Same Spirit, many spirits . . ..
I guess we all wonder from time to time
how it is that a gospel whose very essence is the reconciliation of
person to person, person to creator, person to cosmos so often fails
to reconcile us to each other, so often fails to reconcile us to
creation, so often leaves us at odds with the cosmos. The
conservative vs. liberal worldview provides no really satisfying answer.
Jesus—our founder and pattern—was conservative with that which
needed conserving, was liberal with that which needed to change.
Or we can worry away at this question
choosing either the tools of Aristotle
or Charles
Fox Parham: syllogistic reasoning vs. charisma.
Maybe a traditionalist/modernist distinction is at the core of
divisions, or something even less obscure, like the question of
whether the gospel approves of beards and mustaches, beards but no
mustaches, or no beards or mustaches in men, head coverings
(black or white?) in women.
Whatever peg we hang our
reason-to-quarrel on, the truth persists: we Christians routinely
miss the entire point of the gospel and cling to obscure nuances that
(we assume erroneously) justify our childish perception that the
Christian world is made up of two parts—MINE, and myriad imposters.
Just maybe, God gave us both Aristotle
and Charles Fox Parham to bless the church, not to divide it. But
then, the possibility that He guessed wrongly on this grates against
the doctrine of God’s omniscience. Just for a moment, let’s toy
with the idea that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit teams up with
the rigours of reason to provide us with the discerning of God’s
will when controversial choices must be made in a Christian
community.
Jonathan Swift wrote an essay in 1729
called A Modest Proposal,
which most English major undergraduates have studied since. It illustrates
satirically the dehumanizing among the English gentry of poor people
in Catholic Ireland while, at the same time, shocking us into seeing
that reason devoid of charisma is absurd. The “modest proposal”
is that since poor Irish families live in appalling conditions and go
hungry, and since they are known for having large families, the
selling for food of their children would resolve both their hunger
and general overpopulation problems. (The essay barely falls short of
providing recipes, although it does speculate on the price-per-pound
that would be reasonable.)
It’s
a logical solution.
Based
on Old Testament admonitions regarding the consumption of blood, some
Christian religions have so strongly embraced the charisma, the voice
and authority of an external Godhead, that they have denied their
children blood transfusions that might save their lives. In effect,
their obsessive-compulsive clinging to supernatural, external
judgment renders them merciless while ostensibly serving a merciful
God. Reason and logic sense the irony in this. Even a little
reason would go a long way in the panic of the emergency room.
But—human
as we are—we seem to prefer to split into Aristotelian or Parhamian (Pentecostal-like) churches; United Church of Canada or
Assemblies of God. Not both together. Apart.
Inspiration
motivates and energizes while logic concretizes and organizes. I
can’t think of any project—be it missional, entrepreneurial,
social or political—that doesn’t depend for success on the
marriage of the two. Neither can I think of any enterprise that
succeeds without it.
And
yet, when it comes to the work and worship of a faith community, my
God, how we sometimes come to despise each other!
“There
are many gifts, but the same Spirit.”
If
only, if only.
Deeply thoughtful as always, George. Much thanks, Tom
ReplyDelete