Aiming Higher in the Spirit

Recently, I read C.S. Lewis' sermon "Transposition," which he delivered on Pentecost, 28 May 1944. In this sermon, Lewis discusses the limitations of our physical bodies in responding to spiritual events. Ironically, Lewis started the sermon with a mention of glossalalia: speaking in tongues. I'd recommend you read the sermon, simply because Lewis has such an excellent point, which is: We respond physically to spiritual experiences, simply because we have no other means to respond.

This sermon caused me to think a bit about a discussion with a former student. I'm somewhat convinced, reading Lewis, that we seek the ecstatic because we desire a "repeat" of our conversion experience, especially if that experience was a joyful, emotional one. Some seek a repeat of conversion in music; my student mentioned a worship leader transposing between chords, sending the congregation into ecstasy simply from a higher chord in a song. Others seek to repeat the emotion through gossalalia.

Our spiritual experience at conversion caused a physical and emotional experience, and some part of us urgently — longingly — desperately, even — desires to repeat that experience.

Is this logical? Should we constantly seek to repeat the reaction to the greatest event in our lives, the event that signaled our spiritual birth?

St. Paul says, "No." The Corinthians longed for a repeat experience, so much so that they elevated glossalalia above any other spiritual gift. Paul urged them to seek a higher gift: prophecy. Unfortunately, my personal experience tells me that prophecy doesn't always bring an emotional "high" anywhere near my own conversion experience. Prophecy — the gift of proclaiming the truth of God's word, not the foretelling of events — is difficult work. Prophecy requires immense preparation, and the proclamation of unpopular truths is certain to cause opposition. In my knowledge, no one was ever martyred for glossalalia. We can't say the same for prophecy, Jesus reminds us. People have died in the prophetic service.

I think this is the error in the Church today: refusing to seek "higher ground" because we seek a repeat of an emotional experience instead. We plan our services to elicit emotional responses equivalent to our conversion. Then, worship leaders and congregations are sadly disappointed when the experience fails to repeat itself. "The Spirit just wasn't here today." Well, Our Lord tells us He is present when 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, regardless of whether the emotion is there or not. Still, disappointed worship leaders work harder on next week's service: new songs, new chording, new arrangements of music, new slides in the Powerpoint presentation, new testimonies; anything to bring about an emotion approaching that of conversion.

I'm realizing that the desire to repeat an emotion, an experience, explains more than the problems afflicting the Church today. People seek to repeat the emotion of first love, the "high" that comes when you first meet someone, the infatuation. Then, when the infatuation fades — as it inevitably does — people panic, not realizing that infatuation transforms itself into true love that does not fade but lasts forever. Unfortunately, people so seek the infatuation they leave the one for whom they are no longer infatuated, failing to see the devastation in their wake as they leave relationships God never intended to be broken.

Yet, St. Paul calls us higher. "I would rather that you prophesy," he says. There are events that cannot — should not — be repeated. We are called to seek higher gifts, regardless of their emotional value. Man cannot live by bread alone, but he also cannot live on emotion alone. Glossalalia is a gift. I will not join my SBC "brethren" in denying its existence or denigrating its value; however, glossalalia is a sign of the Spirit's presence, not the sign. We have no leeway to think Cornelius and Company stopped growing and spoke in tongues the rest of their lives. I'd like to believe Cornelius and his household went on to proclaim the gospel throughout Caesarea and the Empire, wherever they went. I believe we fear reaching higher, for the greater gifts. Lewis says in his sermon "The Weight of Glory" that "we are far too easily pleased." Too many people are willing to settle for glossalalia when so much more is waiting on those willing to ask for it. "Ask and it shall be given." Paul told the Corinthians, "Brothers, do not be children in your thinking (1 Corinthians 14:20)." As we grow, we must seek higher gifts. Perhaps we'll keep the gifts we were given, perhaps not. I've found that God never takes anything from us without giving something far greater.

Higher gifts are difficult, and in spite of our desire for them, we have no guarantee God will give us the exact gift we crave. I didn't ask for the gift of prophecy, of proclamation; it was given to me by grace. However, I propose a spiritual "Montrose' Toast:" "He either fears his fate too much, or his desserts are small, who dares not put it to the touch, to risk or lose it all." Ask high! Aim high! Montrose spoke of risk in a military sense, but Our Lord says He wants to give us good gifts. There is no risk in asking God for greater gifts. God promises great things to those who seek them.

Conversion is great. Spiritual growth is greater. Those who content themselves with the emotion of conversion, or with any pale substitute like glossalalia or musical stimulation, will find they rob themselves of great gifts from the Father of Lights. Let's not settle for the former things when God has great things, greater blessings, waiting for us.

I'm playing with Google's word processor, Writely, and used it to create this post from one of my seminary papers. Interesting result.

CONSTRUCTING THE CHRISTIAN CENTER

John Alexander

Introduction

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines the Ecumenical Movement as “the movement in the Church towards the visible union of all believers in Christ. ¹” Typically, the term “ecumenical” refers to organizational or hierarchical unity in which all believers unite under one visible and universally recognized authority. Proponents of the ecumenical movement claim that such unity would provide the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer in John 17: that His followers “be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.²”

Such a goal, while laudable, has thus far proved impossible to achieve. Furthermore, ecumenism is impractical given the state of the church today. The 20^th century witnessed a period of growth during which the church vastly outgrew any organization’s ability to provide hierarchical leadership. Furthermore, there exists today too wide a diversity of worship styles and doctrinal emphases for any one existing Christian tradition to envelop all groups into a cohesive body.

Yet, Jesus’ words still stand: “that they may be one.” Is there an alternative to ecumenism? Can the various Christian bodies agree instead on basic doctrines around which all believers could gather while maintaining their distinctive identities?

Increasingly, many evangelicals believe such an alternative is essential, if not inevitable. Furthermore, these evangelicals — and those kindred souls in other traditions — have realized that any alternative must include Christians of all stripes, regardless of style and doctrine. The alternative these believers suggest would form a center with which all denominations and traditions could agree, even while agreeing to disagree about certain intractable issues.

Moving to the Center, Moving to Orthodoxy

Douglas Jacobsen and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. address the necessity of Protestant agreement in the article “Evangelical and ecumenical: Re-forming a center.” Jacobsen and Trollinger focus on the conflict between liberal Protestantism and fundamentalist evangelicalism.

Jacobsen and Trollinger argue that Protestants must play a crucial role in forming the center of the church. To do so, however, Protestants that perceive themselves “as divided neatly into two antagonistic camps” of liberal Protestantism and evangelicalism must “jettison their attachment to the two-party picture.³” Jacobsen and Trollinger believe the impetus for this concession must come from the evangelical side, for it is among evangelical fundamentalism that “dogma and judgmentalism” ruled for decades.⁴ Modern evangelicalism arose in reaction to this view and moved, as E.J. Carnell put it, “from fundamentalism to … orthodoxy.⁵” Unfortunately, the authors claim, evangelicals have yet to abandon fully the “us vs. them” mentality so pervasive in American fundamentalism.

Jaconbsen and Trollinger quote Stan Grenz , author of Revisioning Evangelicalism, to articulate their goal for evangelically-based center. Grenz urged evangelicals to “throw off their overly wooden and creedalistic understanding” by which they define the term “Christian” and instead present to the church a “distinctive kind of spirituality … they need to nurture and preserve on behalf of the church catholic.⁶” The authors conclude by calling for “evangelicals to join with other Christian groups in creating a middle ground” where all Protestants can feel at ease and safe from competition with each other.⁷

Moving to the Center: The Crisis of Identity

The move toward the center will require major shifts in evangelical thinking. For one thing, those to the right of the evangelical spectrum will inevitably undergo a crisis of identity. The question will arise, “can we cooperate with other groups without compromising our principles?” Opinions on social issues will prove a major test for any group seeking to form a center of cooperation. Several generations of evangelicals and fundamentalists have carried a “no retreat, no surrender” mindset into every discussion in which they participated. This mentality will not die easily. This is an important question. In forming the center, which issues — if any — should be open for compromise?

Dr. Richard Mouw answers this question in the article “Tolerance without Compromise: Christian Engagement in an Era of Political Rancor.” Mouw reminds his readers that, in some sense, the necessary compromises have already begun.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals assumed new identities in the past twenty years. During this time, these groups moved away from a “remnant” mentality to engage society both culturally and politically. In doing so, according to Mouw, evangelicalism moved from the “remnant” mentality to the “other political theology deep within our collective unconscious: a ‘chosen nation’ triumphalism.’⁸” Unfortunately, “the dogma and judgmentalism” mentioned by Jacobsen and Trollinger came along as well. Mouw argues that the center so necessary to the church lies between the “remnant” and the “chosen nation” attitudes. Strong convictions come easy to evangelicals; tolerance of differences in doctrine and belief does not. Forming the center, however, will require both.

Achieving the Center

Tolerance may prove difficult to practice, but it is not impossible. Today more than ever, believers throughout the church catholic realize the necessity of speaking with one voice and understand this necessity is impossible in the original ecumenical sense. Thus, the center will occur as the church joins to face the cultural and political conflicts of the 21^st century.

First, building the center must begin within individual congregations. Our current model of congregational autonomy must expand to emphasize our dependence on other believers, even across denominational lines. Calvin says the church is united because “there could not be two or three churches unless Christ be torn asunder — which cannot happen!⁹” In discussing Jesus’ prayer for unity in Thinking about God, Fisher Humphries quotes Richard Baxter, who wrote, “God will own no church which is so independent, as not to be a member of the universal; nor any person who is so independent, as not to come to him as in communion with all the Christians in the world.¹⁰” Congregations must expand their teachings about the church to include the truths of church unity.

Secondly, the center must represent the entire church, with all her diversity. The center must not merely talk about diversity; the center must reflect its diversity into all corners of the church. Some will prefer C.S. Lewis’ notion of the church as a “house” and insist the center remain in the “hall” while true work occurs in the “rooms.” Lewis insisted, “the hall is a place … from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in.¹¹” The center must influence the practices of the rooms by presenting the best from each room as traits other rooms will emulate.

Finally, those building the center must have the right motives, for otherwise they will neither succeed nor survive the attempt. T.S. Eliot wrote in Murder in the Cathedral, “martyrdom is never the design of man; for the true martyr is he who has become the instrument of God, who has lost his will in the will of God, … for he has found freedom in submission to God.¹²” Frankly, the center will not be the easiest place in which to reside. Physical martyrdom may not happen, but those in the center will prove easy targets from all sides. Those God places in the center must prepare for rejection by many and betrayal by some. Christ, however, prayed for our unity. The center must exist for the glorification of the church and Christ. God will build the center using those in complete submission to Him.

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis said of Christian perfection, “when He said, ‘be perfect,’ he meant it.¹³” When Jesus prayed, “that they may be one,” He meant it. An ecumenical church would be ideal if possible. Building the center will require sacrifice, patience, and humility, but the benefits to the church — and the world — will prove enormous and eternal.

Works Cited

Eliot, T.S. Murder in the Cathedral. Rahway, NJ: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1935.

Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

Humphries, Fisher. Thinking about God: An Introduction to Christian Theology. New Orleans: Insight Press, 1994.

Jacobsen, Douglas and Trollinger, William Vance, Jr. “Evangelical and Ecumenical: Re-forming a Center.” The Christian Century (July 13-20, 1994): 682-684.

Lewis C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers 2001.

Livingstone, E.A., ed. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Mouw, Richard J. “Tolerance Without Compromise: Christian Engagement in an Era of Political Rancor.” Christianity Today (July 15, 1996): 33-35.

Endnotes

1 E.A. Livingstone, ed., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), s.v. “Ecumenism”

2 John 17:21, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

3 Douglas Jacobsen and William Vance Trollinger, Jr., “Evangelical and ecumenical: Re-forming a center,” The Christian Century (July 13-20, 1994): 682.

4 Ibid., 683.

5 Ibid., 683.

6 Ibid., 683.

7 Ibid., 684.

8 Richard Mouw, “Tolerance Without Compromise: Christian Engagement in an Era of Political Rancor,” Christianity Today (July 15, 1996): 34.

9 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Abridged Edition, Donald McKim, Editor (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 125.

10 Fisher Humphries, Thinking about God: An Introduction to Christian Theology (New Orleans: Insight Press, 1994), 210.

11 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins Publishers 2001), xv.

12 T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral (Rahway, NJ: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1935), 50.

13 Mere Christianity, 198.

1

This is a test post.