The Spirit and the Church
I’ve been reading Roman Catholic and charismatic writings lately, and it has gotten me to thinking about how the Spirit relates to the Church.
Often Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) theologians will appeal to Christ’s promise that the Spirit will guide the church into all truth as an argument for its infallibility. Now, for those who do not agree with ecclesial infallibility, something has to be done with this promise.
Sometimes this promise will be restricted to the apostles, and I think there is some validity to that (in the Gospel of John the promise is obviously given to those who were “with him from the beginning”). But, on the other hand, some kind of promise of God’s leading/teaching is given to all believers (cf. John 6, where Jesus says, following the OT “New Covenant” texts, that “all will be taught by God”, or 1 John 2:27, where it clearly says that the Spirit teaches every individual directly to the point where “they don’t need anyone to teach them” in some sense). Does this mean ecclesial infallibility is correct after all?
I think Calvin actually had a good reply about this: the Spirit’s leading is something that happens over time, and thus may admit in fluctuations at times. In other words, it can be true that the Spirit is leading the Chruch in some sense without it necessarily entailing that everything the Church does is lead by the Spirit. In addition, I would add that the RC/EO reading of this promise assumes a kind of determinism those theologies would often not want to support: it seems assumed that because the Spirit is leading the Church, whatever the Church says must be a direct reproduction of what the Spirit said.
At this point I think the wisest among the charismatics can be very helpful. Most charismatic theologians I have read have noted that NT prophecy is fallible, and in several ways: a person can mishear what the Spirit says to them, a person can properly hear what the Spirit says but misinterpret it, a person can simply be mistaken in claiming the Spirit spoke to them, a person can hear the Spirit and lie about what the Spirit says, and/or a person can hear nothing at all and claim the Spirit spoke to them. If all of these things are true, then a simple appeal to the Church’s being led by the Spirit would be insufficient to know when and what the Spirit has said directly to the Church (i.e., apart from the Scriptures). One would have to apply all the tests given in Scripture for NT prophets (not OT prophets, which, at least I’m convinced, are of a different order) to any putative claim of revelation given to the Church as a whole. At the same time, there is no reason a priori to assume the Spirit could not possibly be leading the Church as a whole to affirm something, e.g., the contents of the Canon or the Creeds, or some moral teaching.
This is all pretty tenative for me, but I think it makes sense.
Any thoughts?
This is good topic, Andrew.
But to clarify the situation a bit, it might be helpful to discuss the five propositions you present.
1) a person can mishear what the Spirit says to them
–The problem with this is if you mishear him, its as though he did not speak. Why, it has to be asked, is he going to speak to you if you are not going to hear him properly? Doesn’t he have access to the times when you will be listening? To disregard those and to speak when one will misread him seems strange. Even humans waite till applause, for instance, subsides before resuming. Besides this there is a definite disconnect between the sensations. I take it you are speaking of an “internal intuiting” of sorts rather than audible apprehension. I don’t deny the latter is possible or that it happens on occasion. Of course, different sensations are not prone to the same distractions, so it might be worth pointing out which distractions distract the human senses for Spirit. Moreover, it is worth questioning whether there are senses strictly for the Spirit, in which case it seems strange that they too would suffer from distraction as well. Or is that all internal intuiting (The Spirit, one’s own thoughts) are appropriated up the same conduit. It also seemingly presupposes that the Spirit speaks a known language, wherein any utterance he gives must cross the passage of time and thus be subject to the same kinds of mistakes regular audible language suffer. We can imagine however, that Spirit doesn’t speak a language but that his utterances are like a light shining on a spot (wherein whatever it is is fully illuminated and there can be no question) or an instantaneous download where no time is needed for the signal to take place, but the full content of the message is present. Either way, it would appear that there was no chance for misinterpretation or mishearing or whatever but only of whether not one acts accordingly if at all.
2) a person can properly hear what the Spirit says but misinterpret it
–This just seems to be internally inconsistent, since, I want to ask, how one can “misinterpret” what one has “properly heard”? It seems you either properly hear and properly interpret or mishear and misinterpret—the two of each really being the same thing.
3) a person can simply be mistaken in claiming the Spirit spoke to them
–This I think is true. But there seems to be a bifurcation to this: either the Spirit spoke or did not. And if he did not then it is reducible to 5). If the Spirit did speak then it would seem that the Spirit spoke to somebody else but another managed to “pick it up.”
4) a person can hear the Spirit and lie about what the Spirit says
–It is interesting that in this case the person would know what it was that the Spirit said (without misinterpreting it) though he afterward says something different. However this is true.
5) a person can hear nothing at all and claim the Spirit spoke to them
–same as 3)?
It seems to me from all this we might take:
1) The Spirit speaks to someone and either he obeys or does not.
2) The Spirit does not speak to someone and either one says he does or he does not.
Of course, it will be helpful if we construct situations of what these sentences might be like if true.
I think yes, you can reduce them John’s pair, but I think that what Andrew is saying is important as it can go to the motives of the person and that matters in some situations.
John:
I think there are some examples of people “mishearing” God, or hearing but misinterpreting what he’s saying. For example, Samuel hearing his name being called and thinking it was Eli; in that case Eli had to tell him it was God calling to him. Or for the misinterpreting, the examples of Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar getting dreams from God and not understanding what was being told to them. So, despite being unable to understand why God does not speak in an absolutely clear and undeniable manner, he does seem to do so. Cf. e.g. Job 33:13: “For God speaks in one way or another, though man does not perceive it.” Perhaps his “shyness” in this regard has to do with his humility and our desire that we seek him.
Also, I take it as a given that the Spirit sometimes speak in a human language, and that he speaks through our ‘intuitive’ faculty. I’m not sure why we’d have to suppose that he speaks only in a way that cannot be misunderstood. Even his revelation in creation, which in a sense cannot be denied (“so that they are without excuse”), can be “suppressed” to a degree.
As for 3 and 5: I guess in 3 I was thinking of someone having an impression which was really just themselves and thinking it was God, but in 5 I was thinking of someone just making it up out of nothing (a complete lie, rather than a misunderstanding).
There’s also another situation that I didn’t mention, but would have to factored into an exhaustive theory: someone can have something revealed to them by the Spirit and not even realize it. An example of this would be Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, where Jesus has to tell Peter that this was revealed to him by the Father.
And then there’s also “other” spirits involved too, which we have to test for according to 1 John and 1 Corinthians, (implying they don’t make themselves always obviously “other”) etc.