Thoughts about Church and Holy Spirit (by a Self-Identified “Bapticostal”)
My class has been reading Swiss theologian Emil Brunner’s chapters about the Holy Spirit and the church; here are some thoughts I sent my students after a rather vigorous and free-wheeling discussion of Brunner’s ideas:
Apparently, for Brunner, what he calls the “Ekklesia”–the primitive Christian church of the New Testament–no longer exists as it was then and cannot exist as it was then because of historical and cultural changes. Still, and nevertheless, he believes we should strive to experience it as it was in some certain general ways. The main one, for Brunner, is that the institutional structures of the church, whatever they may be, should serve the fellowship, communion among Christian men and women (with each other and with God together), rather than be identified with the church itself and treated as sacrosanct. In other words (I believe he means) that “church” (Ekklesia) should be identified as where the Holy Spirit is present and active in real Christian fellowship, transforming lives, serving the world, etc., and NOT as where certain traditional and/or legalistic structures (“institution”) exist. The thrust of Brunner’s argument aims toward openness to change of the “outer” nature of the church for the sake of preserving and strengthening the “inner” nature of the church (Ekklesia).
I suppose that message, in and of itself, is not especially surprising, let alone shocking. Actually doing it, of course, is a different matter. Most churches have sunk into institutionalism to some degree. And those that claim to be “new” and “different” almost always eventually fall into the trap Brunner warns against–elevating some structure to a sacred status and making it almost an idol.
*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*
Now let me go beyond what Brunner actually says to some thoughts of my own related to what he says (both in his book The Misunderstanding of the Church and in these first chapters of Dogmatic 3).
First, it seems to me Brunner is using “Ekklesia” (his vision of the primitive Christian church of the Acts of the Apostles) as a kind of “critical principle” for measuring the health of a church anytime, anywhere. He says we cannot recreate it, but he also says (or implies) that we should keep it in our minds and hearts as a kind of impossible ideal to strive for. This reminds me of Reinhold Niebuhr’s idea of agape love, the perfect love Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount, as a “relevant impossible ideal.” It’s incarnation in the social order is justice–“the closest approximation to love under the conditions of sin.” And yet, love always “hovers over” justice–calling it to higher approximations of love, purifying it, correcting it, revealing its weaknesses.
It seems to me that what both Brunner and Niebuhr have in common here is a strong warning against complacency. Niebuhr wants us never to be complacent, satisfied, with any event of justice. We can always do better even if we can never experience–in the social order–perfect love. Brunner wants us never to be complacent, satisfied, with church. We can always do better even if we can never experience “Ekklesia” (at least within the structural, institutionalized church which always comes about when a Christian fellowship lasts for more than a brief period of time). “Ekklesia”–pure fellowship–hovers over our institutionalized churches as a kind of critical principle convicting us and calling us to better, higher experiences and expressions of “church.”
Second, it seems to me that IF we keep going in Brunner’s direction (about church/Ekklesia) we have to speak of Ekklesia, true church, ideal church, as EVENT. In other words “church,” in its ideal sense as Ekklesia, becomes a verb rather than a noun. I have sometimes heard African-American Christians talk this way: “Didn’t we have church today?” I suspect this is an implicit, intuitive recognition of the difference between Ekklesia (to use Brunner’s term) and church (again, as Brunner means it). The true “nature of the church” is Holy Spirit created Christian fellowship–as he describes that especially in chapter 2 of Dogmatics 3. (I’m not saying that’s exactly what African-American Christians mean; I’m just using their phrase as an example of “church as event” as opposed to “church as structure.”
In other words, it seems to me, based on Brunner’s thoughts, we might go beyond anything he says explicitly and say that the “Ekklesia” can happen, but it can never be “pinned down” as identical with any certain structure or institution. We all know and have long said “The church isn’t the building.” I think, however, that Brunner is pushing us beyond that to “The church (Ekklesia) isn’t any institution or structure–even where there is no building.”
What is the practical effect of that way of thinking? Well, certainly, at least, it means never falling into complacency and never identifying “true church” with any institutional structure (even a certain form of worship).
None of this is meant by Brunner (or me) to demean or reject church structures and institutions; it is meant only to warn against idolizing them, thinking they are necessary for church. And it is meant to break us out of our natural human tendency to put the Holy Spirit into a “box” and deny–in practice if not in words–his/her “sovereign unpredictability.”
Perhaps as we continue our study of Brunner’s doctrine of the church, we might dream with him, perhaps sometimes against him, about what “church” might really be for us today. Might Bonhoeffer’s book Life Together become a kind of guide? It certainly comports well with Brunner’s thoughts. I would only warn against making it a kind of road map or instruction manual–as if we alone, without the Holy Spirit, could manipulate true Christian fellowship to happen. The key, perhaps, is simply real openness to whatever the Holy Spirit wishes to do among us and with us. That’s scary because it’s unpredictable. We would have to set aside our prejudices, our love of control and predictability and comfort. Things might happen that we have no control over.
All of that–above–lies on the kind of theoretical side although I believe it has deep practical implications for church leadership and participation. We can flesh those out more in two weeks when we meet in our classroom again.
Now, finally, a few thoughts about the “gifts of the Holy Spirit”–something we spent a lot of time discussing last evening without any real closure. And perhaps that’s good. Perhaps “closure” is not what we should have. However, here goes…some thoughts about them.
Speaking in tongues is apparently meant for three purposes (in the New Testament): evangelism (Pentecost), personal edification as “prayer language” (one side of Paul’s instruction) and edification of the church (the other side of Paul’s instruction). The latter requires an “interpretation” when it happens. The two–“gift of tongues” and “gift of interpretation” always go together even if two different people exercise them.
Frankly, I do not know much about this–especially how to regulate or manage it in the public worship of the church. Perhaps that is not its place anymore. However, I have no quarrel with someone who prays in tongues (language unknown to them) privately. I do not think everyone must do that.
Prophecy seems to me to be the one gift of the Holy Spirit Paul wanted everyone to have–to seek for and hopefully receive and exercise. So what is “prophecy” in that sense–as a supernatural spiritual gift? (Supernatural even if a natural ability enhanced and elevated by the Holy Spirit.) Again, it’s not entirely clear to me what Paul intended by it, but it seems to have the purpose of exhorting, encouraging and possibly correcting the congregation. Personally, I do not think of this particular gift of the Holy Spirit as NORMALLY meaning guidance and direction of individuals’ lives (as in some charismatic and “third wave” churches where this has become routine and problematic by which I mean manipulative).
If I am correct, then a truly “anointed sermon” could be prophecy. (Prophecy here meant as “forthtelling” as opposed to “foretelling”.) However, I do not think we should restrict prophecy to sermons. I gave the example (anecdote) last evening of a professor at a Christian college who asked the campus pastor to give him the pulpit for a few minutes during chapel to read a message God had given him for the college community. I interpreted that as prophecy.
Managing the gifts of the Holy Spirit within the church is problematic because we tend to focus on Paul’s instruction that everything should be done “decently and in order” (a favorite Baptist verse!). Where is the “line” between assuring that everything is done decently and in order and not quenching the Spirit (something else Paul warns against)? I don’t know. What I THINK is that “decently and in order” is something Pentecostals and charismatics (and “third wave”) need to hear and heed; “quench not the Spirit” is something Baptists need to hear and heed. (As one pastor said “We have a tendency to read ‘other people’s mail’ when we read the Bible.”)
*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment solely to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In