HOLY SPIRIT HYSTERIA

That there is a renewal of interest in the Holy Spirit is beyond question. An interesting aspect is how it has effected the various denominations. A psychologist might be able to read something from the diverse effects that the Spirit movement has had upon the different churches.

The Roman Catholics have reacted with a quiet and subtle curiosity, supposing that it might be a good thing for the Protestants, admitting along the way that glossolalia and other spiritual manifestations have always had a part in their church life, however subdued and isolated it might have been. The Episcopalians, who have had a surprising amount of the workings of the Spirit among their priests, have tried to play it cool. They have endeavored to be sophisticated even in this area, and of course tolerant. They seem to have mixed feelings, however. They are made uneasy in the face of so much religious enthusiasm, and yet they are satisfied that their concern for “the sacraments” encourages just such experiences. So they are on tiptoe.

The Presbyterians insist on being scholarly about the whole thing. They are looking at it psychologically, concluding that those who are addicted with the Holy Spirit are in some way disoriented. That their ministry has not been as much effected as some other denominations allows them to be a little more detached. So their’s is the balcony attitude, to use a good ole Presbyterian term. The Disciples of Christ are confused and bewildered by it all, and can hardly believe it when is breaks out among their own ministers, as it has on numerous occasions. It just isn’t like Campbellites to get any kind of Holy Spirit religion, so from sheer lack of experience they do not know how to react. Like the Presbyterians they turn to psychology for an explanation.

The Baptists are as surprised as they are divided in their reactions. They welcome it as a real lift to their programs on college campuses, and see it as a resource of power in their churches. The result is that some churches are moving closer to the pentecostal traditions, while others are cautious about it all. The Pentecostals have, of course, long considered themselves the avant garde in the Spirit movement, but it is having the salutary effect of making them more ecumenically conscious.

If we might top all this off with an evaluation from a European theologian, we can listen to Dr. Hendrikus Berkhof of the University of Leyden in the Netherlands, who spoke recently at the Austin Theological Seminary. He says that God is granting spiritual gifts, including faith healing and speaking in tongues, in order to renew major American denominations. He sees it as a renewal of American churches, such manifestations not now being prominent outside the United States. He points out that our churches have succumbed to the secularism of the world and has been limited by horizontal ideas, by which he means men have been talking to each other rather than to God. He sees the Holy Spirit manifestations as real, as God’s way of saving American churches from decay. He warns at the same time that the Holy Spirit movement might become sectarian.

Many responsible Protestant voices are saying about the same thing. They see the movement as a spiritual renaissance, given of God to offset the rise of materialism. Some go so far as to say that it is the only thing that will again make relevant the church’s message to the world, and the only thing that will really set the church apart from the world.

Well, what effect has it had upon us in the Church of Christ?

I fear that the long and short of it is that the reaction of our people is one of hysteria. It has been hard for us to stop, look and listen, especially to listen. We are always too vocal, supposing that if we stir up enough talk whatever it is that is bothering us will go away. We have begun to say more about the Holy Spirit, both in college lectureships and in journals, but the quality has not equaled the quantity. Those who have really studied the Holy Spirit, and especially those who have experienced Him, could hardly be impressed with the kindergarten stuff we have put out. The most daring proposition that our press and pulpit have set forth is that the Holy Spirit does indeed dwell personally within the Christian, which must strike serious students as naive. But even such bold affirmations as this, however elementary they may appear to others, are challenged by the Old Guard, who is pleased to dub them “the Holy Spirit boys.”

But all this sounds more immature than it does hysterical. It is common for us to be immature, though we are definitely improving in this regard; but it is seldom that we are hysterical as we now are about the Holy Spirit movement. A case in point is when one of our prominent young ministers spoke at a college lectureship about the Holy Spirit. He testified to the “leading of the Spirit” in his own ministry in such a way that he shocked the powers that be. That very night, before the cock crowed, part of The Establishment met in the president’s home to see to it that anybody who talked about the Holy Spirit in such a fashion be reckoned with. So the president summons the minister in question and strongly urges him to watch his words in his next presentation. This is hysteria. Even the Baptists, as excited as they get over strange things said in their seminaries, would not behave like that!

We have had several cases of glossolalia in our congregations, and many more instances of unusual concern for the Holy Spirit. This has brought on a lot of talk and behavior that is frightening to our people. For some to speak of praying in the Holy Spirit, communing with the Holy Spirit, being guided by the Holy Spirit, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and witnessing or testifying in the Holy Spirit is indeed alarming to the majority and especially to the Establishment, who seem to fear something bad is going to come from it. Little consideration is given to the fact that these ideas might be scriptural and might actually strengthen the church rather than weaken it.

There have been several cases of withdrawal of fellowship. Others have been silenced, not being allowed even to ask questions in Bible classes. Pressures have been applied and reprisals have been enacted. One minister in dealing with one of the “Holy Spirit boys” referred to how the elders have authority to “lower the hammer” on such folk. They don’t want any talk about the Holy Spirit except what has always been said. Those who indulge in questionable talk are soon marked and the word quickly spread. A home Bible discussion yielded interpretations about the Spirit’s role in the life of the Christian that were somewhat off the beaten trail. It moved fast and far, and soon a college official was making inquiry of the meeting, requesting all names and details. This is hysteria.

Our colleges seem especially jittery about the slightest deviations about the Holy Spirit. Recently a college actually fired part of its faculty for such digressions. Two or three staff members were either speaking in tongues or were sympathetic with the viewpoint. To dismiss people for such reasons renews the very good question as to whether these colleges are church institutions or private concerns. If a man conducts his history or English courses efficiently, or even his Bible courses, why should the administration care if he can speak some ecstatic tongue, They should say to the students: “That should spice up his history lectures. Go take his course. He’s different.” But we have to get hysterical instead of historical!

Our nervous brethren forget that Paul himself spoke in tongues, and he even enjoined “Forbid not the speaking in tongues.” And that is precisely what we try to do, forbid it. We have a fine way of zipping through the Bible and taking what we want or ignoring what we don’t want, haven’t we?

Even as I compose this piece a church bulletin comes to my desk from San Bernardino, edited by a good brother who is writing about the Holy Spirit. He says: “There seems to be a great deal of emotion attached to this issue and brethren seem to be unable to really discuss it dispassionately. And those who oppose the indwelling of the Holy Spirit seem to be the one’s who are becoming the most passionate in their presentation.” This confirms the point we are making.

The psychiatrists will have to explain our phobias about the Spirit. It may simply be our immaturity, which causes us to fear most any kind of change. It may be guilt complexes, which the Spirit seems especially to haunt or may be the antagonism of the flesh, which Paul assures us is ever at war with the Spirit.

But it disturbs me that our people should respond to the Spirit movement so unimaginatively, yea, so negatively.

If we are going to fear anyone, or get hysterical, it should concern the person who does not have the Spirit. After all, the Bible does say: “Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). It also says that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him (Acts 5:32).

My own experience with our “Holy Spirit boys” is that their experience has made them lovelier people. Such fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and goodness appears to be more abundant in their lives than in those who oppose them. Those who speak in tongues are usually quiet about their gift, choosing to reserve such a blessing for private devotions, as Paul seems to have preferred. They certainly do not want to cause any trouble and have no interest at all in dividing churches. The Spirit has made them gentle and peaceful. There is no reason to fear them.

It would make much more sense to withdraw from, censure, fire, mark, and avoid the brother who does not have the Holy Spirit. It was a woman who had an evil spirit in Acts 16 that annoyed Paul. As for those who had various gifts of the Spirit, including glossolalia, he was content to regulate them. Paul pressed no panic buttons.

Sometime back in my home a group of neighbors gathered for prayer and study. During prayer one dear woman broke forth in a tongue. Knowing something of the woman’s background, I was not surprised, though somewhat startled to have such phenomenon in the privacy of my own home. I listened reverently as well as attentively. This was the closest that I have been to glossolalia. It sounded like a language of some kind, something like Hebrew, and was not mere mumbling. It was beautiful and melodious. Afterward it was explained to me that the Spirit may have revealed the interpretation of the tongue to another in the room who was too embarrassed to relate it. It was not I, I think.

However that may have been, I was aware that the rest of us were not edified by the tongue-uttered prayer, except as a rabbi’s Hebraic chants might be edifying, or abstract art. But the good sister seems to have been edified, which was good enough for me. I had no reason to fear her. Perhaps it is a gift of the Spirit, so let it be a blessing to her. There is room for that kind of diversity in my view of the shared life. It didn’t hurt me and may have helped her.

But you may ask me what my reaction would be if such a thing took place in a public assembly. Well, if it got out of order, I’d appeal to I Cor. 14 where love is postulated as the steadying influence for such behavior, and where the building up of the church is the right motive. I would urge this upon our tongue-speaking brethren, suggesting that they keep such manifestation at a minimum unless there is an interpretation to go with it—so that always the church might be edified.

But I would not forbid tongue-speaking since Paul says not to. And to the brother who gets excited about it all and wants to withdraw from somebody or fire somebody, or mark somebody, I would gently impress upon him that what he is witnessing is after all in the Bible. I know that it can’t be among those things “that have come down to us today” since we don’t practice it, but it is indeed in the Bible and not from some Hindu book of magic.

Like footwashing and fasting and other things. We take from the Bible what we want, and we panic when someone wants to take something that we don’t want. We just must get the Lord’s Supper into everyone’s hands every Sunday, for which we have rather weak evidence, but we are ready to blow a fuse if someone proposes a footwashing ceremony, for which we have rather strong evidence.

Anyhow, hysteria and fuse-blowing are not fruits of the Spirit.