Neglect⤒🔗

In recent decades the ministry of preaching has regained its proper place in many churches. For too long it had been marginalized by the combined forces of liberal the­ology and secular communication theory. Fuelling this recovery of proclamation is a confidence in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and that every text has its place in the flow of redemptive revelation.

A flood of literature on hermeneutics and homiletics has accompanied this change but not that much attention has been given in it to the role of the Spirit – and certainly not to his power. A recent example of this is provided in a symposium entitled “When God’s Voice is heard”. It opens with two essays which deal with the sufficiency of Scripture and the preaching of the whole Bible but the authors make no reference to the Holy Spirit.

This neglect is not a denial of the need for the Holy Spirit’s ministry. It arises out of the correlation of Word and Spirit that so characterized the 16^th century Reformation that the late John Murray could write, “The Word and the Spirit was the keynote of the Reformation. This was the legacy of Protestantism.” The written Word was the product of the living Spirit who still spoke by means of it. But there was not complete agreement in the 16^th century as to how the Spirit was to be related to the Word. Murray says,

But on the relationship between the Word and the Spirit a great deal of discussion had still to be conducted. It is a persistently recurring question whether the Holy Spirit works in the believer only in, by or through the Scripture or whether the Spirit works sometimes independently of the Scripture. Is the Spirit tied to Scripture?

Murray’s use of the word “still” in the above quotation indicates that the precise nature of this relationship (which is indeed a contemporary question) ran all the way back to the disagreement between the Lu­theran and Reformed traditions. This is a very important matter for our subject that is generally not recognized. The possibility exists that some who regard themselves as Reformed may in reality be Lutheran on this matter.

We will hear two 19^th century theologians on this matter (Herman Bavinck and Charles Hodge) before listening to a con­temporary voice (John Woodhouse). We will then set out two conclusions.

Herman Bavinck←⤒🔗

Bavinck raised the question as to “whether the Holy Spirit always works in the human heart directly and immediately without the Word (Anabaptists), or only by the Word (Lutherans), or exclusively by the sacrament (Rome), or as a rule in connection with the Word.” He declares,

There is often disagreement over the power and efficacy of the Word, as well as the relationship between Word and Spirit ... both Lutherans and reformed ... taught that though the Holy Spirit can work apart from the Word, ordinarily Word and Spirit go to­gether. Lutherans, however, prefer to speak of the Spirit working per verbum (through the Word) while the Reformed prefer cum verbo (with the word).

He therefore writes in relation to regeneration,

We must never forget that the word of God ... always comes with power. At the same time, it does not always produce the same effect, and the regenerating, renewing effect cannot be understood without acknowledg­ing the work of the Holy Spirit as a distinct work.

Charles Hodge←⤒🔗

Hodge works within the same framework but he focuses more on the Lutheran position, regarding it as having some­thing in common with both Rationalists and Remonstrants in that it locates “the efficiency of the Word of God in the work of sanctification (in) the inherent power of the truth” but acknowledging that Lutherans speak of this power as divine and not just moral or human as the Rationalists did. But granting the Lutheran position is that this power in the Word is “inherent, divine and constant” Hodge then asks how its differing results are to be understood? Here Reformed and Lutherans differ for the latter say that those results are related “to the subjective state of those on whom it acts” and not “to the Spirit accompanying it at some times and not at others ... (nor) to the Word’s having more power at one time than at another; (nor) to its being attended with a greater or lesser degree of the Spirit’s influence but to the different ways in which it is received”. He regards Luther as having over-reacted against the Anabap­tists and says,

He was not content to take the ground which the Church in general has taken, that while the Word and the sacraments are the ordinary channels of the Spirit’s influence, He has left himself free to act with or without these or any other means.

And so he throws down the gauntlet to Lutherans (and to any others as well) what according to the Lutheran theory is meant by being full of the Holy Ghost? Or, by the indwelling of the Spirit? Or, by the testimony of the Spirit? Or, by the demonstration of the Spirit? Or, by the unction of the Holy One who teaches all things? Or by the outpouring of the Spirit? In short, the whole Bible, and especially the evan­gelical history and the epistles of the New Testament, represents the Holy Spirit not as a power imprisoned in the truth, but as a personal, voluntary agent acting with the truth or without it, as He please. As such He has ever been regarded by the Church, and has ever exhibited himself in his dealings with the children of God.

John Woodhouse←⤒🔗

Formerly an Old Testament Professor at Moore Theological College in Sydney, John Woodhouse contributed an essay entitled The Preacher and the Living Word to the symposium mentioned earlier. After listing references to several pieces written in the context of the Inerrancy debate he rightly claims that “None of these studies develops the intimate relationship between Word and Spirit” What he has written is therefore valuable although it is brief. It is also important because of the growing influence of Matthias Ministries etc. in the UK and USA.

Woodhouse aims to present “a proper understanding of the relationship between the Word of God and the Spirit of God” because they have often been separated. (It seems that he has the Charismatic Movement in mind). He asserts that there is such an inter-relationship between the Word and the Spirit that the Word is alive as shown by specific texts that refer to the power of the word e.g. the creation of the world, the formation of Israel and of the international church. He claims that in so many places in the New Testament the terms ‘Spirit’ and ‘Word’ are “virtually interchangeable”.

This inter-connection between Spirit and Word is well done – but it is overdone! Re­peatedly Woodhouse collapses the Spirit’s work into the meaning of the Word.

His comments on 1 Thessalonians 1:4-6 and 2:13 show this. He claims that they make “exactly the same point” in that they describe “one experience, what was expe­rienced when ‘our gospel came’ but that is not the case”. The same is done in an unusual interpretation of Romans 8: 16. He writes,

How does the Spirit testify to me? The answer is surely by the gospel, by the Word of God. Are there two experiences, the word of God telling me that I am a child of God and the Spirit testifying with my spirit that I am a child of God? No, God’s Word comes with the power of God’s Spirit. God himself breathes his word to me. Receiving the breath of God and the words of God are not distinguishable experiences here” (regular original).

Not considering the differences between verses 15 and 16 he deprives the Spirit of any independent testifying activity to the believer. This treatment conflates Spirit and Word instead of connecting them. Speaking with more accuracy Calvin says,

The work of the Spirit then is joined to the word of God. But a distinction is made that we may know that the external word is of no avail by itself, unless animated by the power of the Spirit ... All power of action, then, resides in the Spirit himself and thus all power ought to be entirely referred to God alone.

This is the kind of distinction that provides the basis for our subject.

From all that has been advanced so far two doctrinal propositions can be deduced namely,

1. The Word is conjoined to the Holy Spirit and must never be disconnected←↰⤒🔗

The Holy Scriptures are God’s inerrant and sufficient word and whenever any part of them is properly explained and applied God speaks by it. This means that the Scrip­tures do not become the Word of God. That is what they already are and what they will never cease to be and so any and every text from the Bible may be truly prefaced with the words “Thus saith (says) the LORD”. By “the power of the Holy Spirit” is not meant something that brings God’s silence or absence to an end. He is near whenever the book is opened and he speaks and acts. Nor may his power be sought as if he were not present in and with the Word. The powerful voice of God in the word of God has some self-evidencing quality (sensus divinitatis) in every conscience – whether men will believe or not (Rom. 1:18-2:16).

2. The Holy Spirit is “greater” than the Word and must not be imprisoned in it←↰⤒🔗

As a Divine Person the Holy Spirit is an agent and the Holy Scriptures are his chief instrument. His are the arms and hands that make the sword of the Word “two-edged, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow” and his are the eyes that “discern(ing) the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). He uses the Scriptures in accord with the purpose of the Father and of the Son. He therefore works where he wills and as he wills but in differing degrees of might as it pleases him. He is also present and active in gifts for ministry and degrees of grace given to believers as part of growth in holi­ness. The Spirit has been given once for all but he has more, much more of the fullness of Christ to give.

The two texts from 1 Thessalonians to which reference has been made depict what is involved in “preaching the word with power.” While they refer to the same “event” namely the preaching of the gospel which brought the church into being, they describe it from its two sides that of the preacher(s) and that of the hearer(s). The verb “come” in 1:5 was a standard term by which 1^st century rhetors introduced themselves to their audiences (see 1 Cor. 2:1 and also 1 Thess.2:1) whereas the verbs “received and heard” in 2:12 refer to their hearers. John Stott comments on these verses,

We must never divorce what God has married, namely his Word and his Spirit. The Word of God is the Spirit sword. The Spirit without the Word is weaponless; the Word without the Spirit is powerless ... The truth of the Word, the conviction with which we speak it, and the power of its impact on others all come from the Holy Spirit. It is he who illumines our minds, so that we formulate our message with integrity and clarity. It is he whose inward witness assures us of its truth, so that we preach it with conviction. And it is he who carries it home with power, so that the hearers respond to it in penitence, faith and obedience.

The Preacher – The Spirit and the Word←⤒🔗

Preaching cannot be considered properly without attention being given to the preacher because the soul of his sermons is the outflow of his own spirit. This is bound up with the reality of an inward call which, sadly, is not only being ignored but denied. The trade wind here blows from Australia, from the Sydney Diocese. The message of The Trellis and the Vine, is much needed wherever there is an over-emphasis on the ordained ministry, (not only in Episcopa­lian churches but also in Reformed and Presbyterian churches too). But it denies this call. Several pieces in The Briefing say the same thing and Proclamation Trust seems to be echoing the message. Christopher Ash’s helpful study of Preaching emphasises the task and the character of the preacher does not mention the internal call. David Jackman writes on “Preparing the Preacher” in the Lucas Festschrift and does not mention it either. Philip H. Eveson’s most timely article entitled ‘Moore Theology’: A Friendly Critique is a must read.

The internal call is often reduced to a matter of “feeling” called by both sides in this debate. That is prejudicial because while “feeling” is involved “thinking” is most definitely required. While it is the activity of the Spirit who impresses this constraint on a man’s conscience (to what­ever degree it pleases him) he also endows the man with a varied measure of gifted­ness requisite for the work. 1 Timothy 3:1 is either ignored or not adequately consid­ered. It is not just a human wish. It has two strong verbs, one of which is used for the constraining desire the Lord knew as he contemplated the work that the Father had given him to do (Lk. 22:15). This desire is also borne out in the “qualifications” that follow. Luther’s words “The ministry of the Word belongs to all” are quoted but Calvin is not and he spoke of “that secret call of which each minister is conscious before God, and which does not have the church for its witness”.

The Reformed tradition speaks of the importance of this inward call. It regards it as being associated with a measure of grace and giftedness that can be greatly enlarged prior to its being tested in the courts of the church. The strength and clarity of “the call” will vary from person to person This is a matter where wisdom is called for on the parts of all involved but all should pray that such men might be raised up by God and given to his church (see Lk. 10:38).

A conviction of an internal call affects the preacher profoundly. It makes him conscious of God in his own mind and conscience, heart and life and it encourages him to give himself up to the Holy Spirit’s control whenever he is preaching and not only when he is preparing. This is what is meant by unction in the preacher. Pierre Marcel describes it wonderfully. He writes,

When in preaching, a man abandons himself to the freedom of the Spirit, he discovers that his faculties are developed above normal: freedom is given not only to the soul but also to the tongue, his mental perception is deeper; his ability to picture things in his mind is greater; truth works a greater power in his soul; his faith is more intense; he feels himself involved in a living and compact reality. His feelings are much more sensitive and spontaneously permeate his heart. He comes to think the thoughts of Christ, to experience the feelings and emotions of Christ ... The spirit endows his word, his expression with a natural freshness and vitality which gives the word a new and original appearance and which belongs only to the spoken style.

The Preaching – The Spirit and the Word←⤒🔗

The mention of “the spoken style” in the above quotation should not be overlooked. Although a sermon is a connected, pointed address it is neither to be fashioned nor presented as a literary product. It is not cool communication but white-hot speech – no manuscript or auto-cue for the preacher and no hand-out or overhead projector for the congregant!!! We should so speak that people see and feel as well as hear – to make an impression as well as provide instruction.

In The Archer and the Arrow, a companion volume to The Trellis and the Vine although it is not by the same author, Phillip Jensen works with an orthodox trinitarianism that is both ontological and economic. He connects the triune God both with the word (and words) of Scripture and the work of salvation in the heart and life of the sinner. But in relation to the preacher and preaching he only relates the activity of the Spirit to ascertaining the proper meaning of the text, communicating it intelligibly and its effect of the message on the hearer. Praying for the help of the Spirit is limited to these matters. This amounts to a significantly diminished doctrine of the Spirit as Person and also the dimension of power.

What then is “the power” of the Holy Spirit? This question has to be asked because we have been acknowledging that the Word is never without the Spirit and yet have been arguing that there is a greater degree of the Spirit’s power. What does this greater degree look like? All that is meant by the powerful activity of the Spirit is that he pursues his standard, regular work as the Spirit of truth and holiness with far more intensity and extensiveness than at other times.

This matter relates to “boldness”, “plainness of speech” or “a door of utterance” (Acts 4:13, 29, 31; 1 Cor. 16: 8, 9; 2 Cor. 2:12; 3: 12; Eph. 6 19, 20: Col. 4: 3). They are synonymous expressions and are the concomitants of the new covenant. They do not merely refer to opportunity to speak much less to the existence of human need but to the kind of speech that is in keeping with the character of the gospel of the glory of Christ. That was something that had to be prayed for – even by apostles. Paul knew the content of the gospel and what was to be said but he knew that he was dependent on the aid of the Spirit to say it as it should be said so that people might receive it as it ought to be received (see 1 Cor. 2: 1-4) He prayed for that and he asked the churches to do so as well. This and its effects are the divinely given extra – and it has degrees.

This work is promised and described by the Lord Jesus Christ toward the conclusion of his Upper Room Discourse. In John 16:8-15 Jesus speaks of the coming of the Spirit and his ministry in the world (vv. 8-11) and in the church (vv. 12-15). While his words have a special sense for the 11 disciples who are to become apostles they do not have exclusive reference to them. Jesus is speaking of his disciples who are to be his witnesses but also to all who believe on him. The Spirit will endorse their testimony to unbelievers, convincing them of their unbelief, of their inadequate righteousness and of their liability to judgment. He will also disclose the Saviour to them as being God’s exclusive and replete Mediator.

The Book of the Acts describes such preaching and believing both by those who preach and those who come to believe. A comparison between the Gospels and the Book of Acts on both those counts almost reveals a different world. There is no more failing to understand, forsaking and fleeing on the part of the disciples and there is fearing on the part of the unbelieving Jewish and Gentile world. People turn to God from idols to serve him and wait for his Son from heaven. Others as well as they spread the message and it travels faster than human instruments can take it. In such a setting the Spirit is active beyond the regular witnessing ministry of the church for example Rahab had “heard” but not from the Israelites just as Macedonians had heard but not from Paul or the Thessalonians. He may even stir minds and consciences directly (by dreams!) and bring them to the truth or brings the truth to them (see Job 33: 14-30). But this activity that is apart from Scripture is never in contradiction of the truth of the Word of God but in harmony with it. Such a change is evidence of the “greater things” Jesus predicted the Holy Spirit would do as a result of his glorification (Jn. 7:38). Time and again something like Pentecost happened and knowledge, joy, peace and power flooded the churches and flowed over their environment.

Preaching in the power of the Spirit is NOT achieved at the expense of expounding the words of Scripture and explaining the latter is not identical with the former.