Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Word, Sacrament, Spirit
In my studies of church and sacrament, one of the things I have noted is the rejection by some Protestant churches of the idea that God works through material elements, at least in regard to the sacraments. This seems to go back to the Swiss radical reformer Zwingli, and has been influenced by Enlightenment rationalism. The result is that in some churches, such as the Brethren church I was a member of in the 1990s, the sacraments exist on the margins of church life. In my old church this was evident in that though the breaking-of-bread was celebrated weekly, it was attended by a minority. Furthermore, the breaking-of-bread was done (by those that did celebrate) as an act of obedience in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It was an action performed by the worshipping church, and not believed to be in any sense an action in which God did something. The same applied to baptism which was regarded as the believer's act of obedience, but not as something in which God was active. The important thing is the personal faith of the one being baptised, not the act of God in making that person a member of the body of Christ.
This attitude in some churches is in accordance with the implicit Western worldview which splits the physical world and the spiritual world into separate and effectively autonomous domains. The physical world operates according to the principles discovered by science, God and whatever other spiritual beings are consigned to the 'spiritual realm', and there is little or no effective interaction between the two. In this culture those who believe in God and God's activity in the world tend to regard such activity as 'divine intervention', a 'breaking-in' from the spiritual into the physical world. Rather than being a normal feature of the world we inhabit, God's activity is 'supernatural'. The distinction between physical and spiritual realms also leads naturally to a similar distinction in the case of the sacraments. The physical elements are separated from the work of the Holy Spirit, and ultimately divorced from the work of the Spirit.
In a church that downplays the sacraments there tends to an emphasis on the Bible as the Word of God. It is by the preaching of this Word that God and Christ are made known to the world. It is believing in the Word that saves us. It is this Word which calls those who believe into a church which continues to proclaim the Word of God to the world. However, belief in the authority and power of the Bible seems to me to be on a par with belief in the efficacy of the sacraments. In both cases the Holy Spirit is believed to be working in and through material signs, and by the working of the Spirit the presence of Christ is believed to be present in those material signs. In the case of sacraments the material signs take the form of visible, tangible, things such as water, bread, wine, oil and so on. In the case of the Bible the material signs are the less tangible human languages that, by the Spirit, mediate the Word of God. Human language is every bit as material, as physical, as bread and wine, water and oil. If the Holy Spirit can work in and through one, and make Christ present in one, why can't the Holy Spirit work in and through the other and make Christ present in the other?
Scripture as God-breathed
It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". The expression 'God-breathed' brings to mind the Spirit, which in Hebrew is the word for breath and wind. If this is intended then the statement makes a connection between scripture and the Holy Spirit. However, exactly what that connection is can be argued over. A common evangelical view is that it means that the words of scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that this is what gives scripture its authority.
Could it instead be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit works in scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train? Of course, this implies that scripture has been authorised by God for such a purpose, as baptism and the eucharist have been authorised by God. However, it does not necessarily imply that God has directly inspired the very words of scripture. The Spirit may have directly inspired some parts of scripture, or given more general inspiration to other parts without determining the exact content. But some scripture may be simply 'approved by God' without having been directly inspired, the church having decided the canon under guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the end, how can we know?
If the direct verbal inspiriation of scripture is discounted, it has implications for our use of scripture. The Spirit may work in all of it, but if the Spirit is not responsible for producing it then is it perhaps fallible or revisable?
This attitude in some churches is in accordance with the implicit Western worldview which splits the physical world and the spiritual world into separate and effectively autonomous domains. The physical world operates according to the principles discovered by science, God and whatever other spiritual beings are consigned to the 'spiritual realm', and there is little or no effective interaction between the two. In this culture those who believe in God and God's activity in the world tend to regard such activity as 'divine intervention', a 'breaking-in' from the spiritual into the physical world. Rather than being a normal feature of the world we inhabit, God's activity is 'supernatural'. The distinction between physical and spiritual realms also leads naturally to a similar distinction in the case of the sacraments. The physical elements are separated from the work of the Holy Spirit, and ultimately divorced from the work of the Spirit.
In a church that downplays the sacraments there tends to an emphasis on the Bible as the Word of God. It is by the preaching of this Word that God and Christ are made known to the world. It is believing in the Word that saves us. It is this Word which calls those who believe into a church which continues to proclaim the Word of God to the world. However, belief in the authority and power of the Bible seems to me to be on a par with belief in the efficacy of the sacraments. In both cases the Holy Spirit is believed to be working in and through material signs, and by the working of the Spirit the presence of Christ is believed to be present in those material signs. In the case of sacraments the material signs take the form of visible, tangible, things such as water, bread, wine, oil and so on. In the case of the Bible the material signs are the less tangible human languages that, by the Spirit, mediate the Word of God. Human language is every bit as material, as physical, as bread and wine, water and oil. If the Holy Spirit can work in and through one, and make Christ present in one, why can't the Holy Spirit work in and through the other and make Christ present in the other?
Scripture as God-breathed
It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". The expression 'God-breathed' brings to mind the Spirit, which in Hebrew is the word for breath and wind. If this is intended then the statement makes a connection between scripture and the Holy Spirit. However, exactly what that connection is can be argued over. A common evangelical view is that it means that the words of scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that this is what gives scripture its authority.
Could it instead be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit works in scripture to teach, rebuke, correct and train? Of course, this implies that scripture has been authorised by God for such a purpose, as baptism and the eucharist have been authorised by God. However, it does not necessarily imply that God has directly inspired the very words of scripture. The Spirit may have directly inspired some parts of scripture, or given more general inspiration to other parts without determining the exact content. But some scripture may be simply 'approved by God' without having been directly inspired, the church having decided the canon under guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the end, how can we know?
If the direct verbal inspiriation of scripture is discounted, it has implications for our use of scripture. The Spirit may work in all of it, but if the Spirit is not responsible for producing it then is it perhaps fallible or revisable?
