In Schaeffer’s book The God Who Is There, he writes in his appendices (Appendix B) of the problem of the middle-class church. The problem is not that a middle class exists, but that its large existence has and will cause the church to overlook other classes, namely the intellectual class, and the rudimentary laborers. Young people from Christian homes would also be included in this because we often assume they will adopt their parents thinking and class when, in fact, we rarely address them because of our assumptions. In short, intellectuals, workers, and our young people rarely receive the church’s attention. If we fail in this area, the consequences are dire and can already be seen. Our young people, who we have not reached effectively, go off to colleges on which we have all but given up. The bad combination is that these unreached professors do interact effectively with our unreached young people. Over time the next generation becomes powerful, and the working class just follows their lead. To this situation, Schaeffer writes,
“As we seek to meet the problems there are two things which we must strenuously seek to avoid, whether we are engaged in teaching, missionary work or in some aspect of the life of the local church.
First: settling down and accepting the present situation simply because of the inertia caused by those who speak of the problem of the churches’ young people and speak much of missions, but who simply do not want to question the familiar because it is painful to do so. The problem is that the evangelical, orthodox churches, institutions and programs are today often under the control of those who are in this category. This control is both organizational and financial. Thus, there is a tendency not to “rock the boat.” This responsibility cannot be met by the young people themselves nor by the young ministers and young missionaries alone.
Mature Christians, and Christians in places of responsibility, must summon the courage to distinguish, under the Holy Spirit, between unchangeable biblical truth and the things which have merely become comfortable for us. Often one hears people speak of “the simple gospel only,” when in reality they do not really care enough for those outside the churches, or their own children for that matter, to be willing to face what preaching the simple gospel may mean in a changing and complex situation.
Second: the development of an intellectual and cultural snobbishness or elitism. This can easily come about unless we help one another not to fall into it. Such an attitude grieves the Holy Spirit, destroys rather than builds and is as offensively ugly as anything can be.
We will make mistakes, but by God’s grace we must strive to avoid either of these two errors or a choice between them.”

I would hope that we would pay attention to these words in our efforts to reach our communities (everyone that is in them) and especially our next generation which is at the very heart of my area of ministry.

As many of you know, I haven’t posted in a very long time. The reason for this long layoff is because I have been giving my time towards the development of a new website for Hampton Park ( www.hamptonpark.org ). Many thanks to those who have helped, especially Drew Moffitt who designed the site and served as my personal Joomla guru. A few things to mention:
1. The site is a work in progress. It is not complete, but is complete enough to post.
2. There are some known bugs that I still need to work through so at least be kind to me when you point them out!
3. Enjoy. In the coming months I hope you will benefit from the resource section of our site as it develops.

In the last post we saw that believers should view themselves as those who have been conquered by the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we are led in the triumphal procession of Christ. Our rebel hearts have been conquered, and we rejoice in the fanfare that exalts our great and conquering King. In the second part of v. 14 (2 Cor. 12), Paul makes reference to the sense of smell and continues to make reference to it throughout the next verses.

Triumphal processions were full of ritual and pagentry, not the least of which was the burning of incense creating strong fragrances that would surround the festivities. Those who had been led in triumphal procession wreaked of the fragrances. Paul, therefore, writes that God uses his conquered servants led in triumphal procession to “spread the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere.” In short, those who have been conquered by the gospel ought to have the smell of the gospel on their lives. Believers are authentic, mouthpieces of the gospel wherever they go. We must smell of our Conquerer. This means the spreading of the gospel is not just an activity that comes and goes. The spreading of the fame of Christ is not just a scheduled duty. We are saturated with the smell of the gospel so that wherever we go, the gospel goes. This passage is speaking of an authenticity that should be present in a believer’s life.

Verses 15 and 16 go on to say, “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” In this case the fragrance is objective, but the responses are subjective based on the olfactory senses of the receiver. To those who are being saved, the aroma is sweet. To those perishing, the aroma stinks. This idea speaks to the dependency we should have on God to do his work in hearts concerning salvation. We are not called to tweak the odor so it is palatable to people who would otherwise reject it. We must waft the aroma of Christ and His gospel for what it is and depend on the work of God in individual hearts whereby he changes their evaluation of the smell from that which is putrid to that which is sweet.

This picture is reminiscent of Paul’s words in I Cor. 1:18,”For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” As we emit the smell of Christ as those who have been conquered by Him, may we rejoice more and more as God works in the hearts of men. Man by default views the gospel as fooliness, a bad smell. God, however, graciously works in hearts as only He can whereby that which was foolish is miraculously recognized as true wisdom, a sweet aroma.

We are conquered by the gospel for the gospel. May we rejoice in the privilege of smelling of the grace of God. May we faithfully emit the fragrance of Christ as God graciously grants perception to sinful men and their faulty olfactory senses.

“But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere.” 2 Cor. 2:14 (ESV)

I found the phrase “triumphal procession” to be of interest in this verse.  This same idea is rendered in the AV as “causeth us to triumph.”  It may seem like a minor difference, but when the idea of “triumphal procession” (qriambeu,onti) is placed in its historical context the meanings between the English translations are quite divergent. 

The Roman triumphal procession of Paul’s day was the result of a long development that went back to the pre-Roman Etruscan dynasties. A triumph of the first order featured the conquering general riding in a triumphal chariot drawn by four horses (and in some triumphs, even elephants). He was clothed in a purple toga and a tunic stitched with palm leaves. In his hand he carried a scepter crowned by an eagle, and his face was tinted red in reference to the god Jupiter.  Appian described General Pompey’s 3rd triumph in 61 BC as follows:

      In the triumphal procession were two-horse carriages and litters laden with gold or other ornaments of various kinds, also the son of Hystaspes, the throne and scepter of Mithridates Eupator himself, and his image, eight cubits high, made of solid gold, and 75,100,000 drachmas of silver coin; also an infinite number of wagons carrying arms and beaks of ships, and a multitude of captives and pirates, none of them bound, but all arrayed in their native costumes.

Add to this the pagan priests burning incense and musicians.  This was a grand display of all the senses.  Paul appeals to smell specifically in this passage. 

So what was Paul trying to communicate through this picture?  How did Paul view himself in relation to the idea of being led in triumphal procession?  Paul is not communicating that he is one of the victors leading in the triumphal procession, but rather Paul is being led as a conquered subject.  There is somewhat of a difference in processions, however.  Typically conquered enemies were led in a triumphal procession and were put to death at the end of the processional as a sacrifice to the Roman gods.  In one way, we as conquered enemies are put to death, but through dying to self we are made alive in Christ Jesus, and in that way share in His victory, not because we are victors, but because we are in Christ, the victor. 

May we rejoice in knowing that God powerfully and graciously waged a holy war against our rebel souls.  As believers we should praise God that we have been defeated and taken captive by the power of the gospel.  We have been brought to faith, forgiven, and justified.  God has made us to be glad and willing servants of the greatest victor, Jesus Christ. 

But thanks be to God!  He has made us His captives and leads us along in Christ’s triumphal procession. 

We have been conquered by the gospel for a specific reason.  It is for the gospel.  We will take a look at this idea in the next article. 

O God the Holy Spirit,

That which I know not, teach thou me,

Keep me a humble disciple in the school of Christ.

~ The Valley of Vision:  A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions

 The question of praying or singing to the Holy Spirit has led us to see that this question does not apply to “new” hymns and songs alone; rather it has been an element throughout hymnody in the past.  My last post considered some of the theological issues that need to be considered.  This final post will consider whether or not there is any textual warrant for the practice of addressing the Holy Spirit in prayer or praise. 

Even if one agrees with the theological analysis above, he will still be hesitant to concede on textual grounds.  The oft recited “fact” is that there is no example in the Scriptures of prayers being directed to the Holy Spirit.  This assertion can be challenged, especially when we extend communication between man and God to include the benedictions found within the New Testament. 

            A benediction is simply an invocation directed toward God for blessing.  Harper’s Bible Dictionary expresses the definition more fully as “a prayer for God’s blessing on someone or a prayer recognizing that blessing has been given” (emphasis mine). 

• II Cor. 13:14 – “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
• Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.
  •  Albert Barnes writes of this benediction, “It is a prayer; and if it is a prayer addressed to God, it is no less so to the Lord Jesus and to the Holy Spirit.”[1]
  •  Charles Hodge comments, “The distinct personality and the divinity of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, to each of whom prayer is addressed, is here taken for granted.” (emphasis mine)[2]
  •  Loraine Boettner says of this text that it “is a prayer addressed to Christ for His grace, to the Father for His love, and to the Holy Spirit for His fellowship.”[3]
  • B.B. Warfield describes this benediction as a “closing prayer,”[4] and Augustus Strong observes, “If the apostolic benedictions are prayers, then we have here a prayer to the Spirit.”[5]

Three factors must be considered in order to evaluate as to whether prayer should or should not be offered to the Spirit. 

1. Prayer to the Holy Spirit is nowhere forbidden in the Scripture

2. Prayer to the Holy Spirit is the natural consequence of prayer directed toward the Trinity. The ontological nature of the Trinity demands this consequence.

3. Prayer to the Holy Spirit is demonstrated through the example of apostolic benediction. Granted, one must agree as to whether or not a benediction is a prayer, but the burden to prove otherwise is certainly great.

Concluding remarks:

            It is right to observe the primary functions of each Person of the Godhead with reference to prayer.  We do direct our prayers to the Father primarily, through the Spirit, in the name of the Son.  However, one must further understand that when prayer is directed to the LORD or to God generically then the normative economic activities of each Person in prayer are assumed.  Furthermore, one may contend that Scripture allows and exemplifies prayer directly to each Person of the Trinity because of their ontological equality.  Should an ontological equality overrule our sense of the Trinity’s economic function?  No.  For this reason, a caution is given.  It may not be the best reflection of the working order of Trinity to routinely be addressing in prayer the Persons of the Trinity other than the Father.  God the Father should be the primary addressee.  However, when prayers include triadic formulations focusing on the specific function of each person, it almost obligates the one praying to address the economic functions of each person by appealing to their ontological reality. Apparently this was an apostolic practice that should not be prohibited today.

---

[1] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament – II Corinthians and Galatians (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1955), 274.

[2] Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York:  Robert Carter& Bros., 1860), 314. 

[3] Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1953), 92. 

[4] Benjamin Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia:  Presbyterian & Reformed, 1952), 46.

[5] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ:  Fleming Revell, 1907), 316.

Chris Anderson at My Two Cents tipped me off to this video.  Extremely funny.

In my last post I mentioned that we would seek to investigate this idea both theologically and textually.  This post contains the theological investigation.  In this post I mention Frank Garlock.  I only mention his name to demonstrate one thing:  hymns and songs that address the Holy Spirit in prayer or praise have existed in the church for many years (Come Thou Almighty King, Doxology).  Songs from a generation ago (Garlock’s songs) followed suit.  I am simply trying to remove the argument that some have against the “new fangled” hymns that have been written very recently.  Some say they are bad because they address the Holy Spirit directly.  The fact is that many songs past and present contain this feature.  If it is indeed a problem to address the Holy Spirit in prayer, specifically through song, then we must not deal with the present alone, but also with the past.  Let us now move on to the theological investigation.

·         The Spirit is a person

o   He is referred to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14).  He acts as a person would act.  He speaks (I Tim. 4:1), He loves (Rom. 15:30), He teaches (John 14:26), He intercedes (Rom. 8:26).

·         The Spirit is deity

o   He is eternal (Heb. 9:14), He is everywhere present (Psalm 139:7-10), He is omniscient (I Cor. 2:10-11), He taught the apostles “all things” (John 14:26; 16:12-13).  He was involved in creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30). 

o   The Spirit is spoken of in intimate association with both the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; John 14:16; I Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; I Peter 1:2). 

o   Some passages in the OT that are attributed to Yahweh are applied to the Spirit in the NT (cf. Isa. 6:8; Acts 28:25 and Exo. 16:7; Heb. 3:7-9). 

·         One must be careful to not regard the Spirit as being subordinate within the Godhead or the Spirit would not be God.  Herein, lies the great difficulty when discussing the Triune Godhead.  Each person within the Godhead serves in primary functions, but at the same time all share in the functions.  Eph. 1 demonstrates the role of each person of the Trinity in the work of salvation.  God the Father chose to save sinners.  God the Son realized the salvific choice of God through His atonement.  God the Spirit secures the blood-bought chosen by marking or sealing each believer by means of an empowering ministry which is the down payment of the full promise to come (glorification).  When one says, “God saved me,” he is speaking of all persons of the Trinity.  Although each primary function of the persons is recognized, it must also be affirmed that the entire Godhead is involved in essence with the specific outworking of the particular Person.  If one emphasizes these differences of Persons apart from confirming their unity in essence, many prayers and song would need to be banished from our churches.  “Jesus Saves” (Is it only Jesus that saves?  What about the Father’s choice and the Spirit’s sealing?).  “All to Jesus I surrender…fill me with Thy love and power” (Actually, it is the Spirit that fills and empowers.  One would have to refashion the words as, “All to Jesus I surrender, Father cause the Holy Spirit to fill and empower me.”)  Later in the same song the writer requests “Make me, Savior, wholly thine.”  In this case the prayer was not addressed to the Father, nor was the security and sealing work attributed to the Holy Spirit.  Garlock’s well known song My Life is Thine also errs if one is going to prohibit works of each person from being shared by the entire Godhead.  Garlock writes “Lord Jesus, control my thoughts”, “Lord Jesus, come melt me, mold me, use me now, O cleanse and fill its inmost part.”  “Lord Jesus, it is Thy will I seek.”  Garlock attributes to the Son both the work of the Spirit and the Father.  The Spirit cleanses and fills.  The will is the Father’s will lest we fall into monothelitism.  As for addressing the Father in the Son’s name through the ministry of the Spirit, Garlock’s song-prayer obliterates this model.  In defense of Garlock, it is through the atonement that one is allowed to be cleansed and filled.  In a real way, Christ’s atonement is the catalyst for such requests.  Although Christ as a person has His own will, it is in full agreement with the Father’s will.  Therefore, seeking Christ’s will is in essentially seeking the Father’s will. 

o   The major theological issue is that of having a proper understanding of key theological terms and concepts that have helped us grapple with the Triunity of God.

§  Ontological Trinity – Refers to the three-in-one nature of God apart from the testimony of God’s participation with his creation.  The Trinity in terms of being and essence. 

§  Economic Trinity – The economic Trinity refers to the biblical testimony of God’s participation with his creation, or the “economy of salvation” as Father, Son, and Spirit.

§  One refers to who God is and the other refers to what God has done.  God’s acts in relation to man may require an economic structure concerning subordination and function, but the very being of each Person of the Trinity cannot be said to be subordinate.  God cannot submit to God in essence or He would cease to be God.

o   Once again, it is best to consider both of these ideas when speaking of the Trinity.  Yes, a particular Person of the Trinity may have a primary function economically, but each Person shares in the work of the other ontologically.  Therefore, a prayer to God (generically) must include the Holy Spirit.  Even a prayer directed toward the Father (economically) still addresses the Spirit (ontologically). 

·         Theological reasoning apparently does not seem to prohibit addressing the Spirit in prayer.

In the next post we will consider textual data.

A few leading thoughts:

 

·         Those who are against prayer directed toward the Holy Spirit often issue the challenge, “Where specifically in Scripture are we commanded to pray or sing to the Holy Spirit?” 

·         The issue is not whether one can locate a specific command.  What if we required such explicit statements for all points of theology held?  There are many biblical propositions that cannot be established on the basis of a solitary “command text.”  There is no text that explicitly puts all conditions of salvation into a single command.  There is no single passage that teaches explicitly the doctrine of the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ.  Both of these truths are based on the synthetic study of many texts, none of which contains the full synthesized doctrinal formulation.

 

It is necessary to observe texts that involve prayer and the person of the Holy Spirit in order to establish whether or not it is appropriate to address to the Holy Spirit in prayer.  In this case, most would concede that there are indeed no specific texts in which a prayer is offered directly to the Holy Spirit.  This assertion will be investigated later.  If, however, this is the only basis of prohibiting such prayers, then it is a rather weak position.  As one seeks to establish Christian practice, he must consider not only what God commands, but also what God prohibits.  The fact is, although one may not see a command or explicit instance in which prayer is offered to the Holy Spirit, he must also concede that there is no prohibition against it.  All would agree that we must never allow what God clearly prohibits, but we must also work through issues very carefully so that we do not prohibit what God may actually allow.  In both cases, one would not want to presume on God’s role as the only divine lawgiver. While I understand that the previous statement may spawn discussions of the regulative principle within worship, it would be too great an excursus to deal with it here.  Perhaps in a later post. 

Over the next week or so, my posts will seek to investigate this topic theologically and textually.  The next post will discuss the theological issues surrounding the question. 

There are three ingredients that are needed for a Bible class to accomplish the high calling of providing a biblical and theological foundation on which our students can build their relationship with God and live a life pleasing to Him.  The first ingredient is personnel.  Too many Christian schools simply look to see who has a free hour and select their Bible teachers according to availability rather than ability.  A Christian school must make it a priority to put pastors and teachers with extensive Bible education into the classroom. Whenever a Christian school views Bible class as a class that can be taught by “anybody,” the school has just revealed that science, math, and other academic classes are more important. 

            The second ingredient is a purposeful curriculum.  Christian schools need to resist the temptation of choosing a series of devotional guides and Christian living books as the backbone of the Bible curriculum.  These types of studies are fine for personal use and discipleship, but these studies do not provide the biblical data necessary for a comprehensive Bible program.  Two specific courses of study should be included in Bible classes.  First, students should survey both the Old and New Testaments.  Without an overview of the Bible, students have difficulty understanding its individual sections.  Teachers should strive to have their students possess a working knowledge of the chapter content of Word of God as well.  If the Bible is indeed the most important story our children should know, we should desire for them to know it better than any other work of literature.  Second, students should learn the biblical doctrines contained in Scripture.  In the end, our students should know what the Bible says and what the Bible teaches so that they might avoid being “carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men.” 

            The third ingredient is proper testing and measuring.  Bible class ought to possess some academic teeth.  We should be inspecting regularly, deeply, and rigorously those biblical truths taught.  A subject matter as weighty as the Bible requires that we take the necessary steps to ensure that our students study and retain the material.  I am not saying that Bible classes should lack devotion; one cannot speak of the Bible properly without words of application.  I am saying there is a better place to focus on the devotional side:  chapel.  Bible class provides a biblical foundation and proper theology.  Chapel should build off of this knowledge and burn the devotional aspects of it deep upon the heart of our students.  It is right to desire devotion to God as the end result of Bible study, but we must not skip the process of learning biblical data, or one will not know to what or to whom he should be devoted. 

     In essence, there is perhaps nothing more practical for our students than the “academic” side of learning biblical content and its resulting theology, for these areas of study are the tools of the mind that allow a heart after God to express itself in a biblically appropriate manner. 

The following article is going to deal primarily with the Christian school format of Christian education.  In theory, Christian schools are to provide a biblical worldview through the direct teaching of the Bible and biblical integration throughout all other academic disciplines.  I wanted to focus on what the direct teaching of Bible should look like within a Christian school. 

    

The adjective “Christian” is no small adjective when describing education.  This term sets the focus and serves as an overarching theme under which all other academic disciplines find their position.  A Christian education simply means that all topics must be taught from a Christian worldview.  This worldview is found in the pages of Scripture.  Therefore, a Christian education is a biblical education.  Within Christian education, much time is given concerning the integration of the Bible within every academic course, and rightfully so.  However, when Christian schools offer a Bible class, the importance of a biblical education tends to be marginalized because Bible classes are rarely academic in nature.  Too often Bible class resembles a series of anemic Sunday School lessons that respond to the needs or current topics of interest among the students.  Very few Bible programs possess a proactive approach toward providing a biblical foundation for the students resulting in a well-understood and well-articulated theology.

        A foundational understanding of the Bible and theology is the necessary ingredient for spiritual transformation in our students.   It is insufficient to simply address what our students should do.  Biblical instruction must also address how our students should think.  Students often do the wrong thing for two reasons:  1. They are depraved.  Through the redemption of Jesus Christ we are thankful that this depraved nature is being eradicated progressively through the strengthening of the new man.  2.  They have a corrupt view of God.  Our students act sinfully and make wrong choices because they do not know enough about their own sinful character as opposed to the righteous character of God.  It is insufficient for us to use the Scripture to simply try to change behavior.  We must show them the God of Scripture so that we might un-corrupt their view of God.  You may say, “This sounds like a ‘heady’ approach to Scripture.  I just want my child to love God more.  Isn’t that the purpose of Bible class?”  We all want our kids to love God more, but we must also realize that the quality of one’s love is proportionate to one’s knowledge of the object of his love.  There is a big difference between my love for a pet dog and my love for my wife.  The object of my love makes all the difference.  Sadly, we often spend too much time telling our kids to love God more whom they do not know well because the teaching has focused more on doing than knowing.  If we teach our kids to simply do biblical actions and bypass correcting their view of God from Scripture, we are simply teaching morals.  If all we are trying to do is teach good morals rather than a right relationship with God, then we might as well allow a Rabbi to teach our Bible class.  Right actions are the result of a right relationship with God, and a right relationship with God begins with right thinking about God, and right thinking about God comes from thorough biblical teaching.  We must not use Scripture superficially as proof texts of behavior, but rather we must study Scripture rigorously as the basis of building a better relationship with God through Christ.

Part II will cover specific strategies to accomplish this task.