Is there confusion among the comments to my last post about the role of the Holy Spirit as we are led into all truth according to Jesus' promise?
I think there might be.
Let's see what we can make of our understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in our day. Naturally, I am not confused about this (!?!).
(1) The very least but perhaps also the very most we can make of the promise of Jesus that the Spirit would lead us into all truth is that the Spirit will lead believing disciples into the fullness of understanding possible this side of glory as to who Jesus the Son is in relation to the Father and to the Spirit. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is very arguable that the doctrine of the Trinity is the outcome of Jesus' promise about the role of the Spirit in relationship to 'the truth.' That doctrine is our words to express the fullest and deepest understanding we come to as a church about the meaning and implications of all the Scriptures say about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
(2) Another relatively untroubling claim about the Holy Spirit working in our day is the claim that the Spirit is leading us forwards in the mission of God. From the Scriptures themselves witnessing to the leading of the Spirit in the apostolic mission to the promptings and visions which have led apostles in other ages forwards (think: Celtic saints, Francis of Assisi, Hudson Taylor) the church has been little troubled by the thought that the Holy Spirit continually works as our Paraclete, the One who walks alongside us and guides us forward in obedience to the Great Commission.
(3) I understand that John speaking in chapters 14-16 of the ongoing work of the Spirit of truth leading the disciples into all truth (the only evangelist who does this) is (among other things) justifying his own different-to-the-others gospel. How can John present Jesus in such a different mode to Matthew, Mark and Luke? How does John get to present a Jesus whose discourses penetrate more deeply than the others into the mystery of God, especially into the mystery of God the Father and God the Son? Answer: through the Spirit of Father and Son who has led John into this deeper truth.
(4) Things get more controversial when we examine claims that the Spirit is speaking through contemporary prophets who bring a direct message from God to the church. Can we say in response "Hear what the Spirit is saying to the church"? On such matters disagreements during the 'charismatic renewal' could get quite heated. Partly that may have been because disputing that such a prophetic claim could come with all the subtlety of an power establishment suppressing any kind of novel speech. Easy to respond that the church authorities were 'quenching the Spirit'. How dare they!? Of course, it was also because some claims of prophetic speech were bizarre. But, more importantly, the controversy often involved a debate as to whether such claimed speech from God accorded with God's revelation in Scripture.
This observation takes us close to a different set of controversies in this period. Is the Spirit leading the church into change over X or Y or Z? Is the proposed change in accord or out of accord with the message of Scripture? By what authority do we recognise the voice of the Spirit leading the church in a new direction? By what authority do we recognise a new interpretation of Scripture as a leading of the Spirit, or, affirm the continuation of a traditional interpretation of Scripture?
In respect of controversies over women in church leadership or blessing of same gender unions, it is easy to set up a self-contradictory position. I may have been guilty myself here on the blog of saying or effectively saying, "The Spirit is leading us to a new position on women in leadership" AND "Scripture is clear on same gender relationships so all claims to a new leading of the Spirit are nonsense."
If I am guilty of such sloppy thinking then I wish to sharpen up.
Here goes.
I want to suggest, in accord with (1) to (3) above, that the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth is not leading us into 'new truth' (if by that we mean something which contradicts Scripture - see example below*) but leading us into deeper understanding of what has been revealed to us through Scripture.
The question we may ask of women leading in church is whether the Spirit is leading us into deeper insight into what is revealed to us in Scripture (noting, to give but one example, the significance of Galatians 3:28).
The question we may ask of blessing of same sex unions is whether the Spirit is leading us into deeper insight into what is revealed to us in Scripture (e.g. regarding marriage, friendships, blessing, same sex sexual relationships).
Before we lash ourselves in comments about how we go about answering such questions and whether we are able to be consistent in our answers (especially in the circumstance of answering one question one way and the other question another way), I would like to point out some ways in which the Spirit does appear to be leading many Christians of all persuasions in response to these questions.
On women in leadership:
I note that no commenter here has ever objected to women being on Anglican vestries (though once upon a time women were not permitted to be on Vestry). I also note that even in the Diocese of Sydney, women are ordained to the diaconate (when once they were not) and no commenter here has ever dispute that decision. One could roll out some other examples of women advancing in leadership roles which once were not so but which are in fact accepted by many if not all, even as disputes continue about 'priesthood', 'episcopacy' and 'teaching mixed gender congregations'. Is this the Spirit leading us forward in appreciation of deeper insight into the place and status of women in the life of the church?
On same sex partnerships:
I note that the many disputes here in the comments do not obscure the many points of agreement among us about same sex partnerships. No one here, for example, is arguing that sexual acts between men should be re-criminalised in the penal codes of the countries we belong to (most commenters seem to be in NZ, Australia, Canada, the States and the United Kingdom). No one here is arguing for prejudicial laws which would (say) prohibit a same sex partner from being the next of kin of a dying person. What we have in common, it could be argued, is an agreement that the Spirit is leading us forward in deeper appreciation of the basic rights of human beings to be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with the revelation in Scripture that men and women are both created in the image of God and redeemed by Christ.
Is it possible that we could all agree that in certain and various ways we see the Spirit of truth at work in our midst?
Don't worry, I am not about to leap on a bandwagon that then boldly declares 'and the Spirit is leading us specifically in this direction (even though few of the rest of you see that'!
But I do think it worth thinking about where the Spirit is leading us, perhaps even when we have not thought about it. Our lack of thought about what might be common ground on the Spirit's leading might even be a sign of the self-effacing Spirit's quiet work among us.
*In the difficult period of the 1930s for Christians in Germany, many Christians were swept along with enthusiasm (itself a form of 'spiritual' or 'spirited' leading) to embrace Nazism as a movement of divine power. But the critique of this sense that the Spirit was leading into new truth lay in recognising that Nazism represented a contradiction of the Scriptural claim that Jesus is Lord.
13 comments:
It would be interesting to reflect on examples from older church history that might now, relatively universally, be seen as the Spirit leading into a new position. Are there such examples?
One might perhaps think of a move away from a toleration of slavery (I'm not thinking of the US South), or perhaps something around usury?
On the other hand, how would we now see Christian leaders that saw eugenics as "of God", or widespread legalised abortion?
Hi Michael
Excellent observations.
I suggest we (all Christians everywhere) could agree that the Spirit has led us to see that what was not forbidden in the NT (the keeping of slaves) is now forbidden.
I suspect it would be harder to make a similar statement to above re usury as debates still occur about usury (ranging from wouldn't we all be better off without an interest driven capitalism through to churches and church-based trusts trying to support Christians with no interest loans).
And even harder re eugenics and legalised abortion.
Thanks Peter
I guess my point was that I couldn't think of any other things where there is a clear cut accepted change in view. And even in respect of slavery neither OT nor NT ever seem to regard it as something good, just as something that is.
Perhaps the case in respect of usury is stronger than you acknowledge. Despite uneasy in some quarters about the economic model, and interest-free practices of groups like the Kingdom Resources Trust, I can't think of anywhere in the mainstream of the church (here or abroad) where the church would discipline someone for making (or taking) a loan at interest.
If there were lots of examples of such accepted changes in view we might on the one hand worry about the extent to which we could rely on the truth revealed in Christ and through the apostles/Scriptures. But on the other hand, it would provide more precedents for the possibility of a universally accepted change in our day (be it female ordination or homosexual relationships).
Possibly how we discipline children? Spare the rod spoil the child...
The rod now if I have it right is interpreted as being a guiding and correcting tool rather than a hitting one. And discipline more closely related to disciple than punishment.
The scripture hasn't changed but our use/view of it has.
Good example to consider, Jean.
Abortion is interesting too.. For wasn't it originally the early church who on first following Christ and seeing all people made in the image of God; who first acted out against infanticide (leaving children on the road to die). And credited divine worth to all human life including one who was one seen as expendable.
In this case we rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth now moralising regarding the more recent debates around abortion and euthanasia have ensued. Did God really say .......?
Peter, your question about how, or why does John get special insight into the teaching of Jesus - about the working of the Holy Spirit. Maybe, because they had a special relationship - unique to them. Remember, John, by his own declaration, was the 'disciple that Jesus loved - so much that Jesus committed his mother to John's special care.
Another possibility of enlightenment by the Holy Spirit - ignored for too long by the Church - the fuller understanding of the eunuch mentioned by Jesus in Matt.19, as being so "from his mother's womb".
Some thoughts:
"I understand that John speaking in chapters 14-16 of the ongoing work of the Spirit of truth leading the disciples into all truth (the only evangelist who does this) is (among other things) justifying his own different-to-the-others gospel."
Doesn't that assume that John believed his gospel was different to the other three? But I can't think of anywhere that John indicates that. So, perhaps he wrote about the Holy Spirit simply because that is what God wanted him to write about - there's a thought! :)
"I suggest we (all Christians everywhere) could agree that the Spirit has led us to see that what was not forbidden in the NT (the keeping of slaves) is now forbidden"
I certainly don't. God does not forbid the keeping of slaves now any more than he forbade it 2000 years ago. Slavery is against the law of the state, not forbidden by God in the bible. The fact that it was mainly Christians (particularly evangelicals) who worked to bring about the change in the civil law doesn't alter that.
"How can John present Jesus in such a different mode to Matthew, Mark and Luke?"
I think those three actually differ from each other in "mode" more than is often supposed.
"How does John get to present a Jesus whose discourses penetrate more deeply than the others into the mystery of God, especially into the mystery of God the Father and God the Son? Answer: through the Spirit of Father and Son who has led John into this deeper truth."
I don't see any evidence for this at all. Where do ANY of the apostles indicate that any one of them is led into deeper truth than any of the others? Despite the arguments of Rome, Peter never makes that claim about himself, and I am pretty sure John doesn't. Arguably Peter makes it about Paul, but I don't think Paul would agree. Still, I am happy to be referred to passages which indicate otherwise.
"… By what authority do we recognise a new interpretation of Scripture as a leading of the Spirit, or, affirm the continuation of a traditional interpretation of Scripture?"
We don't. We recognise scripture as authoritative, we are given the Holy Spirit as a guide, and we are responsible to God himself if we interpret it incorrectly.
That is particularly so if we recklessly or deliberately misinterpret it to justify our own sin (that was not a pointed remark at anyone in particular by the way – it’s a principle that applies to each of us).
Some more thoughts:
"The question we may ask of women leading in church is whether the Spirit is leading us into deeper insight into what is revealed to us in Scripture (noting, to give but one example, the significance of Galatians 3:28)."
I wonder if we need to stop trying to blame the Spirit and just accept responsibility for our own actions, good or bad? In other words, the first and last question is, "Am I reading the Scripture as God intends me to?" Of course the Holy Spirit is working, but focussing on that won't help us fulfil our own responsibility.
"One could roll out some other examples of women advancing in leadership roles which once were not so but which are in fact accepted by many if not all, even as disputes continue about 'priesthood', 'episcopacy' and 'teaching mixed gender congregations'."
I am struggling to see that any of these alleged examples are real. Where do the Scriptures forbid women sitting on vestries? And what is the basis for suggesting this is "accepted by all"? The Anglican Communion doesn't start and end with New Zealand, Australia and England. The supreme example of leadership, Elizabeth I, was ruling Queen of England 500 years ago.
"I also note that even in the Diocese of Sydney, women are ordained to the diaconate (when once they were not) and no commenter here has ever dispute that decision."
Again, I don't think this is an example that supports your point. Cranmer conceded that the early church had deaconesses, and that Calvin (who allowed them) might be correct in his interpretation of scripture. The reason Cranmer didn't include them in the BCP was because the office had died out and he saw no pressing need to bring it back, not because he thought scripture forbade it. So what is the issue with the CofE resurrecting it in 1861, or PECUSA in 1889, or Sydney in 1893?
The scriptures allow us plenty of freedom to decide many matters, and we can decide one way at one time, and then another way in a different time and context. It doesn't necessarily mean there is anything progressive about it.
"How does John get to present a Jesus whose discourses penetrate more deeply than the others into the mystery of God, especially into the mystery of God the Father and God the Son? Answer: through the Spirit of Father and Son who has led John into this deeper truth."
"I don't see any evidence for this at all.' - MichaelA -
The evidence is in the exegesis and the hermeneutic. Even the simplest of Bible Readers knows this, surely.
Hi Michael
We talk about the leading of the Spirit because the bible talks about the leading of the Spirit and thus we ask questions what that leading means. But I agree that we then need to take care that we do not duck responsibility for our decisions about interpretation.
I appreciate the points you make about John but if you do not concede any merit to my points then a discussion would involve writing a book rather than a post. You appear to share few presuppositions about the composition of the gospel with me.
My point about ordination of women as deacons is that the church once did not think women should be ordained. That was so even when there were deaconesses. Now some churches have changed their minds and ordain women as deacons. Perhaps that is not a leading of the Spirit, perhaps it is.
"By their fruits you shall know them". I guess this is the only perceptible means of assessing whether our personal idea of the leadership of the Holy Spirit is on the right track - or not.
My perception on women's ministry is that it is actually working. For instance, in the Church of England there just may be not enough parish clergy if there were no women! Not a bad proof of the Holy Spirit's current guidance, surely?
Post a Comment