But maybe you are not convinced. Perhaps you are wondering, “What’s all this fuss about the Holy Spirit?” We do, after all, identify ourselves as Christians or followers of Christ. Shouldn’t our attention be focused on Christ – to trust in him, know him, follow him and imitate him?

The Bible tells us a whole lot about Jesus. The story of his life is told four times in four gospels from different points of view, and then the events of the gospels are interpreted and explained in the Epistles.

By comparison, the Bible says much less about the Holy Spirit, and he is difficult to pin down. The Spirit is mysterious. Unpredictable.  Beyond our human understanding.

If we call ourselves Christians, then shouldn’t we just concentrate on Jesus and let the Holy Spirit do what he wants? Shouldn’t we mainly focus on the gospels and work on our “personal relationship with Christ”?

In certain respects, that’s not a bad idea. The kingdom of God is centered on Jesus. We (the Church) are his bride, and he is our true husband, the subject of our love and desire and worship.

On the other hand, we are not living in the age of the four gospels. We live in the biblical period between Jesus’ ascension and second coming. When Jesus ascended into heaven, he relinquished control of his earthly ministry to the Holy Spirit. In effect, Jesus looked to the Holy Spirit and said, “Hey bro, it’s your turn now. Take care of things until I come back.” Okay, Jesus probably didn’t call him bro. But that’s beside the point.

The point is that the biblical age in which we are now living in the age of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church is the major fact of this period that defines who we are and how we relate to God.

One reason why some Christians are hesitant to say much about the Holy Spirit is this: Some of what people claim to be the Spirit’s guidance and work is not genuine and really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  For example, consider the practice of publicly speaking in tongues where the speech (which is a string of nonsense syllables – and I don’t mean to be pejorative here) is regarded as a divinely inspired message, and then one or more “interpreters” translate what is being said. If this message-from-God claim were true, then shouldn’t different interpreters come up with the same translation? Experiments have been performed where audio recordings of glossolalia (the technical term for speaking in tongues) are independently presented to multiple interpreters, and the translations they offer are not even close.

J.I. Packer, in his excellent book Keep in Step With the Spirit, describes an Ethiopian priest who went to a multicultural prayer meeting and heard people speaking in tongues. He assumed that these people were praying in their own native languages. Deciding to join in, he stood up and recited Psalm 23 in an archaic Coptic language of his native church. Interpreters immediately translated what he said, and he walked away in bewilderment, saying, “It was all wrong.”

Please do not misunderstand. I am not claiming that glossolalia and all other charismatic phenomena are inauthentic. Personally, I have never prayed in tongues and have not desired to do so.  From what I have heard, it is rarely an experience in which people are seized by an external force and made to do something that is completely outside of their control. In most cases, it is more like a technique of “letting go” that can be learned and practiced, and the person who is doing so will start and stop at will. People who do this claim that it heightens their awareness of God and helps them to pray in a deeper way for longer periods of time. In that sense, it is not entirely different from other practices of meditation and divine contemplation that have appeared in Christian communities in various forms down through the ages. I believe that whenever and wherever Christians draw near to God and pray in the name of Jesus Christ, then the Holy Spirit is working among them. So in that sense, I would say that most charismatic prayer and tongue-speaking does represent the authentic work of the Holy Spirit. But this Spirit-work among charismatics is not unusually miraculous or fundamentally different from what happens among non-charismatic Christians when they worship and pray. (This is what I think: Prayer is extremely hard. Whenever a Christian is able to deeply and effectively pray, then that in itself is a great miracle.)

So although I think that many charismatic phenomena do represent genuine work of the Holy Spirit, I also think that they are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who participate in them and those who observe them.

When evidence or claims about the Holy Spirit are being presented, we should not respond in a way that is dismissive or overly skeptical or critical. The Holy Spirit is real and works among Christians in surprising and sometime miraculous ways. The Body of Christ is diverse, and the Spirit’s work in some parts of the Body may look very strange to other parts of the Body. But we also need to test these claims and separate the wheat from the chaff. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

So how can we test an activity to see whether it is the genuine work of the Spirit?  The criteria that some Christians apply are rooted in sectarianism, prejudice and competition. We may be quick to assume that the Holy Spirit is with us in everything we do simply because our church is “biblically correct.” At the same time, we may dismiss what is happening in other communities because it doesn’t jibe with our own experiences and violates our assumptions about what the work of the Holy Spirit should look like.

Here is a criterion that some have offered: The Holy Spirit will never do anything that is contrary to Scripture. I do believe that this is true. But notions of what constitutes “scriptural” and “unscriptural” activity vary widely from one community to another. The disputes over glossolalia are a good example of this; Christians have differing positions on speaking in tongues, and they all support their positions with Bible verses. Although Christians widely agree on the big issues regarding the Holy Spirit  (he is a person; he is God), there is plenty of disagreement about when he comes, how he works, etc., and part of Scripture that speak to these issues are truly difficult to understand.

In Keep in Step with the Spirit, J.I. Packer notes that evangelical Christians have many good and biblically supportable ideas about the Holy Spirit, but we seem to lack the big picture, the overarching theme of his ministry that clearly states what he came to do. So Packer offers a solution. Focusing in what Jesus said John 16:13-15, he states that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is centered on Jesus Christ. The Spirit never promotes himself or draws people to himself. His purpose is to further the Father’s pleasure by glorifying the Son. While the ascended Jesus is enthroned in heaven, the Spirit will work to proclaim the gospel of Jesus, to draw people to faith in Jesus, to help us to obey Jesus, to promote the knowledge, adoration and love of Jesus  – in short, to make it possible for us to have a vital relationship with Jesus until he returns in power and glory. Wherever Jesus Christ is being followed, worshiped and glorified, the Holy Spirit is present to actively direct and support that work.

If what Packer says is correct, then the major test that we should apply is this: In this particular gathering or activity, is the reputation, purpose, and love of Jesus Christ being promoted? If so, then it is an authentic work of the Holy Spirit.

1. How does the Holy Spirit bring about personal holiness?  Does he usually (a) take away our inclination to sin and make us want to obey God, or (b) expect us to struggle against the sinful nature, perhaps helping us out from time to time, until we overcome temptation and experience victory?

If you instinctively answer (a), you might develop a casual or passive attitude toward sin, waiting around until you are “healed” instead of gritting your teeth and waging war against the enemy within. On the other hand, if your answer is (b), you might end up trying to depend on yourself and live out your faith by your own effort, which is in general a losing proposition. And you might interpret others’ weaknesses as signs of spiritual failure due to lack of effort without really knowing how hard they are trying. I don’t think there is a correct answer here. It is easy to find Bible verses to “prove” either one.  Sometimes the Spirit does (a) and sometimes he does (b). But how often does he do (a) or (b)?  It seems to me that, whichever position you gravitate toward, there will be long-term implications for how you interact with God on a daily basis and how you view yourself and others.

2. How does the Holy Spirit work in evangelism? Does he usually (a) seek people and draw them into encounters with believers who can present the gospel message to them, or (b) commission disciples and send them out to vigorously declare the gospel message to an unbelieving world?

Once again, I believe that the Spirit does both. But which one does he do more often? If you tend to think (a), then your participation in evangelism (if you participate at all) might be halfhearted and passive. If you ascribe to (b), then you might look and act like a gung-ho soldier of Christ, but to what effect? In the evangelical world, there are many self-styled evangelists whose efforts prove unfruitful and even counterproductive because they preach Christ at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways with little understanding or sensitivity.

3. How does the Holy Spirit act within the organizational structure of a church? Does he primarily (a) direct the body though its leaders and elders, whom we can safely assume are being led by the Holy Spirit by virtue of their seniority and their elected or appointed offices? Or does he (b) offer no special consideration to elders and leaders and frequently bypass them to accomplish his purposes?

The answers to this question could vary enormously across denominations and cultures. In my opinion, the most correct and healthy response is to say that the Holy Spirit does both on a regular basis. For this reason, leaders and members need real discernment to understand how the Spirit is working among them at any given time. And whether you or your church leans toward (a) or (b), I hope that you maintain an open mind and humbly allow the Holy Spirit to continually challenge your view .

4. Do the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to individual people for service in the church usually (a) coincide with their natural talents, abilities and desires or (b) represent an out-of-the-ordinary or even supernatural display, allowing them to perform in ways that they would never otherwise want to do or be able to do?

By now, you probably know what I am going to say. I think that the Holy Spirit does both. And whether you lean toward (a) or (b), there can be positive and negative implications either way.

5. What is the Holy Spirit’s relationship to Scripture? Did he (a) inspire the human authors to write down God’s word in the original Hebrew and Greek languages and then essentially stop working?  Or did he (b) continue to work down through the ages through the entire process by which the teachings in the Bible were spoken, written down, collected, canonized, preserved, translated and retranslated, studied and restudied, interpreted and reinterpreted?

In the past, I would have probably answered (a), but I hadn’t seriously thought about it. There are many who claim to hold a “high view” of Scripture who tend toward (a) because they don’t know much about the process by which the canon was established, or because they do know something about that process and it looks embarrassingly messy, controversial, and downright human. Some would like to imagine that the Bible was simply handed down to us from heaven as God handed the stone tablets to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Any hint of difficulty in the process by which the Bible came to exist would open a huge can of worms and appear to undermine biblical authority. But even if we ignore that process and just look at the text itself, we find that the Bible is a messy thing.   For example, some events are described multiple times from different points of view, and the details of these accounts do not perfectly agree. If the Bible is a perfect and infallible text, then it can only be so by definitions of perfection and infallibility that are very different from what we mean when we use those terms in ordinary language. (For example, the Bible contains a fair amount of poetry. What does it mean for a poem to be infallible?)

If you answer (a), then your main goal in Bible study will be to get back to the “original intent” and understand it from the author’s point of view. There is a lot of merit to that approach. Understanding the author’s intent is part of any serious study of Scripture. But original intent can only take us so far, and Christians do need to go beyond that, especially when we look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament is full of events, commandments, ceremonies, and imagery that we believe were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When Christians study Old Testament passages, we find ourselves departing substantially from the author’s original intent; if we do not, then it becomes difficult or impossible to make the passages relevant to what we now believe and do. Reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the gospel is what Jesus and the apostles did on a regular basis.

Now when we come to the New Testament, can we continue to apply that same approach? Are we free to depart from the author’s original intent and apply the scriptures in new ways to modern-day situations that the apostles never envisioned?  Once again, I think that we must do so, but with greater caution. If we refuse to try, we may find ourselves attempting to “get back to the first century” and live just like those early Christians did, which in the present world is truly impossible. Even if it were possible, it would be unwise, because the Holy Spirit is not stuck in the first century; he continues to move on and work in new ways in every generation. Yet if we do this carelessly, we might begin to tolerate beliefs and practices that depart from God’s will and are truly unorthodox. The present debate in mainline churches about homosexuality is a good example. There are many sincere (and, I think, wrongheaded) Christians of a liberal bent who believe that the Holy Spirit is truly leading the Church to embrace and bless same-sex relationships.

There are real dangers that should not be ignored if we take position (b). But if we lean too heavily toward (a), we may stifle real work of the Holy Spirit and make ourselves and our churches irrelevant.

Whatever you think about the questions raised – and I do not claim to know the answers – you have to admit that they are important. Our assumptions about the Holy Spirit shape what we think the authentic work of God looks like, how we think a church should operate, how we pray, how we worship, how we speak of our faith and how we evangelize.  The facts of Jesus’ earthly life are nailed down in the four gospels. But the work of the Holy Spirit which began in Acts is still going on today, and new chapters are continually being written.

Does what we know about the Holy Spirit matter? Yes it does. A healthy relationship to the Holy Spirit — and we cannot have a meaningful relationship with someone whom we know nothing about — enables Christians to grow and be useful instruments of God in this world. But ideas about him that are sloppy, off-balance or wrong will prevent individuals and churches from growing to maturity and stifle the work of the Spirit among them. Make no mistake: the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1Th 5:19). The Spirit can be lied to, sinned against, and blasphemed, and the consequences of doing so can be dire (Ac 5:3; Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10).

If you are a Christian, then you ought to call the Holy Spirit “he” rather than “it.” The Spirit is not  an invisible power or force, but a person who thinks, communicates and decides. And you ought to agree that the Holy Spirit is God. On that point, Scripture is very clear. For example, Acts 5:3, Peter said, “Ananias,… you have lied to the Holy Spirit.” One verse later, Peter adds, “You have not lied to men but to God.”

Many sincere and devout believers talk about “the secret of living a Spirit-filled life.” We want to experience the Spirit’s power. We want our pastors to deliver Spirit-filled messages. We want to have Spirit-filled worship, Spirit-filled Bible studies, Spirit-filled prayer, and so on. All of this is well and good. But overuse of this language can depersonalize and disrespect the third Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a quality or condiment that enhances our efforts and activities. The Holy Spirit is God himself. Instead of looking for that secret ingredient, we ought to be asking, “Where is the Holy Spirit moving, and how can I walk in step with him? How can I relinquish control of my activities and life to him?”

How we speak of the Holy Spirit really does matter. John Wesley was an eminent preacher and theologian of the 18^th century, a man who was greatly used by God during the first Great Awakening. He developed a teaching of “scriptural holiness” that was not well received during his lifetime. A century later, a small group of Christian preachers and writers latched on to this teaching and vigorously promoted it as “the secret” of the victorious Christian life. Wesley occasionally spoke of a “second blessing” that comes upon some believers. One of his successors, John Fletcher, developed this idea further and equated it with baptism by the Holy Spirit. Fletcher began to speak of conversion as a two-step process. In the first step, the person believes in Jesus Christ and receives from God the full remission of sin. In the second step – which may happen some time later or perhaps not at all – the person receives the second blessing of the Holy Spirit which brings him to a fuller and more perfect state of purity. This thinking contributed to a number of movements in Britain and the United States –the Keswick “Higher Life” movement, the Holiness movement, and Pentecostalism – and God used the men and women involved to bring about genuine spiritual growth and revival.

But the modern-day legacy and fruit of the Wesleyan/Fletcher teaching on the Holy Spirit seems to be mixed. Many scholars of the Reformed tradition have criticized this thinking as imprecise, sloppy and unscriptural, and it seems to me that these criticisms are valid. It is true that the apostles experienced the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which came some time after they believed in the risen Christ. A temporal separation between faith in Jesus and the arrival of the Holy Spirit is also mentioned in the “Samaritan Pentecost” of Acts 8:17. But these appear to be unique events that are not repeated later, and the two-stage view of conversion is not supported in the Epistles. In Paul’s presentation of the gospel, the state of belonging to Christ is equivalent to being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Ro 8:9).

I know that God sometimes pours out the Holy Spirit on disciples of Christ. He can fill them with the Holy Spirit anytime he chooses (Ac 4:31). He can send a second blessing, a third blessing, a fourth blessing and so on, but he doesn’t have to. On the other hand, Scripture is quite clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a general promise given to everyone who follows Jesus (Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:39). Understanding this does have implications for your personal walk of faith. If you think of conversion as a two-stage process, then you may hunger for that “second blessing” and wonder why it doesn’t come. Two-stage thinking will inevitably set up a two-tiered hierarchy within a church in which some believers are considered to be Level-1 Christians, inferior to their brothers and sisters who have achieved the coveted Level-2 status. I find no support for this anywhere in Scripture, and the potentially harmful effects seem obvious.

Basically, this is what I think happened. John Wesley witnessed authentic outpourings of the Holy Spirit at various times and places. But he and his followers did not accurately reconcile those experiences with the teachings of Scripture; they misunderstood what was happening and generalized from those experiences in inappropriate ways.

At one time or another, I think we have all been guilty of that. Someone experiences God’s life-changing work (e.g., a healing) in a certain way in his life or in his church. Because that experience is so genuine and powerful, he begins to think that this experience is normative – what “should happen” in other times and places – and wants this experience to be reproduced elsewhere. But that generalization is often inaccurate. The paths and circumstances by which people come to faith in Christ and grow in Christ are truly varied. The Holy Spirit works differently in different people and in any given person at different times. He works differently across churches, cultures and generations. The Holy Spirit is truly unpredictable. Whenever we try to put him in a box and say “this is how he always works,” he seems to go out of his way to prove us wrong. We ought to recognize, welcome and applaud the genuine work of the Holy Spirit whenever and wherever we see it. But we should also be extra careful before we claim that any particular work of the Spirit is “how it’s supposed to be.”

In the next article, I will describe some other ways that our beliefs and assumptions about the Holy Spirit will profoundly impact our lives of faith. Stay tuned…

One defining moment in Christian history came in 1054 A.D. in an event known as the Great Schism, when the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic) branches. The tension between these camps had been building for some time. It was exacerbated by poor communication between leaders from the East who spoke Greek and those from the West who spoke Latin. But the immediate issue that caused these tensions to flare was a seemingly obscure argument about the Holy Spirit known as the filioque controversy. Filioque is a Latin word meaning “and the Son.” The Nicene Creed, which was written in 325 and expanded in 381, declared:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified…

Two centuries later, the Latin-speaking churches of western Europe began to recite:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son…

Eastern leaders objected to this addition, calling it a heresy. (Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church later agreed that the implications of this small addition would be heretical in the Greek language version of the Creed, but insists that it is acceptable in the Latin version. But I digress.) The East also objected to the process by which filioque was inserted, saying that the Western bishops broke communion with the East by acted unilaterally in this matter. In 1054, leaders from Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other. The dispute erupted into grotesque violence in 1182 when Latin residents of Constantinople were ethnically cleansed. The Roman church returned the favor in 1204 by sacking Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.

Some of you are probably thinking, “That is so stupid. Why would Christians kill each other over a single word about the Holy Spirit?” Of course, there were many social and political factors that contributed to these terrible events. But there were also sincere believers who were defendjng what they considered to be essential truths of the Christian faith. In hindsight, it seems so ridiculous and horrible. But before jumping to conclusions, isn’t it worth asking why an issue that seems so trivial to us would be so important to them? Is it possible for us to reject their violence but still learn something from them about the seriousness of how we understand and think about God?

Now let’s jump ahead to the present time. What has been the single most important development in Christianity over the last century? Many would say that it is the Pentecostal/charismatic movement. For the most part, Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals are not killing each other. We generally respect and recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. But the differences in how we talk about and practice our faith are quite profound. Charismatic Christians give prominence to supernatural signs and displays, prophetic utterings, miraculous healings, and spiritual warfare (fighting demons) that to skeptical outsiders seem off-balance and out of control. And non-charismatics may be seen by their charismatic counterparts as dull, repressed, spiritually asleep, or even hostile and disobedient to the Holy Spirit.

My purpose in bringing up these two developments in the history of the Church – the Great Schism and the growth of Pentecostalism – is not to take sides in these disputes. I mention them only to provide evidence that what we think about the Holy Spirit actually matters.

In the next article — which will appear today at 4pm — I will try to get very practical and start to give examples of how our view of the Holy Spirit impacts our spiritual lives.

Since my college days, I have belonged to an independent church that emphasizes textual Bible study, prayer and evangelism. Over the years, we have constantly spoken of God and Jesus, and in passing we have often mentioned the Holy Spirit. We formally uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. But in-depth discussion of the Holy Spirit has been rare. As far as I can tell, this experience is common among evangelical Christians, especially those of the non-Pentecostal variety. The implicit message seems to be: If you believe that Christ died for your sins, that is enough to make you a real Christian. But is it enough?

Discerning who is a real Christian is not something that I will attempt.  That is a task that is best left up to God.

However, I am convinced that “Christ died for our sins” is an incomplete presentation of the gospel. It is a necessary part of the message for sure.  It is a genuine, true message through which God has worked to bring many to faith in Christ. But it falls far short of the message proclaimed by the apostles and recorded in the New Testament. And I do not think it is not an adequate long-term basis for a healthy, growing Christian faith.

The gospel message is rooted in historical events that unfolded over a sequence of four days: Good Friday, Easter Sunday, the day of Ascension, and Pentecost. Each of these days was anticipated in the Old Testament. Each of these days is necessary to understand what God has done through Jesus Christ.

It is not enough to say that Christ died for our sins. A Christian must believe that he was raised from the dead. If Christ was not raised from the dead, our faith is futile, and we are still in our sins (1Co 15:17).

And is not enough to believe that Christ was raised from the dead. The message that energized the early Church, the declaration that spread like wildfire and transformed the lives of all those who accepted it, was encapsulated in three words: Jesus is Lord. That was the punchline of the apostles’ first evangelistic message (Acts 2:36). The Lordship of Christ was sealed when the risen Jesus ascended to heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father (Ac 2:34-35; Ps 110:1).

And that message that Jesus is Lord would have fallen on deaf ears had it not been for the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was repeatedly promised by Jesus (Jn 7:37-39, 14:16). It is the Holy Spirit that brings our dead souls to life, who enables us to believe in Christ and be regenerated (born again) into God’s family (Jn 3:5). It is the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the resurrected Christ living within his disciples, that makes the Church the Body of Christ in the world today. If we are real Christians, then we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit; if the Holy Spirit is not in us, then we do not belong to Christ (Ro 8:9-11).

We urge people, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.” But one cannot accept Jesus as Savior without also accepting the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not an accessory to the gospel. He is a lead actor in the gospel and an essential part of who Jesus is.

The two major titles that we apply to Jesus, Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew), are equivalent; both mean “the Anointed One.” That word, anointed, refers to a ceremonial application of oil. It was the divinely commanded act by which the nation of Israel ordained her High Priest (Lev 8:12) and designated her King (1Sa 16:13).  The anointing oil is an Old Testament image or picture of the Holy Spirit, whom God the Father poured out on Jesus to designate him as our High Priest and King.

The Jesus depicted in the four gospels is a human being — a truly ordinary person — who was anointed and filled with the Holy Spirit at every stage of his life and ministry. He was conceived in the womb of his mother, the virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). When he was baptized in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and that is how John the Baptist recognized him as the Messiah (Lk 3:21; Jn 1:33). When Jesus preached his first sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth, he quoted from the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18-19). When Jesus taught, he did so by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:18). When he healed the sick and cast our demons, he did so by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:18).

The unbreakable connection between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is found in the earliest presentations of the gospel. When the Apostle Peter preached his first gospel message to the Gentiles, he said, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (Ac 13:16). When Peter preached his first message to the Jews, he said that the risen Jesus ascended into heaven, received from the Father the gift of the Holy Spirit, and poured out this gift on his disciples on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:33).

Does any of this really matter? Is knowing about, believing in and understanding the Holy Spirit relevant to our practical lives and to our experience of God today? Or is all of this stuff just abstract theologizing that should be left to those pointy-headed scholars in their seminaries, which,  as we all know, are little better than cemeteries?

Sorry, that’s a badly worn-out joke. If you understand where I am going with this, you will realize that I do not think that seminaries are cemeteries. On the contrary, I am becoming convinced that our theology of the Holy Spirit is truly important. If it were not,  then why did Peter take time to present it to non-believers and seekers in his evangelistic messages? 

Surely the Holy Spirit is present among many people who do not know or understand him. But that is not a good reason to delight in ignorance. Many have believed in Jesus and experienced the authentic work of the Holy Spirit with little or no theological understanding. But without this understanding, Christians tend to misinterpret what is happening to them. If we fail to compare our experiences to Scripture, we tend to draw incorrect conclusions and make inaccurate generalizations about the Holy Spirit which, over time, keep us from maturing and lead to unhealthy beliefs and practices. Sooner or later, the chickens of Spirit-ignorance will come home to roost.

That’s my opinion. But what do you think? Was the Holy Spirit an indispensible part of the gospel that you accepted and believed? Have you been experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in your personal life and in your church? If so, how? If not, why? On a scale of 1=total ignorance to 5=deep understanding, how well do you think you know the Holy Spirit, and is your present knowledge going to be enough to sustain your spiritual health and growth in the years ahead?

I will try to post more articles about the Holy Spirit in the next few days. But before I do, I would really like to hear from you guys to know what you are thinking.

Pentecost, of course, is the birthday of the Church. It is the day on which Jesus’ disciples were collectively filled with the Holy Spirit and empowered to begin preaching the gospel, as described in Acts chapter 2.  Before that day, the church was already functioning as a human organization. According to Acts chapter 1, the disciples of Jesus were already staying together, conducting meetings, taking care of business, praying, worshiping and making decisions. So in that sense, the church already existed. But on the day of Pentecost, this body of believers became much more than a human organization. It was now infused with a divine presence. The Spirit came and made his dwelling among them and they became the Church with a capital “C”, the literal Body of Christ on earth.

Have you ever noticed how much attention we give to Christmas, to mark the day (probably not December 25) that God the Son was born into the world, but we downplay or even ignore the actual day when the third member of the Trinity arrived?  In its historical relevance, the day of Pentecost is no less important than Christmas or Easter.  This neglect of Pentecost may be symptomatic of our poor understanding and knowledge of the Holy Spirit.  Pentecost was the defining moment for Jesus’ disciples and our day of commissioning as the Church.  It ushered in a new era of history, a period when God’s redemptive work on earth would be carried out not through one man (Jesus) but through many human beings who are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the central fact that defines the spiritual age in which we now live.

I do not believe that Christians have been commanded to celebrate annual feasts or holidays. Paul explicitly says that we are not (Col 2:16). Nevertheless, Christians have done so for a very long time. In particular, the Christian celebration of Holy Week culminating in Easter, followed by Ascension Day (40th day after Easter) and Pentecost (50th day) is a natural revision of the Old Testament cycle of feasts instituted in Leviticus chapter 23. Most of us understand that the Passover was a foreshadowing, of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The Last Supper and the crucifixion of Jesus are the fulfillment of the Passover. But perhaps you didn’t know this:

• The first day of the week (i.e., the first Sunday) after Passover was a special feast that anticipated the spring harvest. It was called the Day of Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14) and it foreshadowed Easter, the day on which Christ rose from the dead as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Co 15:20).
• The fiftieth day after the Day of Firstfruits was another celebration called the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. It was basically a harvest festival. It looked forward to the Christian Pentecost, the day on which God would begin to harvest souls through the preaching of the gospel.

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the Holy Spirit. Much of what I have been taught over the years about the Holy Spirit (and it wasn’t much at all) was a reaction against the perceived excesses of the Pentecostal movement of the early 20th century. That movement, as I was told,  placed too much emphasis on speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. and too little emphasis on level-headed study of the Scripture. My point here is not to critique the Pentecostal movement, because I am absolutely unqualified to do so. My point is that, for too long, this debate between Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal wings of the Church has so dominated our discussion  that many of us have little or no practical understanding of what it actually means to be filled with the Spirit, led by the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit in the truly biblical sense. The Christianity that I embraced as a college student was heavily focused on studying the Bible and understanding scriptural principles in rational ways. Nothing wrong with that. But somewhere along the line, I truly lost sight of the Holy Spirit and his role in the Christian life. That’s something that I want to correct.