination.
First, let me apologize. I thought the one example you gave about speaking in tongues was your own experience. This, I now realize, was an experience of someone other than you. It helps to understand this.
As you may know there is a movement in the CRC toward being more open to the operation of the Holy Spirit, as if the CRC was not previously open to the Holy Spirit. Those on both sides of this movement have some skepticism toward the other side. Your examples and the general advice you give seem to fall in support of this new “third wave” movement of the Spirit. But you don’t quite come out and say it. In contrast, your last paragraph (of your last comment) is so generic that it doesn’t really have much meat. Sure we should all be looking for ways that our own churches can be growing in the faith and for ways we may be hindering that growth (another way of saying controlling the Holy Spirit). So is your article addressing this more generic concern or is it addressing churches that don’t seem open to this third wave movement that is moving among a lot of evangelical churches today?
As to the two examples that you gave in your article concerning spiritual gifts, are you sure that the leadership of these two churches were really trying to control the Holy Spirit, if even inadvertently? When someone in the congregation gives the opinion that his church only opened the door partially but not fully to the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, was that the feeling of most others in the congregation, or was it this person’s own opinion, and what is the basis of his opinion? What would it mean, for him, to open the door fully? And when a small group of teenagers from the youth group of a church started speaking in tongues (almost fifty years ago) and were told that they were playing with fire by the leadership, don’t you think it’s possible that these leaders had it right? Should have the leaders simply said, from now on we are going to have tongue speaking and interpreting of tongues as part of our regular worship services? And we are also going to make these teenagers the leaders of the church because they obviously have the Spirit of God present in their lives. Just because someone in church speaks in tongues does that mean the church should all of a sudden be open to the so-called miraculous gifts? Was there anyone in that church that could have validated the authenticity of the tongue speaking young people? Is it enough to say, I can speak in tongues, or interpret tongues, or prophecy, or heal the sick or have a better understanding of prayer? And are these the true signs of a church empowered by the Holy Spirit and a sure sign that our church is now ready to go places?
Again, I just am not sure what you originally meant by your article. Was it a more generic warning about being sensitive to the Holy Spirit as churches, or sensitive to what makes for a healthy church? Or was your article meant to encourage churches to be sensitive to this newer third wave movement in churches which in the minds of third wavers is being sensitive to the Holy Spirit? Originally I thought you were addressing this second perspective, now I think you may be softening that a bit. Thanks again for the dialog.
I just noticed your comment, Bonnie, before getting ready to post this. I’m a little baffled though. Does being open to the Spirit mean that there is no room for others in the church to validate a member’s giftedness? That might be fine if your being gifted affects only your own life. That’s like saying, “let your conscience be your guide.” That, too, is fine if your conscience is guiding your own life, but when it affects others, then there should be a system of checks and balances. If your having the so-called miraculous gifts affects others in the church or the church as a whole then there should be a way to validate the genuine character of those gifts. I get a little bit suspicious when I hear people telling me, the Holy Spirit told me thus and so, and then I am not allowed to doubt their opinion. I find everyone has an opinion (whether you say it’s from the Holy Spirit or not), but that doesn’t mean everyone’s opinion is right. And I don’t think such a perspective has anything to do with controlling the Holy Spirit, but has everything to do with common sense and logic.
Posted in: Controlling the Holy Spirit
Thanks again, Sam, for your insights. It’s interesting to listen to the perspectives of others. You obviously have some wisdom and insight from working with a variety of churches, and probably many of them in decline. But I also realize that giving advice to churches can be like a crap shoot, and not all advice is equally valuable. Sometimes (not always) looking to the past is not very helpful, especially when all we have is the present. There may have been a variety of things that caused a church or an individual or a marriage to get off track, but you only have the present to set a new direction. And for a married couple, as you suggested (or was that Jesus’ suggestion), they may need to get back to some of the things they did well early on in their marriage or life as a church. But sulking over past mistakes doesn’t change the present or future.
In answer to what resisting the Holy Spirit looks like, you gave a hypothetical example of 20 people of another race not being embraced by the congregation, and the congregation eventually fell into decline. Of course that may or may not be the reason for decline. And that same congregation will probably not face that same situation again in order to correct that past mistake. But what can they do now? But let’s add to your hypothetical example. Maybe that same CRC congregation today is faced with the prospect of twenty practicing homosexuals (ten legally married gay couples) wanting to be professing members of that church. They all love the Lord and only want to participate in the life of the church like all other professing members. What should the leadership of the church do? They know that eventually the CRC will likely admit gays into full membership. Are they going to turn away twenty people who love and want to serve the Lord and in so doing resist or control the Holy Spirit, or are they going to embrace them as full members of God’s family and put a smile on the face of the Holy Spirit? Personally, I’d love to see that church embrace their homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. But I imagine that the church, at present will turn them away (like the rest of our denomination). And then fifty years from now that same church can look back on a past serious mistake by which they probably disappointed the Holy Spirit and contributed to the decline of the church.
So, Sam, how do you advise this church today? Looking back on a past error of judgment, what will you tell them today?
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your article. I’ve enjoyed the correspondence.
Posted in: Controlling the Holy Spirit
Before I send this off, once again, I realize that both Bonnie and Jeff have posted comments. I didn’t realize this until I was ready to send my comment. Thanks for your thoughts and comments, but will wait to respond. I think I have already said too much.
Thanks Sam. I think your advice is probably as good as it gets. But the problem with declining churches is not so simple as trying to control the Holy Spirit or grieving or resisting him. I could imagine the church that in 1969 had a group of young people who spoke in tongues, or the church which in the opinion of one member didn’t open the Holy Spirit’s door wide enough, those churches could well have sought the advice of others, searched the Scriptures, prayed fervently, looked for denominational guidance, and did the best that they could at the time. Sam, I’m not sure if your work is within our denomination or beyond, but as you probably know we can make Scripture say whatever we want. Hence the variety of denominations, and the different positions, even in our own denomination, over the use of so-called miracle gifts, the use of women in the church, the acceptance of homosexuals in the church, how to approach prayer, and the list of differences can go on. On these issues and others most churches are interested in following the Holy Spirit’s leading. They don’t intentionally do what is wrong and in most situations make an intentional effort to honor the Lord in their decisions. So I would suggest that it may not be as simple as saying we controlled or limited the Holy Spirit by this or that decision in the past. As individuals and as churches we do the best that we can at the time and trust God’s guidance.
In the past, Christians, even those in the CRC, had a religious jargon that was offensive to those on the outside of the church. We used religious terminology as though everyone understood what we were talking about. Some even spoke a Christianese that reflected a King James English. Most Christians came to realize that such talk was more offensive than helpful to an evangelistic effort and simply drew attention to Christians in an unhelpful and unwanted way. Today, Christians of the more charismatic and Pentecostal leaning (becoming popular in our denomination) are coming out with a new kind of Christianeze, with talk of prophecies, or the Holy Spirit told me such and such, or talk of spiritual healing, or talk of demons, and the list could go on. And people of this leaning talk with a sense of authority or even superiority that is offensive to people not only outside the church, but inside as well. They know what they should do in a given situation because the Holy Spirit was their guide, and who are you to question the Holy Spirit, or doubt the prophecy given to me by God? Or there is talk of controlling the Holy Spirit, as though they have a corner on knowing the mind of the Spirit. And should another Christian talk about making decisions based on common sense or logic or what is reasonable, it is as though such a person must not be a Christian. But isn’t a Christian’s logic and understanding influenced by his/her relationship to the Lord?
So Sam, I think I was picking some of this thinking up in your article, and maybe some of your responding comments. I may be wrong, as I often am. And my offense at some of this new Christian jargon and thought may also be wrong, at least in the opinion of many. I also realize there is a growing openness to this third wave thinking in our denomination and that the church worldwide is growing especially where there are Pentecostal leanings. Maybe our denomination feels this is the direction we should be pursuing, as this growth worldwide may be a sign from the Holy Spirit. But for me, I want to throw up flags, and will miss the strengths we have had in the past. I guess I should be content that being a Christian is a personal matter and can feel the leading of the Holy Spirit to stay on solid ground, as I understand Christianity.
I really didn’t intend to have a lengthy comment. I’m sorry. I have enjoyed the conversation with you and feeling free to be open in my comments. Wishing you the best in your work and life. Roger
Posted in: Controlling the Holy Spirit
A response to Jeff and Bonnie. I can fall prey to the practices (or mistakes) that I often see others make, namely going to an extreme to make a point, when there should have been some balance in my statement. I do think that in counseling situations (whether with a couple, an individual, or with a church) counselors can over emphasize the past in trying to reach a present solution. I didn’t mean that we should totally ignore the past. To say that in a decision almost fifty years ago or even five years ago, that we grieved or were putting controls on the Holy Spirit may not be so helpful. We may say, with hindsight, that our decision was not the smartest or maybe we could have done something differently. But to say a well thought out past decision (probably after prayer and contemplation) grieved the Holy Spirit may well be reading too much into the distant past. But sure a look to the past is often helpful, especially if there were obviously bad decision making patterns in past history. But the emphasis, in my mind, should be on the present and what we are doing now. A church that is constantly looking back for bad history (control of the Holy Spirit) is not likely to be a forward looking church with a positive outlook. So perhaps a balanced approach with the emphasis on the present and what we can do now to curb decline would be my suggestion.
Posted in: Theology in Song: "Your Love Never Fails"
Thanks for your interest, Christy, in hymnology. But don’t you think that you are making a stretch to come to your conclusion? If God works out all things for the good of his kingdom (those who love him) then it is natural to conclude that they are also ultimately for my good, as a part of his kingdom. If you want to go with some alternate manuscript, which is not likely the most authentic or if you want to interpret “good” in a way not intended by the Bible (or a particular Bible verse), then you are simply putting your own spin on the words of the song. And then you might as well start scrutinizing a lot of songs and hymns we sing, even ones from the Psalter, because they likely don’t fit with your own personal theology either. Who is going to be responsible, in the church, to scrutinize the words of our hymns to the level that you have examined this one phrase? I might not agree with the theology of many of the hymns and songs we sing in church, but finding others to agree with me (or my theology) would be an impossible task. I think you, are facing an impossible task, as well.
Posted in: You Write the Caption!
AT THE END OF THE SERVICE: "Let's keep our heads bowed. If the Lord has spoken to you, just raise your hand! No one is watching."
Posted in: Winging Our Prayers
Thanks, Sam, for your article on corporate prayer. Prayer, for most Christians, is a puzzling subject. Before answering your question of how ministers or worship leaders should pray in corporate prayer, let me make some necessary comments first. What do we accomplish or hope to accomplish through prayer? In what ways is prayer effective? Does God change his mind about our circumstances in life so that by prayer we can persuade God to change his preplanned actions. Does the one praying have to fulfill a list of criteria in order for his/her prayers to be effective? Is prayer for the benefit of God or for the one praying? The list can go on and on as to the questions and doubts one has in regard to meaningful and effective prayer. Although there are a number of different aspects of prayer (ACTS), what stands out in both the Old and New Testaments is the concept of petitionary prayer. Jesus taught on several occasions to “ask for whatever you want and it will be given.” It easy to give thanks to God, to give praise, to confess one’s shortcomings, but petitionary prayer is where the rub comes in. How often do we receive from God what we prayed for, that wasn’t likely to happen anyway? When it comes to petitioning God, does prayer really have any effect? It would seem that if prayer was effective in the simple and commonsense way that Jesus taught about it in the gospels, then Christians would stand in much better stead than those who weren’t Christian and who didn’t pray. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. So if Jesus’ instructions can not be taken literally how should we understand them? And so ministers and theologians come to a multitude of conclusion in regard to prayer.
That is the reason why different ministers and worships leaders pray in the various ways that they do. They are, perhaps, trying to reach God in the most effective way possible in order for God to hear and answer their prayers. Some might suggest that written and pre-prepared prayers do not touch the heart of God therefore are not as effective as Spirit driven spontaneous prayer. Others would say that the Spirit can inhabit prepared prayers as much as spontaneous prayer. So I would suggest that one reason that a minister might use one kind of prayer over another has to do with his concept of prayer and what happens through prayer.
A question I have in regard to extemporaneous prayers, as you suggest, is, are they any more effective than any other pattern of corporate prayer? Perhaps as you suggest in your last paragraph, what difference do it make? The difference that you imply, is it doesn’t really matter to God, but it might to the congregation.
Something worth remembering as to the difference between prayer and other parts of the worship service, is that in prayer you are addressing God and in the sermon you are addressing the congregation, two different audiences. So if in prayer, you are addressing God, then as you say, why does it make any difference? If you are trying to impress a congregation with a style of prayer, then maybe you have to pick and choose? But who are you praying to anyway? Certainly not the congregation. I really doubt that any one form of prayer has a greater effect than any other. But I’m quite certain that others would disagree.
Maybe the makeup of the congregation would also make a difference as to how a worship leader or minister would conduct prayer. A large traditional church, a large contemporary congregation, or a small farm community church would each make a difference in the church’s personality and likely would also make a difference in the spontaneity or formality of congregational prayers.
Thanks for your interesting article. It does make a person think about the topic of prayer.
Posted in: Winging Our Prayers
Thanks Sam for responding to my long winded comment. I judge from your last response, as well as your original article, that apart from the theology of prayer, or who we are addressing in prayer (whether God or the congregation), pastors and worship leaders are directly or indirectly helping to shape the prayer life of worshipers. The reality, though, for most if not all in the congregation (including ministers) is that their personal prayer lives consist of impromptu prayers, rather than formed or extemporaneous. So if ministers are hoping to shape the prayers of those in the pews, shouldn’t they help them in the format they are most comfortable with? Do we really expect church members to use “formed” or “extemporaneous” prayers in their devotional lives? Following your premise of shaping the prayer lives of those in the pews, perhaps developing easy patterns of impromptu prayer (such as Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication) would be more helpful to those in the pews, especially if ministers used such impromptu patterns thoughtfully.
As to my personal opinion, as to what format ministers and worship leaders use in congregational prayers, I think they use what is most comfortable for themselves. Some find it much more comfortable to have their prayers prepared ahead of time, so they don’t find themselves put on the spot in the immediate moment of praying. Others use the formed prayers of others because they sound and feel meaningful to the ears and hearts of the congregation. Others feel more comfortable and adequate with impromptu prayer. Extemporaneous prayer, as you describe, seems to be a combination of those three. Whichever format one uses in public prayer it should be thoughtful, just like the rest of the worship service. I agree with you that ministers should never just “wing it,” (even with impromptu prayer). And if that is the point of your article, that congregational prayer should not be winged, I agree with you. Thanks again for making us think.
Posted in: Time to Reform Christmas by Unblending or Disentangling?
So how does this untangling or unblending take place? It seems it should be the responsibility of every individual or family to celebrate Christmas in a way that is appropriate for them. Are you saying there should be an enforcer that manages the untangling for our population or for our churches? For many citizens Santa Claus is as much or even more the reason for the season than is Jesus. Certainly there can be no untangling for such as these. For many, Jesus is as foreign to one’s Christmas thinking as Mohammed is to our thinking. We live in a culture of many religions and beliefs. So why would we try to take the fun out of Christmas for non-Christians? And what influence do Christians have today that they should even attempt to untangle the meaning of Christmas for non-Christians? It’s best left up to individuals and families.
Posted in: Slogan-eering for Life
Thanks Ron for your article questioning the loss of interest in the abortion debate. Although some of your concern is justified, I’m not sure if your (or John Zylstra’s) target of blame is altogether justified. I find that in many arguments a person who wants to justify their own position, does so by painting the other side at such an extreme that even the other side wouldn’t agree with the position painted. To think that if discovering evolution was a fraud would somehow remove the doubts in regard to committing abortions, that is going to such an extreme. I don’t think, for the most part, that committing abortions and belief in evolution are related. I can see how you might make such an argument, but I doubt that those who believe in evolution, Christian or otherwise, would agree with you. What discredits the Biblical creation account, is that it is tied so tightly to a very primitive perspective of reality that does not correlate to reality or reason as we experience reality today. Perhaps the creation account makes sense to someone explaining the sound of thunder as God bowling in heaven. But that doesn’t sit well with very many people today. So if evolution was completely disproved, that wouldn’t mean that people would return to a Biblical view of the origins of earth and life. People would still look for an explanation that correlates to reality as we know it today, and not some primitive explanation of reality. So, I doubt that abortion and doubts about Biblical creation really relate to each other, as you suggest John. I know that the issue of the image of God and the sanctity of life are embedded in the creation account, but I doubt that these issues will change the thinking in regard to the right to life debate. And I doubt, Ron, that questioning these issues will lead to the devaluation of human life or the unabated moral decay of humanity, as you suggest. Just a casual reading of history will call into question such a perspective. Perhaps, such straw men that you have presented will convince a narrow segment of Christianity, but not most people.