THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD BEING PRESENT

Was Pentecost truly the birth of the Church? What about the "church in the wilderness" spoken of by Stephen in Acts? It was the Spirit of the LORD being present that let it be known that God favored the congregation of Israel, distinguishing them from all the other people on the face of the earth. The LORD promised, "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." The echo of this promise can be heard in the call of our Lord Jesus for all to come find rest in Him.

How must we consider the significance of such continuity? Consider this - restlessness may be a sign of absence, not presence. As Augustine confessed in Book 1, "You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you." Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. The rock upon which the church is built follows God's people from age to age; on that solid rock we stand or stumble. Eating the same spiritual food, drinking the same spiritual drink, let us become the Body through which God's glory, expressed perfectly in Christ Jesus, is made manifest.

Speaking of being made manifest, it is interesting to note, in 1Co 12:7, that Paul writes that "a manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial ...." This verse is why I resist speaking of manifestations of the Spirit and prefer to emphasize one manifestation - the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems to me that whatever the form such a manifestation takes, the function is the same - to reveal the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The several gifts are singular in what is made manifest. Unity in diversity is the hallmark of the True Church.

Some thoughts on Pentecost Sunday

[The following essay was posted to our discussion group by a pastor in our group. 

I am reposting the pastor's comments here with his permission.]

The most neglected Sunday of the year is Pentecost Sunday, according to David Bratcher, who leads a service that assists churches in preparing liturgies for worship.  While arguments could be made that post-Lent and Holy Week fatigue have a role in this effect in some places, the absence of emphasis in Pentecostal churches is inexplicable. The very churches that exist to bring renewed emphasis to the present day ministry of the Holy Spirit equally neglect the importance of this Sunday on the Church's calendar.

This year [2007] with Pentecost Sunday coming on Memorial Day weekend found more emphasis on the latter than the former. Add to this the fact that few Pentecostal churches preach on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit nor give any opportunity within their services for receiving this biblical experience there can be little doubt as to the reason for a quickly declining number of Christians who testify of this experience or practice praying in tongues. George Barna recently reported that only 18% within Pentecostal churches report that they pray in tongues. In many places it has become an embarrassment, and this practice is either greatly limited or forbidden.

The reason for this is clear. There is a lack of conviction on the part of the current generation of pastors. The pulpit is devoid of biblical preaching in general and on this experience in particular. Instead of deep personal conviction that "the promise is to you and your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call" the old non-pentecostal view of "seek not forbid not" is in vogue.

The leading influences within the evangelical churches are non-pentecostal highly visible personalities. Growing the church, which is God's work, has been usurped as the church's work, and the teaching of the observation of all Jesus commanded, which is our work, is neglected.

When God's people are filled with the Spirit, when all of the Gifts of the Spirit are fully functioning, and the life of the Risen Lord is evident the sought-for evangelism will be explosive. After all, didn't Jesus promise that believers would receive power and be witnesses to the ends of the earth when the Spirit came upon them? Just a brief period after John Chrysostom wrote in the late 4th century that the church no longer expected converts to speak in tongues when hands were laid on them to receive the Spirit, the Church along with culture tumbled into the Dark Ages.

Today there is a fear that disorder will occur and leaders are uncertain as to how to handle such situations. There is a greater effort to make sure that nothing untoward will happen than a burning desire that the Spirit will have His rightful place to be manifest among God's people.

One of the reasons for this is the rearrangement of the Church's life. Sunday morning historically was the gathering of believers for worship and Sunday evening was viewed as evangelistic. With Sunday evening nearly gone Sunday morning has become more and more geared toward unbelievers, and there is no specific gathering for believers except in small classes. I Corinthians 14 is referred to as a relevant teaching on order which of course it is. However, Paul treats the situation as a believers meeting and gives instruction on comportment should unbelievers come into it.

Today Pentecostal emphasis is kept alive by Youth Pastors. This occurrence would be almost totally missing if it were not for retreats, camps, and all-night prayer meetings in which young people receive the Baptism in the Hold Spirit, and smaller churches that still have altar times.  Because of my present malady, I have been out of the pulpit for 5 years. I have not heard a message on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, since the last time that I preached on it myself.

Jesus said that these signs would follow believers. The question we must ask is do we believe this? Are we ready to practice it?

... every imagination of the thoughts of one's heart ...

Humans experience all reality through their imagination. It is not either/or.

True, reality is not a personal construct. However, our perception of reality is - constructed by means of imagination. All sensation feeds imagination which translates that sensation into images that interpret what is sensed. Reality is not imagination but human sense of reality is.

I do not distinguish between imagination and perception. One's imagination is the instrument of perception. I do not know how to explain it otherwise. Imagination may be prior to awareness, for some things are perceived without one being aware that such perception is taking place. We are created in such a way that our access to reality occurs as a function of imagination. Disciplined imagination orders perception, undisciplined imagination is ordered by perception.

Imagination contains intellect, memory and will. That is why creativity is possible in anything a human does, whether intellectually, physically (muscle memory comes to mind), meditatively, or spiritually. Understanding imagination in this way explains humanity profoundly. It is, I think, quite consistent with humans being created in the image of God, and underscores how Jesus Christ is the express image of God.

Imagination is the nexus between the real and the ideal. When one's imagination is grounded in reality, then any ideas one may have will have more possibility; this may explain how, with God, all things are possible, because God's creativity defines what is real. Thinking God's thoughts after him is the goal of any creative Christian thinker.

The Scripture that has most influenced my thinking about this is found in Genesis 6:5 –
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
And Genesis 8:21 –
"And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."
This juxtaposed with Romans 12:2 –
"... be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
And, of course, Philippians 4:8 –
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

[In Genesis 6:5, the Hebrew word translated as imagination is yetzer; eikasia, the near equivalent Greek word, is not found in the New Testament as far as I can find, but is a major concept in Platonic thought (Aristotle preferred phantasia).]

I may be making the word "imagination" work harder than others tend to, but it makes sense to me to use "imagination" in this way that I do. Though influenced by a number of other thinkers – for example, a book which seems to discuss imagination in the way I am using the word is THE WAKE OF IMAGINATION: Toward a Postmodern Culture (Routledge, 1998) by Richard Kearney – what I have written is my own thought.

My thinking is framed by my personal preference for intuitivity; I think this is why improvisatory theatre appeals to me so much - it takes intuition very seriously. Being a Christian, I must be careful to submit my own intuitivity to the discipline of the Spirit's leading, guided by the Word of God revealed in Scripture and confirmed by Christian community.

One must imagine what is True in order to know the Truth. In reference to this, I am studying 2 Thessalonians 2:1-16, the following verses in particular:
"... they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

My father taught me that faith begins in one's imagination. Without faith, one cannot even begin to believe what is true. Renewal of the mind happens in the realm of imagination; one who is willing to submit to God's Spirit of Truth can expect true transformation to take place. Contrary to godless philosophers who claim all religion is delusional, the Word of God destroys delusion by revealing Truth. Really.

ON HEARING FAURE'S REQUIEM SUNG

by The Valley Forge Choir of Men & Boys

at Washington Memorial Chapel on February 29, 2003.

Silence.

Boys proceed with folded hands,

their fingers intertwined.

Men follow,

young, old, faithful, faint.

Others watch

and wait,

sitting in the wooden pews

or on stone benches

set along the chapel walls,

(some, having arrived late,

on folding chairs set up front),

all now a sudden congregation

set to hear a service sung -

an invocation to our God

that He

would grant eternal rest.

.

Requiem aeturnam ...

Organ chord sounds loudly first,

and startles some

who sit not knowing

what they should expect.

Rest eternal ...

sung in Latin verse,

the Lord beseeched with music,

God in Zion praised,

and we,

reminded that all flesh

shall die,

seek God's face

to favor us with mercy

in that coming moment.

.

Kyrie eleison ...

Lord Christ have mercy.

Surely you are able, Lord;

we pray that you be willing.

.

Rex glorie ... libera animas ...

From death deliver souls.

Oh Lord!

Is not the promise of the King of Glory sure?

Surely shall all faithful souls be saved

from being swallowed up

in deepest darkness,

from falling down forever

into abysmal obscurity.

Make those souls pass from death, O Lord;

deliver souls from death

to pass instead

to life.

.

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus ...

Thrice holy God, Lord Sabaoth,

hear blessing from trebled voices

as organ plays with harp;

the highest hosannas sung

to the One who comes,

full of glory,

in the holy Name,

I AM.

.

Pie Jesu Domine ...

Please, Lord,

hear our prayer,

and, in your mercy,

grant eternal rest.

.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi ...

the world ... the sins ...

who takes sin away?

There is no one else

who can, who has, who sacrificed for us.

who ... who has mercy?

Only you, Lord Jesus Christ!

Oh, God ... like a slaughtered lamb you lay,

stretched out on a cross,

striped with bloody marks of malice,

miserable, suffering like we do,

and more,

and more,

and more ...

.

Libera me, Domine ...

lux perpetua luceat

Liberty! (Deliver me.)

Liberty? (Deliver me.)

From eternal death, deliver me.

Don't let death be dominant.

That fearful day approaches quickly

when all liberty proclaimed

in vain and bloody revolution

shall come to naught;

the wrathful truth is a bitter judge.

I tremble to consider the desolation of that day.

Those whose fantasy of perpetual luxury

will instead

be shut forever out

of Paradise,

suffering a second death.

.

in paradisum ...

In your coming ... be with us in your coming.

Be with us, Lord,

be with us now,

so that in Paradise we may be with you.

Help us find our rest, O Lord,

in you.

.

Requiem ...

requium aeturnam, dona nobis.

My heart, my flesh rejoice in God.

.

... exultaverant in Deum vivum!

To dwell with you, as you have come to dwell with us,

is bliss beyond imagination.

.

Laus et Jubilato ...

Hidden in your heart is home.

How dear your dwelling is, O Lord.

How delightful is your rest.

FROM FRACTURE TO FULFILLMENT

A Clinically Proven and Therapeutically Practical Concept of Marriage

* In March 1992, I edited this essay from excerpts of my father's unpublished monograph, "Towards an Operational Definition of Marriage and Its Implications for Divorce and Remarriage." It was his contribution to a committee of the General Council of the Assemblies of God who were commissioned to consider the credentialing of married ministers who have a living spouse; that committee, chaired by Glen D. Cole, published its report on March 30, 1990.

What is marriage?

There really is no definitive agreement

on the nature of marriage.

We simply assume that, since we all use the term "marriage," there exists a common meaning. As long as we are not confronted by problems related to its meaning, these remain confused and confounding issues. The consequences are severe. If the validity of a marriage cannot clearly be articulated, there will be both uncertainty and disagreement about what divorce is and how the dissolution of a marriage actually comes about. How can any clear guidelines be provided for the role of persons bogged down in such a quagmire?

A simple conceptual definition is inadequate.

In order to identify a valid marriage, we must progress to an operational definition to describe the composite reality we call "marriage." This beginning point is what is to be established. An operational definition is necessary for marriage so that we can measure the components of this phenomenon which we treat as a single entity. This will help us in determining the time when a marriage indeed exists, as well as the factors which can disintegrate the marital relationship.

The model developed embodies what is asserted to be

universally characteristic of marriage

in both recorded human history and myriad cultural settings.

Identified in this model are three components - coitus, commitment and culture. These components are in dynamic relation to each other through their paired elements: in coitus are the elements of procreation and pleasure; the elements of commitment are word and work; and in the cultural component we have elements that are regulatory and religious.

BIOLOGICAL: Coitus (procreation & pleasure)

interfaces with Culture & Commitment

PSYCHOLOGICAL: Commitment (word & work)

interfaces with Coitus & Culture

SOCIAL: Culture (regulatory & religious)

interfaces with Commitment & Coitus

(CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE)

When these elements are rightly related

to Jesus Christ

for the glory of God

Flowing from this model is the operational definition which establishes a basis for determining a valid marriage. A usual, normal marriage is one in which a man and a woman exchange verbal and behavioral commitment to each other, who meet the requirements of their culture, and who share sexual relations with one another. Elements of this dyad may be missing, deviant, or otherwise different due to cultural diversity. However, we still have a marriage. It may be fractured, yes, but still a marriage. With this established, the marital dyad can be assessed as whole, or, if deteriorating, as fractured, and with continued deterioration, as disintegrated.

A usual, normal marriage =

a relationship in which

a man and a woman exchange

verbal and behavioral commitment to each other,

who meet the requirements of their culture,

and who share sexual relations with one another.

It should be self-evident that we are all born strangers. We hold the power to modify that initial relationship through communication. From stranger, we may go on to acquaintance to casual friend and on to close friend. Out of nothing we create a unique relationship. Just as we can create and nurture our social relationships, we also can act to dissolve those very same relationships. After creating a close friend relationship, we can use our decision-making capability to modify it, and, instead of cultivating the friendship, cause it to deteriorate, even going on to change the relationship to enemy. But we can never be a stranger to that other one ever again.

Fractures are characteristic of,

not the exception to, all human systems.

Theoretically,

all fractures in these human social systems

can be healed.

In practice, this rarely occurs.

The dissolution of a relationship does not include being relieved from the responsibility that goes with the privilege of exercisin the power to establish the relationship in the first place. For example, with the privilege of creating a friendship come the responsibility that makes it impossible to ignore the other's person without consequently fracturing that friendship. Fractures are characteristic of, not the exception to, all human systems. Theoretically, all fractures in these human social systems can be healed. In practice, this rarely occurs. Some continue to worsen until the system no longer holds together and the relationships no longer continue to contribute to the cohesion of the group. This process of "ungluing" is the reverse of that which brought the relationship together. It accounts for a human condition that does not occur suddenly but is instead drawn out over time.

Hardness of heart begins when bitterness,

however slight, whatever its form,

is allowed to take root within a person.

Attitudinal and behavioral rather than physical, this condition involves spiritual, psychological and social factors. One might describe it as "growing cold." The biblical label is "hardness of heart." In fact, Jesus himself taught that provision was made for divorce on account of "hardness of heart." Hardness of heart begins when bitterness, however slight, whatever its form, is allowed to take root within a person. The longer the bitterness is nurtured, the colder the heart gets, until one becomes afflicted with "hardness of heart." When this process occurs and is allowed to continue in a marriage relationship, the elements of the marital dyad become anemic and weak. Such a marriage is in trouble to the point of deterioration. Trifle by trifle, in one element after another, the marital dyad becomes unglued. The process that brought it together has reversed itself. This is what conventionally is meant when we say "their marriage is falling apart."

It is possible, and preferable,

that a couple stay together

and work out their problems together.

Coming upon hard times is no ground to say a marriage is fractured beyond repair. Despite that such circumstances are often bitter and frustrating as well as emotionally and intellectually exhausting, a fractured marriage is still a valid marriage. A valid marriage constrains the pair to maintain their responsibilities towards one another so that each may derive the privileges therefrom. A spouse who is committed to the marriage relationship imagines, thinks, and behaves in a covenantal way. Relationships are created and maintained by two persons. It is doubtful that there are very many marital problems in which one party is totally innocent, that is, one did not contribute in any way to the delinquency of the mate. If both parties "will to do the will" of the laws involved in creating productive relationships, disintegration of a union may be stopped and reversed.

Marriage vows are sacred

to self and society.

In being committed to maintaing their marriage, a husband and wife must continually seek how they may enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance one another. While it only takes one spouse to ruin the marriage, it takes both to maintain a healthy and holy marital relationship. This model has proven to be a practical clinical tool for diagnosing a developing, healthy or troubled relationship. Especially helpful is its usefulness for developing a comprehensive therapy to maintain ro restore an adequate and successful marriage. Marriage vows are sacred to self and society. Using this conceptual model of marriage may help husbands and wives facing struggle, strain and separation to keep honoring their vows together.

A man and woman, as husband and wife,

commit themselves

to maintaining their marriage

by continually seeking how they may

enrich, encourage, enjoy and enhance

one another.

While it only takes one spouse

to ruin a marriage,

it takes both to maintain

a healthy and holy marital relationship.

THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION ...

... is a circular one

calling for a movement

from a part to whole

and back to the part.

The paradigm
for this hermeneutical circle,
or, better, helix,
is the understanding of a sentence.

This requires

an understanding of individual words

which requires

an understanding of the sentence

which requires

an understanding of the paragraph

which requires

an understanding of individual sentences

which requires

an understanding of the language and social practices

with which it is interwoven.

Coming to understand a text

is a process of temporarily progressive feedback.

I understand the first word in a sentence

in the light of an expectation

regarding what kind of word will follow,

and likewise

for the words that do follow.

But

my expectations are not always fulfilled,

and they are usually fairly general.

By the time I have reached the full stop

or the end of the paragraph,

hitherto possible meanings

of later sentences or paragraphs

may have surprises in store for me

that will call for a revision

in my understanding of the text so far.

This is why

the so-called

hermeneutical circle

is really a spiral ....

adapted from John Llwelyn , Beyond Metaphysics?

The Hermeneutic Circle in Contemporary Continental Philosophy,

Alantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1985.

Theology of Pentecostal liturgy

The following is my replay to someone who challenged me to explain what I meant by the phrase "theology of the Pentecostal liturgy."

Let me begin with what I do not mean - the theology of Pentecostal liturgy is not some carefully systematized formulation of religious ritual. When I use the term "theology," I know others will probably understand me to mean something more systematic than I intend. For me, theology is an account of encountering or attempting to encounter God - "this is my story, this is my song ..."

In referring to "those more experienced in the theology of Pentecostal liturgy" I am thinking specifically of the congregation in which my family worshipped when I was growing up and the larger fellowship of the Assemblies of God with whom we were affliliated. "Liturgy" can be translated as "the work/duty of the people" and that is the meaning I intend. By Pentecostal liturgy I mean what people led by the Holy Spirit do when gathered together in the name of Jesus - this is called worship.

The theology of Pentecostal liturgy, then, is one's understanding of Pentecostal liturgy (Sprit-led public worship) in reference to one's own considered experience of encountering God. And since all understanding is socially contextualized, the theology of Pentecostal liturgy is not some individual fancy but the common reflection of one's community.

In seminary I took part in a student/faculty seminar in which the topic of discussion was Pentecostal worship. My contribution was to consider the impact of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements on Worship. I entitled my presentation "Immediate Encounter With God." The following is an excerpt from that presentation:

This [my title] reflects first Rudolph Schnakenburg's definition of worship as being "an encounter with God for which God must make man capable by his grace." It also is influenced by Peter Hocken's repeated references to immediacy in speaking of what the grace of Pentecost brings. The challenge of discussing the impact of something on worship is that the word impact implies that worship has somehow been shaped by this thing. One may recall Dom Gregory Dix's classic study, THE SHAPE OF THE LITURGY, in which he ostensibly examines the history of Christian worship by reviewing various liturgical approaches throughout Church history. Is the question then, "How has 'the Liturgy" been reshaped by the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements?" I hope not because that question demands a complex answer which is beyond the scope of this forum. A simpler answer may be given if one were to ask how worship has been affected by the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

I offer than a tentative definition of worship: True worship is faithful response to an immediate encounter with God. A response because God is gracious to initiate such encounter; immediate because worship is no mere memorial service but a realization of the shekinah Presence of God. When God's presence is made manifest, things happen! Look at Pentecost in Acts 2; look at the Pentecostals in Azuza Street. Perhaps this is why initial evidence is still such a significant concern of our Movement. How does one know whether this is that which was prophesied? The charismata manifest God's grace and God's grace is uniquely revealed in Jesus Christ.

Our liturgies must allow for this great truth. When Spirit-filled people are involved in Christ-centered liturgy, God Almighty makes Himself manifest and worship happens. We see this in Acts 13:2 when, in the midst of some Christian liturgy (NRSV translates leitourgounton as "worshipping"), the Holy Spirit spoke. What that liturgy was is unknown to us except that it involved fasting and prayer. What we do know is that those liturgical participants did not resent the Spirit's interference but rather responded in obedience.

So one may hope that this is the legacy bequeathed by the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements to the Church at large, that Christians faithfully involved in whatever liturgical form of worship will welcome the "interference" of God's Holy Spirit and be willing to respond obediently to His voice. ....