The First Baptist Church of Granada Hills

For quite some time meaningful commentary on the person and work of the Holy Spirit was lacking within the Evangelical community.  Theologians, ministers, and laymen often saw the excesses of some of their more charismatic brethren and decided to steer clear of the morass by passing over the Holy Spirit in virtual silence.  Thankfully, in more recent years, this trend has changed and serious students of the Bible have ventured to discuss the third Person of the Trinity with greater boldness.  While this is a much needed corrective, it does, at times, lead to comments that ought to raise eyebrows.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is consistently presented in something of a supportive role.  While fully involved in the lives of the faithful, the Spirit’s primary function seems to be to direct our attention to Jesus.  As Jesus said to His disciples, “[T]he Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).  Likewise, in the Book of Acts, when the Holy Spirit enables the early Church to perform great miracles, the end result was always the same: increased visibility and credibility for the gospel, for the preaching of the Apostles that was explicitly Christocentric.

The fact that the Holy Spirit works largely “behind the scenes” (avoiding attention in order to keep the focus on the Savior) can be frustrating.  For while the Bible contains scores of passages describing the Father and the Son in great detail, the Holy Spirit remains a bit more mysterious.  And as a result Christians often try to fill in the gaps in the canonical record with ideas from outside the Bible.

As informed believers we must remember that it is perfectly acceptable to be conversant with philosophical and metaphysical thought that developed outside the Biblical world.  At times such concepts may even help to clarify and illustrate the teachings of Christianity: I’ve personally quoted from Lao Tzu, Confucius, Homer, and Shunryu Suzuki in my sermons.  Likewise, during the first few centuries of the Christian era, the early Church made generous use of Greek metaphysics to better explain the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit.  The Apostle Paul himself even quoted from pagan sources on occasion, lifting lines from one poem attributed to Epimenides the Cretan and from another penned by a Cilician named Aratus (Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12). 

But at the same time, we need to be careful of exactly how we use concepts foreign to Scripture to interpret what the Bible says.  For quite simply, there is an ocean of difference between clarification and control, and while it is entirely appropriate to use extra-biblical material for help with the former, it must never come to exercise the later.  This seems to be a danger to which our understanding of the Holy Spirit is particularly subject.  For while the Bible says relatively little about the Spirit, the ever-trendy faiths of the East speak volumes on the notion of spirit in general.

To use an unfair generalization: Eastern thought tends to speak of “the ultimate” as an impersonal substance or force or unity which can be “tapped” and utilized much like a spiritualized version of solar power or wind moving a sailboat along.  Conversely, when the Bible speaks of “the ultimate” it is quite clear that we are dealing, not so much with a force, but with a personal being– with a God.  And while this understanding applies, rather obviously, to God the Father and the Son, it also applies to the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.  In the Gospel According to John, Jesus’ words concerning the Holy Spirit are recorded in chapters 14 and 16.  And in both cases, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “He”, not “it”.  As such, the relationship between the believer and the Spirit is, to use Martin Buber’s words, an I/Thou relationship, not I/It.  That is to say that when we relate to the Spirit, we do so as one mind with another, not as a mind interacting with an impersonal object or force that can be manipulated according to the dictates of our will.  While this may appear to be a largely theoretical distinction with little meaning on the practical level, as we shall see, one’s understanding of the Spirit exercises a controlling influence over one’s understanding of the gifts of the Spirit. 

One sometimes hears that a program of prayer, Bible study, and personal holiness is the infallible path to seeing the gifts of the Spirit manifest in one’s life.  If the Spirit is indeed an impersonal force, then this kind of thinking makes perfect sense.  As a substance without a will, the Holy Spirit becomes something akin to a divine vending machine: you drop the appropriate tender in the slot and receive your miraculous gift in the bin below.  But if, as the Bible teaches, the Spirit is a personal being, a being with a will and mind, then His generosity concerning so-called “sign gifts” may be far less mechanical that the above formula implies.

Just as Mrs. Zebedee learned when she made a request of Jesus, God may have a certain opinion on a matter which we cannot change no matter how importunate we are (Matthew 20:20-23).  God has a will and while He may honor our will expressed in prayer, He may not; it’s up to Him.  As such, there is no fool-proof system of action that inevitably leads to spectacular manifestations of the Spirit in our lives. One may pray, study and model virtue, producing the so-called fruit of the Spirit in one’s life—things such as patience and joy and so on—and still not be able to raise the dead or walk through a bonfire at the end of the day.  If study plus prayer plus virtue forced the Holy Spirit to work miracles through an individual, one would expect that every church with more than 100 members would likely have at least one person giving literal sight to the physically blind.  But they don’t.  Instead, just as in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit does what He wants, when He wants, when He feels it is appropriate and useful.  Peter spoke and the Spirit struck Ananias and Sapphira dead; it seems the Spirit was unwilling to repeat this trick upon Peter’s would-be executioners when he was crucified in Rome.

When we have a healthy sense of the Biblical personhood of the Spirit, when we understand that He is a will-ful being, then the absence of certain spiritual phenomena in our lives, so concerning to some, becomes far less troubling.  Granted, we may not speak in tongues, we may not raise the dead, we may not do a dozen things the great saints of Christendom have done, but that does not mean that we simply have not hit upon the right magic words to bend the Spirit to our will.  It merely means that God, in His greater wisdom, just doesn’t think it is necessary here and now.

   

             Every year at around this time one hears of churches sponsoring “Halloween alternatives”.  I’ve had the pleasure of both attending these events as a patron in my childhood and of sponsoring them later on as a youth pastor.  Generally the events take the form of a small carnival with games and snacks and they often center on a harvest theme.  In keeping with the expectations of children candy is everywhere, pumpkins are plentiful and costumes may even be worn.  But even so, regardless of all these tell-tale signs, the actual word “Halloween” is rarely spoken.  In fact, in some quarters it’s avoided like the plague. 

The thinking behind this behavior is rather straight-forward: Halloween has pagan roots and so it would be inappropriate for a believer to participate in it… well, at least to name it.

            In many ways, modern Christians who avoid Halloween are much like ancient Christians who avoided meat that had been sacrificed to idols.  In both instances the thing in view has been associated at some time with dark spiritual forces and the believer is all too aware of its dubious history.  It seems that these two instances of scrupulousness are simply two particular incarnations of the same thing: a well-intentioned attempt to please the Lord which fails to fully grasp both the truth and power of God (1 Corinthians 8).

Halloween does indeed have a pagan background, developing out of Celtic festivals such as Samhain in the British Isles in which the spirits of the dead figured prominently.  But while October 31^st may have a rather dubious lineage, like other formerly pagan holidays (including Christmas and Easter) this day has undergone a process of Christianization.  As the gospel moved into the British Isles the Church recognized both the danger and the opportunity that Samhain and its ilk presented.  As such, the early Christians took the day and reinterpreted it, instituting the feast of All Saints on November 1^st: a day on which believers looked back to the heroes of the faith whom had left a good example for us to follow, à la Hebrews 11.  All Saints, sometimes called “All Hallows” (as in “hallowed ground”, meaning holy) was preceded by a vigil of prayer and sometimes fasting which began on the evening before All Hallows—All Hallows Eve (as in “Christmas Eve”), the day from which we get our word “Halloween”.

As such, Halloween is an excellent example of what Jesus spoke of when commenting on the kingdom of Satan in Luke 11.  After parrying criticism that He was merely casting out devils by the authority of the prince of devils (the Devil) Jesus said, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.”  In the parable Satan is the strong man, the “God of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4) guarding his own territory, who is overpowered by the Spirit of God, the “someone stronger” (1 John 4:4).  Christ tells us that not only are the strong man’s possessions—people—taken from him (Luke 13:16), but that he is stripped even of the armor he trusted in, even those things which he had hoped would help him to retain control of his domain.

The church has seen the power of God accomplish this impressive feat over and over again, taking the very institutions that perpetuated the spiritual darkness of the world and redeeming them to aid in the salvation of lost souls.  The pagan festivals of Yule and Saturnalia with their feasting and evergreen trees were transformed into Christmas; the springtime worship of the pagan goddess Eostre with its emphasis on fertility (eggs, bunnies) was transformed into Easter; and Samhain was transformed into Halloween.  In each of these instances, engines of ignorance and fear were reinterpreted, purified, and pressed in to the Lord’s service—the very armor of Satan placed in the armory of the Lord.

Of course, Halloween has lost much of its religious significance but the commercialization of Halloween doesn’t somehow make it immoral just as the commercialization of Christmas doesn’t forbid Christians from celebrating on that day.  Indeed, I don’t see why it would be any more immoral to gather candy from the neighbors on October 31^st than it is to give them gifts on December 25^th. 

With this said though, Paul’s cautionary words regarding meat sacrificed to idols apply just as much as his encouraging words.  While Christians have the freedom to enjoy something formerly associated with spiritual falsehood, we do not have the freedom to tear down our brothers and sisters in possession of weak consciences.  Therefore we ought not to attempt to cajole our fellow believers into something against their scruples with playful harassment or malicious needling.  Instead, let us merely direct them to the pertinent verses and history and allow the Holy Spirit to do the rest.