The following conception of the Spirit’s relation to the human person and to human community rings true for me.
Pannenberg sees in the heightened exocentric capability of humans the basis for their uniqueness from other animal forms. In the being-with-others that characterizes their existence, they are able to transcend themselves — to look back on themselves again — and thereby to develop self-consciousness. This exocentrically based development of self-consciousness indicates [this] to him as well as the connection between humans and Spirit. Pannenberg credits the self-transcendence required for this process to the action of the Spirit, who lifts humans above themselves, so that when they are ecstatically with others they are themselves. For this reason self-transcendence cannot be accomplished by the subject itself. Rather, all knowing is possible only through the Spirit. By extension, the same ecstatic working of the Spirit found in the individual is the basis for the building of community. In fact, community is always an experience brought by the Spirit, who lifts one above oneself.
As is generally the case with Paul’s letters, he begins by letting the church know he is praying for them. He really believed in the vital importance of prayer. Prayer is at the foundation of all church renewal.
We are regularly encouraged to pray. “Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints.” (Ephesians 6:18 NRSV). We are given the examples of Jesus and Paul, who made prayer and intercession priorities in their lives and ministries. Before we need new ideas and quick fix solutions, we need prayer. Prayer is at the heart of Christian ministry and at the heart of the life of the Church.
This part of the letter is very important, and it’s going to take me a while to fully discuss this. I need to begin by pointing out something about this prayer that seems odd at first. So, first some brief introductory remarks, and then some personal reflections.
These reflections from New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd seem to me to be close to the heart of Wesleyan theology. He is reflecting here on the significance of the apostle Paul’s theology of the Christian life. Paul teaches that we are justified — set right with God — by faith. But, as with justification, what we often call “sanctification” (conformity to the image of Christ) is also by grace through faith.
C. H. Dodd (1884-1973)
The higher faiths call their followers to strenuous moral effort. Such effort is likely to be arduous and painful in proportion to the height of the ideal, desperate in proportion to the sensitiveness of the conscience. A morbid scrupulousness besets the morally serious soul. It is anxious and troubled, afraid of evil, haunted by the memory of failure. The best of the Pharisees tended in this direction, and no less the best of the Stoics. And so little has Christianity been understood that the popular idea of a serious Christian is modeled upon the same type of character. The ascetic believed that, because he was so holy, the Devil was permitted special liberties with him, and he found in his increasing agony of effort a token of divine approval. Not along this track lies the path of moral progress. Christianity says: face the evil once for all, and disown it. Then quiet the spirit in the presence of God. Let His perfections fill the field of vision. In particular, let the concrete embodiment of the goodness of God in Christ attract and absorb the gaze of the soul. Here is the righteousness, not as a fixed and abstract ideal, but in a living human person. The righteousness of Christ is a real achievement of God’s own Spirit in man.
I just re-blogged this quote from the Religious Maxims of Thomas C. Upham over at the Hidden Life blog:
It seems to have been the doctrine of some advocates of Christian perfection, especially some pious Catholics of former times, that the various propensities and affections, and particularly the bodily appetites, ought to be entirely eradicated. But this doctrine, when carried to its full extent, is one of the artifices of Satan, by which the cause of holiness has been greatly injured. It is more difficult to regulate the natural principles, than to destroy them; and there is no doubt that the more difficult duty in this case, is the scriptural one. We are not required to eradicate our natural propensities and affections, but to purify them. We are not required to cease to be men, but merely to become holy men.
— Religious Maxims (1846) XXXIV.
This is the kind of thing I was surprised to discover when I began reading the old holiness writings. Why do I say “surprised”?
In the early part of his 2012 book How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, N. T. Wright remarks on how the Church has not always allowed itself to hear the full witness of the Gospels to Christ. I won’t attempt to reproduce the argument here: read the book.
Wright begins by discussing some ways that the Church’s teachings unintentionally got off track. And, as he is discussing how these various theologians of the past attempted to defend orthodoxy in a way that misconstrued some of the Bible’s teachings, he says on page 37 that “the eighteenth century saw great movements of revival, particularly through the Methodist movement led by John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield.” and, he goes on to say:
Following in the tradition of John Wesley, the Methodist outlook on theology is thoroughly based on scripture, but also enlivened through tradition, experience, and reason.
Methodists believe that “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” They believe that the written Word of God is the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice in life.
Methodists live in a vital faith relationship with God. They turn from sin, and turn to Christ in faith. It is faith in Christ alone that can reconcile us to God.
In my last post in this series, I pointed out that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 may not be as helpful in understanding the idea of the divine inspiration of the Bible as it might seem at first glance.To restate: Because this passage uses the word θεόπνευστος (literally: “God-breathed”) and because 2 Peter 1:21 speaks of prophets who were “borne along by the Holy Spirit,” and “spoke from God” — this would seem to suggest that the inspiration of the Scriptures was some sort of divine dictation, similar to (what people suppose was true of) prophetic inspiration. But, since the writings these authors are speaking of surely is the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) — interpreters (especially Protestant ones!) have good reason not to draw that conclusion. The Septuagint differs somewhat from the Hebrew Bible, and contains additional books. Anyway, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is more focused on the usefulness of Scripture than on any theory of its inspiration and authority.
Most interpreters want to avoid the idea of inspiration as a sort of direct dictation from God — even though this idea has some popularity among the Christian public. Thus, for example, Louw & Nida say:
“In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘… guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989).
Interpreters want to avoid the notion of divine dictation because it does not seem to accord with what we otherwise know to be the process by which the Scriptures were written. And, it is to this I want to turn now.
Let’s take a look at those few passages where the Biblical authors talk to us about the process of writing and their intentions in writing.
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
Luke does not speak of the writing of his Gospel as being a divine dictation — or anything like it.
He tells us that he set out to write not just an “account” (διήγησιν, as in verse 1), but “an orderly account” (καθεξῆς). Louw & Nida say that the word καθεξῆς means “a sequence of one after another in time, space, or logic” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains 1989). Time, thought, and organization went into the writing. Not only that, but investigation and research preceded the writing itself: “after investigating everything carefully from the very first….” It is said here that Luke’s account of the life of Jesus from the testimony of those who were “eyewitnesses and servants of the word….”
So, this is not at all the same as the delivery of an oracle. It was often claimed that the Oracle at Delphi fell into a trance and delivered messages in that state. But, Luke tells us that his writing proceeded from research, thought, and organization.
The ecstatic structure of human spirituality would also suggest a trance-like type of inspiration. But, in Christianity mind and spirit generally work together. The Holy Spirit imparts wisdom and rationality. While ecstatic in a very basic way, it awakens the mind rather than suppressing it.
This is a wisdom which was often well-expressed within the 19th Century Holiness movement — but seems to have been forgotten since. Here are the views of Thomas C. Upham (1799–1872):
The person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, will be eminently perceptive and rational. The operations of the Holy Spirit, in the agency which he exerts for the purpose of enlightening and guiding men, will not be found to be accidental, or arbitrary, or in any sense irrational operations. …
We repeat, therefore, that one evidence, of being guided by the Holy Spirit, is, that such guidance contributes to the highest rationality. In other words, the person, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, other things being equal, will be the most keenly perceptive, judicious, and rational. Not flighty and precipitate; not prejudiced, one-sided, and dogmatical, but like his great inward teacher, calmly and divinely cognitive. The experience of holy men, particularly of those who have made it a practice to ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit on their studies, agrees with this statement.
So, however we are to understand the nature of Biblical inspiration, it is not as a trance-like inspiration that overrides human rationality. It is not divine dictation — and this fact is attested by Luke, one of the most prominent of the New Testament authors. It is the community of faith that recognizes these writings as “inspired” “God-breathed” and its authors as “cared along by the Spirit” — even though it was a rational process to the writers themselves.
Furthermore, Luke wants us to know that his book rests on the testimony of “eyewitnesses.” It is about events that actually happened. So, again, this is not a collections of oracles given by immediate inspiration — Luke wants to make a credible claim that it is the account of events that happened.
This insight, in turn points us toward the kind of revelation that the Bible imparts to us. It is not so much a direct vision of God as it is a record of events that reveal the nature, will, and purpose of God. It is historical revelation. The inspired words of Scripture witness to revelatory events.
Again, taking 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and 2 Peter 1:21 by themselves would seem to suggest something different. But, in fact, this is an evaluative statement being made about the writings of rational minds illuminated by God’s Spirit.
But, we can’t let these observations rest on Luke alone. So, next I want to turn to some other passages that tell us about the process by which the Bible was written.
