The Trinity Sunday sermon is by H. Ray Dunning. Dr. Dunning
is a theologian and retired professor in the Church of the Nazarene.
Few themes in the history of the Church have created more confusion than the multiple
versions of “the Spirit-filled life.” Why is this
the case? Undoubtedly it is because it is a subjective experience and as Thomas
C. Oden insightfully put it, “Scripture must guide vulnerable, subjective
experience at every step along this way, since each individual’s personal
experience is prone to self-deception and interest-laden distortions. No subject
of Christian teaching is more prone to fanaticism and novelty and subjectivism
than the Holy Spirit.”1
Unless one is willing to interpret the Divine-human relation
as a model of puppetry with God manipulating the puppet leaving no truly human
side to the encounter, formative factors need to be considered when exploring
every alleged experience of the Spirit. This truth expresses the genius of
Wesleyan theology about experience.
John Fletcher, Wesley’s appointed successor, spelled out
this “synergistic” understanding of experience in a distinctive
way. Every experience, Fletcher insisted, has two sides. There is a cognitive
side and an existential side, the latter is informed by the former. Fletcher’s
main objective was to give guidance to pastors concerning the importance of
teaching their people the availability of ever higher levels of spirituality.
This higher, deeper spirituality leads them into the level of relationship
with God and others John Wesley began calling “entire sanctification.”
Using this as a lens to view the disciples’ Pentecost
experience of the outpoured-Spirit, we need to ask what was the cognitive
aspect of their experience. What did the disciples understand about the meaning
of this event and the implications for their personal and corporate lives?
Several scholars have followed the proposal of W.F. Lofthouse
stating the concept of the Spirit that informed the disciples’ reception
of the Spirit came from the promised “Paraclete” in Jesus’
discourse in the Upper Room.”2
One thing is unequivocally clear in the Gospels. The disciples
were constantly in need of having their lenses corrected with regard to their
theology. It was obvious with Peter as a follow up to his inspired confession
at Caesarea-Philippi; it was likewise clear when Peter and John asked for
prestigious positions in the Kingdom of God. Luke 18:31-34 is an unusually
clear instance of this inability to grasp the nature of Jesus’ mission.
There was every reason to presume the same correction was necessary concerning
their understanding of the Spirit of God. A long history of Spirit endowed
experiences from the Old Testament had shaped their thinking.
Likewise, we are living in a period that has seen such a wide
diversity of “Spirit-movements” and claims to divine guidance
by the Spirit that one could be left in great confusion as to what is the
nature of the authentic, biblically sound, Spirit-filled life.
As with all Christian truth, God’s answer is to be found
in Jesus Christ. He is the benchmark, the yardstick, the criterion by which
all claims to genuineness have to be measured and tested. F. F. Bruce comments
with regard to the physical phenomena accompanying the first Pentecost, “The
mere fact of glossolalia or any other ecstatic utterance is no evidence of
the presence of the Holy Spirit. In apostolic times it was necessary to provide
criteria for deciding whether such utterances were of God or not, just as
it had been necessary in Old Testament times.”3
One should not use such criteria as we are here suggesting here
to unchristianize folk whose understanding is not informed by sound biblical
theology even though they may be critical of any who disagree with them. Rather,
we should engage in sensitive self-analysis to see to it that our own experience
and life is as nearly in accord with the truth “as it is in Jesus”
as grace can enable us.
We should allow the teachings of Jesus about the Spirit to give
guidance to our own efforts to embody the Spirit-filled life, both individually
and corporately. Here is one extremely important place where good Biblical
theology can exercise a formative factor on the spiritual life of the people
of God.
(For a complete manuscript
of this sermon, go to www.preachersmagazine.org and click on “Sermons.”)
I would attempt to lay a foundation for the message by seeking
to give a simple explanation of how one’s understanding of an experience
informs one’s experience. A good Biblical illustration of the principle
can be seen in Acts 19:1-7 where the 12 disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus
received the Spirit when Paul instructed them (gave them cognitive awareness)
the Spirit was available. This is known as the Ephesian Pentecost.
This raises the question of the source of the disciples’
understanding of the Holy Spirit whose presence they were to experience in
a new way beginning with the Day of Pentecost. This leads to the Upper Room
discourse as the prelude to the giving of the Spirit. In his classic treatise,
H. B. Swete explains it this way:
The Fourth Gospel in its earlier chapters reveals the Holy Spirit
as the author of the Spiritual life in men, and our Lord as the giver of the
Spirit to those who will come to Him for the gift. In the latter part of the
book, which contains the private instructions given to the disciples on the
night before the Passion and after the Resurrection, the Holy Spirit is regarded
in another light; the relation in which the Spirit will stand to the Christian
brotherhood, the offices which it is to fulfill towards the future Church
represented by the company assembled in the upper room, come here into view.4
Several passages from John are relevant to this issue: 14:15-17; 14:25-26;
15:26-27; 16:5-11; 16:12-15. The overarching truth clearly stated in these
teachings is the promised Paraclete is so intimately connected with Jesus
and the nature of His mission that we can interpret the Spirit-filled life
as nothing other than a Christ-like life. The Spirit Who baptized the 120,
no doubt the 3,000 also, and repeatedly filled them (Acts 4:31, et al.) was
and is the Spirit of Jesus (see Acts 16:7, rsv).
A summary of these passages would include: The Spirit’s
coming is dependent on Jesus’ going; the meaning of the Spirit’s
name (another Helper) implies a continuation of the work of Christ; the reception
of the Spirit is dependent on a prior knowledge of Jesus (they would “recognize”
the Spirit because they have known Jesus); Jesus identifies the Spirit’s
coming with His own personal, abiding presence; the Spirit’s work is
decisively Christ-centered. (These points and some elaboration is found in
my work, Grace, Faith and Holiness, 415-417.)5
In conclusion, I would suggest the greatest weakness of most
emphases on the Spirit-filled life is that they make the indwelling of the
Spirit an end in itself rather than a means to the end of producing Christlikeness
in both our personal and corporate life.
1. Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit (Peabody, MA: Prince Press,
2001), 10.
2. W. F. Lofthouse, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts
and Fourth Gospel,” Expository Times 52, No. 9 (1940-41).
3. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, vol. 57 of New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988.
4. H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), 148.
5. H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988), 415-417.
