Theology for the Masses

Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture

Browsing Posts tagged Many Things

It is difficult for Western Christians to conceive the Spirit as person and not merely a force or energy. Persons generally at least have names, gender, and emotion, after all. On a one level, the Spirit seems to have none of these. The problem is exacerbated when we read Augustine and he speaks of the Spirit as the “bond of love between the Father and the Son.” It is not so much that Augustine is wrong here, but by describing the Spirit this manner robs the Spirit of personhood in favor of function. Influential as Augustine is in Western Christianity, this depersonalization has ravaged our pneumatology.

Though there are many things that make up personhood. In the next few posts I wish to engage the name, the gender, and the emotions of the Spirit. The goal is to begin building a more complete and functional understanding of the Spirits nature as a person.

To an ancient Jew a person’s name provided information concerning the person’s character. To know someone’s name, was to know who they are and what they’re about. It was more than just information used to catalogue someone in their mind as differentiated from another person. A person’s name was identical to the person.

The difficulty with understanding the Spirit as a person is that Spirit isn’t exactly a name. The Father’s name is Yahweh, the Son’s name is Jesus, but the Spirit seems to lack a name. And without this identifier we are stuck with thinking of the Spirit, not as a person, but an impersonal force. This misconception simply won’t do. In order to move past it, we need to understand that the Spirit does, indeed, have a name: Ruach.

Like its Greek counterpart, Pneuma, Ruach has a plethora of meanings ranging from a light breeze to breath, or even a fierce wind. We must understand from the outset that ancient Jews did not draw a sharp distinction between Spirit and wind; indeed, we need to appreciate the fact that “wherever we read ‘wind’ in the Scripture, people of biblical times also understood ‘spirit,’ and wherever we read ‘spirit,’ they also understood ‘wind.’”[1] The symbol and the signifier are interconnected.

So, if the importance knowing the Spirit’s name lies in understanding the core of the Spirit as a person, then what does the name Ruach (wind or breath) tell us about the Spirit?

First, Ruach informs us that, like a natural wind, the Spirit cannot be tamed. The Spirit is free from the box of any particular cultural construal. The Spirit transcends and supersedes all our finite conceptions. To yoke the Spirit would be like taming the wind: if the wind were tamed it would no longer be wind, it would be dead and lifeless air. To bottle up the Spirit for one’s political or social agenda is impossible. In our attempts to do so, we inevitably demonstrate that it is not the Spirit we have caged with our ideological agendas, but an idol forged in our image. We cannot tame Ruach.

Second, Ruach, like breath, communicates life. The Spirit gives the breath of life not only to human beings but to the entire cosmos. This breath demonstrates that the Spirit’s concern extends beyond our human interests to the whole of creation. Indeed, just as the Spirit breathed life into the first creatures in Genesis, so too the Spirit longs to breathe new life into a redeemed world, not just redeemed human beings.

Furthermore, the Spirit breathes life into the church. The church does not survive on her own efforts or energies. For all our scheming, planning, and strategizing, this is not how the church perseveres in life. Our identity is not wrapped up in programs or number of baptisms; our identity is rooted in the life giving breath of the Spirit. Neither the church nor the individual Christian life is sustainable through suffocating programs and agendas which inhibit our breathing the fresh air of God’s Spirit.

Third, the name Ruach, like breath, communicates intimacy. “Breath is that which is most ‘inward’ and intimate, most vital and personal to a human being.”[2] It is through the Spirit that the church has intimate fellowship with the Father (Eph. 2:18-22). “We know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” (I John 4:13) Just as the Spirit was Jesus’ “inseparable companion,”[3] so too the Spirit is warmly present. When we are lonely or infirm, the Spirit is there when no one else it. The Spirit groans on our behalf, knowing that our sufferings are but a momentary affliction that the Triune God longs to redeem.

Finally, when we add the word Holy before Spirit, we recognize the non-triviality with which we approach Ruach. Ruach is not like you and I. Holiness does not merely describe the moral quality of Ruach, it describes Ruach’s very being. Holiness is an essential ontological attribute to the Spirit. Being in the presence of Ruach is to be in the presence of the holy. This does more than just make the hair on the back of our neck stand up. The holy is frightening and terrible. To be in the presence of a person who knows us so intimately (all our secrets, all our failures, all our high-handed sins), a person who could, like a fierce wind, cast us away, a person who cannot be bridled by our agendas; to be in this person’s presence is fearful. Indeed, the presence of the Holy Spirit is “disturbing, upsetting, and awe-ful.”[4] I do believe that love is God’s central attribute. But that love is Holy Love.

A name is a symbol that creates worlds. By recognizing the Spirit’s name, we are invited into a world of gentles breezes and fierce storms. While only goodness can be found in this name, there remains nothing safe about the Holy Spirit. Transcendent but immanent, tangible yet holy, the tension is purposeful in the symbolic world created and sustained by the name Ruach.

344704274_6122c46f9d
Religion Overthrowing Heresy and Hatred by Legros the Younger

I know I ask this ‘bout once a year, but what do you do with the category of “heresy?”  I keep wondering about the distinction between someone having a wrong doctrine and someone being cut off from fellowship and naming by other Christians.

On the one hand, I think my reformed sisters (and brothers) are wrong about a great many of things. This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep, it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation.  But I still name them Christians and fellowship with them as much as they allow (which can vary greatly, let me tell you). 

On the other hand, I think of some of my Latter-Day Saints brothers (and sisters) are wrong about a great many things.  This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep; it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation.  Because of this, I refuse to name them Christians (unless I am talking about how they self-identify) and fellowship with them in terms of our common humanity and not on the basis of a shared faith.

I’ll name the one set of wrongness “heresy” and the other I’ll brand “disagreements."  These may seem to be obvious examples, but where do you draw the line between them?  I’m not interested in dead men’s formulations being quoted ad nauseum,  I wanna hear about how you all deal with such things on the ground, in real life. 

Also, I get the sense that Christians, here and throughout time, have been quick to name, reject, and delegitimize views different than our own, as if they no longer had anything meaningful to say to us.  Do you get this sense?  Is it just me?  I am reminded of countless blog posts, conversations, readings of Church fathers, and Christian columnists summarily dismissing an idea, movement, or everything a figure had to say on the basis of a boxed, wrapped, and delivered heresy that we assign to them.  I will recognize the value of striving for truth and truth alone, but I wonder how useful this approach is – or when this approach is useful and when it is counter-productive to the growing of the kingdom of God.

When we stifle opposing voices, we turn them off and turn them away.  Our truth cannot be conquered by a lie and it need not worry itself (nor do we need to worry ourselves) concerning this.  Additionally, it may just be the case that people with certain wrong views can teach me a great deal – maybe it is God’s will for me do learn from them.  But it can’t happen if I reject them wholesale.  Additionally, if we set ourselves up as a community that ostracizes at the hint of dissenting, then we risk stifling doubt and risk cast people who might have such doubt along their journey towards the Father out, thereby alienating them from God’s community. 

Anyway, this is just some ramblings from a tired person who can afford to question such things at the moment.  What do you do with such things? 

We took communion today at church. That I’ve noted it tells you how rare an occasion this actually is. For being a democratic people who put emphasis on the priesthood of every believer, we Baptists are really pretty hierarchical about who can lead the serving of the communion. As we’ve been without a pastor for a number of months now, we’ve avoided the Lord’s Supper, I think, because there hasn’t been an “official” present to direct it.

Either way, I couldn’t help but think today that the early church deemed the event life-giving and vital to their existence. Yet in my tradition we really can do with or without it. I seriously don’t think most Baptist churches would even notice if failed to take the Lord’s Supper for a full year. Why did the early church find this event so vital? What is so essential about it? – Those are genuine questions, not merely rhetorical ones.

Sometimes it is disadvantageous being Baptist. The Lord’s Supper is not a “means of grace;” it is merely an ordinance that symbolizes the death of Christ. But there are many things that symbolize Christ’s death – what makes this one so special? Surely it is, but I don’t know that my tradition has reflected enough on it to have a good answer to that question.

Furthermore, as we went though the ceremony, I wondered what my mind is supposed to dwell on while taking the elements. As I crush the bread between my teeth, am I to be thinking of the breaking body of Christ? Is it that literal? Should I be confessing sin? What does it mean to take the Supper “unworthily?”

Or what about the unity that should be symbolized at the Lord’s Supper? In Baptist churches we have individual wafers and individual cups, each symbolizing our individual spirituality. But, to me, there’s something vital to everyone taking from the same piece of bread and drinking from the same cup. We are the body of Christ partaking in the body of Christ. We destroy congregational solidarity when we individualize the communion (not to mention, we’ve just created a contradiction in terms.

But the rampant individualism doesn’t stop there. Indeed, our emphasis is on making sure that we each individually are “right before God” before we take up the cup and bread. But never have I been in a service where we talked about communal repentance before the Lord’s Supper. Our privatized prayers and individualized religion perpetuate lifelessness. The communion seems to be an opportunity to break free from this. Yet we’ve colonized this as well.

As a movement, we Baptists are probably too prideful and stubborn to ask for help. Nevertheless, I ask you for help: what should I be thinking about as I take the Lord’s Supper? Is Christ really present in the elements in some way? Does the Spirit dynamically meet with the people during the Supper? How do we conquer the individualism of this communal ceremony? I feel there is vitality there yet untapped, but to be honest, I don’t even know where to begin.

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2010 Theology for the Masses Design by SRS Solutions

Bad Behavior has blocked 330 access attempts in the last 7 days.