Ecumenism and the Gift of the Spirit

An ancient question assumes new vitality in the face of the rapprochement of liturgical and non-liturgical traditions

Who gives the Holy Spirit? Under what conditions does the Holy Spirit come to the Christian and to the Church?

While it is not often discussed publicly, the question of the gift of the Spirit in relation to the claims of episcopacy and of the evangelical understanding of the Gospel is crucial to inter-church dialogue.

Questions of church order are important, and not simply the matter of whether churches should have pastors, or priests and bishops. There is a deeper question, the answer to which draws evangelical episcopal Christians of the Reformation tradition, evangelical non-conformist Christians, and Reformation Christians together, against the claims of the catholic tradition in the Anglican communion, in Roman Catholicism, and in Eastern Orthodox theology expressed through its more than twenty distinct churches.

This is the question: Does the Spirit come in response to faith in Christ through the Gospel, or does he come through rite or invocation in specifically designated religious ways at the hands of priest and bishop? Let no one underestimate the significance of this ancient question or its vitality in contemporary church-union discussions. At issue is not only church polity but also the theology of the Holy Spirit.

Most Christians agree that the Holy Spirit was given to the first Christians and to the Church at Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2. But thereafter there is little agreement on the working of the Spirit. Deep and vexing questions have troubled the Church from the earliest centuries. In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, great stress has been laid on the function of the episcopacy in the gift of the Spirit, and on the role of the sacraments in the gifts or graces of the Spirit. Two aspects of this teaching that illustrate the point are Chrismation and the Epiclesis in the Eucharist.

In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions (commonly called the liturgical traditions), Chrismation is the event when the Holy Spirit, at the hands of the bishop and priest, comes upon the baptized person. This is also expressed by saying that the baptized person is anointed with, or armed by, the Holy Spirit.

The interrelation between church order (the essential role of the bishop), sacramental teaching (the essential role of the sacraments), and the doctrine of the Spirit has been clearly established in the liturgical traditions by centuries of usage, though there are significant differences among them.

The Serbian Eastern Orthodox usage (in which I was born and reared) illustrates this. In the catechism the following points link to form a chain of reasoning: (1) The procession of the Spirit from the Father (alone) as Lord and Life-giver is declared. (2) Claim is made of the “lawful hierarchy, i.e., the unbroken chain practice of transferring the grace and authority in the Church from the apostles to bishops and from bishops to priests and deacons by the laying on of hands.” (3) Next, Holy Chrismation is defined as “a divine Mystery through which a baptized person is armed by the Holy Spirit with strength and wisdom and other gifts to keep the right faith and to live a holy life.” (4) The administration is by the priest, who anoints parts of the body of the baptized person with holy chrism, saying, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” The parts anointed, which represent sanctification of the whole man, are forehead, breast, eyes, ears, cheeks, mouth, hands, and feet. (5) The final point is that the priest performs Holy Chrismation after baptism, but not without the bishop’s part in it: “The bishops prepare and consecrate the chrism, without which a priest cannot perform Chrismation.”

Parallels to this rite in the other liturgical churches are clear. Even in the Anglican communion, so strongly influenced by the Reformation, the presence of the bishop at Confirmation is mandatory. The claims of the Roman pontiffs on these questions are already well known, both in ancient pronouncements and in encyclicals of recent Roman Catholic history.

The other aspect, the Epiclesis, concerns the invocation of the Holy Spirit, especially in the Eucharist. Liturgical dispute centers upon whether the Epiclesis of the Spirit in the Eucharist was earliest upon the oblations or upon those who offered them; i.e., is it upon things, people, or both in different ways? But a wide range of practice developed in which the Holy Spirit was invoked upon the faithful at times other than in the Eucharist.

In the Anglican communion, the significance of the words, “Come, Holy Spirit” (derived from the medieval hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus) has been debated: Is he to come because not present, or to come because present, and then, upon what or upon whom? However, many Anglicans treat the doctrine with reserve, and some deny that there is such a doctrine among them. They hold that the invocation seems to come into the Communion service rather incidentally in the sense that all Anglican formularies are strongly trinitarian in character. In the Ordinal it is invoked upon people, not things, and that as part of a larger way of life. Party differences within the Anglican communion might lead some, especially those of the Catholic wing, to construe the doctrine differently.

Many evangelicals see an incipient danger in the practice of invoking the presence of the Holy Spirit, especially when the action is tied to the idea that the Spirit is given through the Church and its clergy.

The importance of these ideas in the history of the Church cannot be exaggerated, especially for established churches that claim their ministry to be the only true one. In the Montanist dispute of the second century, a key issue was: Can the true Church exist without the properly consecrated and consecrating bishop, or is the Church a charismatic society? Throughout the Middle Ages until late medieval times, and even after the Reformation, the empire-church hegemony paralleled the bishop-sacraments conception. Dissent was ruthlessly extirpated. These questions are no less important today, especially for the liturgical churches, which always find self-criticism an agonizing process because of their prior claim to indispensable episcopal succession, even of infallibility.

Evangelical teaching, based on the New Testament, is that the gift and working of the Holy Spirit indispensably involve the preaching of the Gospel. Evangelicals proclaim Christ to men as their Redeemer and Lord and to the Church as its Lord, and call for the appropriate responses of faith and obedience. Evangelicals are reluctant to embrace some features of the ecumenical movement because they wish to honor the prior claims of the Gospel, not simply because they resist Catholic or Orthodox episcopacy. The following points may be noted:

1. The New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit is Christ-centered, not successionist-centered (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:14; Rom. 8:9–11). This truth runs a collision course with successionist church claims that the Holy Spirit is ministered via the sacraments and sacramentals. The claim that the episcopacy succeeds the apostles includes the claim to exercise the Spirit. But in the New Testament, the Church is subject to Christ, its head, through the Spirit (Acts 2:32–36). The role of the Church therefore is to be subservient and to serve, not to exercise religious and temporal authority, which concept has characterized the ancient centers of Catholic and Orthodox power. We know the Spirit only indirectly through knowing Christ.

2. The Holy Spirit is where the Gospel is (John 14:27; Acts 1:8; 2:37, 38; 3:19; 5:31, 32; 13:2, 5; Col. 3:16). The New Testament exhibits an interest not in the Holy Spirit alone, but in the Gospel of grace as the first interest and work of the Spirit. Many successionists claim to continue Christ’s work (via the Mass, for example). This doctrine undercuts the completeness and finality of Christ’s Cross. Nothing short of gospel integrity, gospel concern, and gospel ministry can be the prime function of the Church and prime interest of the Spirit. The stress in Scripture is on the Gospel that has been received and that is to be transmitted by preaching. The Holy Spirit is related to the ministry of the saving faith of Jesus Christ, not to the exercise of princely authority in religion.

This does not deny that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper also represent and proclaim the Gospel. Nor does it deny that the ordinances are means of grace—only, however, of the one grace of God that is also ministered in other ways (such as in the singing of a hymn), and that is therefore not restricted to the action of episcopally sanctioned persons.

3. The Holy Spirit confronts the Church with her Lord (Acts 9:31; 20:28; Rom. 10:9, 17; 2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2–4). Jesus Christ is the only Lord of the Church. The Spirit’s work is to establish the Lordship of Christ, not the authority of the Church. Traditional Catholic theology is concerned with the authoritative ministry of rites that convey grace. Conversely, New Testament theology is concerned to ensure that the Church proclaim grace and live grace under the authority of the Gospel.

4. The Holy Spirit creates the one koinonia of the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13; 2:18, 22). The Church is commonly the koinonia or fellowship of the redeemed. This contradicts an essential principle of hierarchical, successionist religious organization. The Holy Spirit is not transmitted hierarchically (ad ecclesia or extra ecclesia, so to speak) but is the common possession of the redeemed in Christ. Both the Lordship of Christ and participation in the Spirit are the common experience of New Testament believers, on one plane of fellowship. There is no discernible distinction on these points between ruler and ruled, between clergy and laity, or between hierarchy and believer-priesthood.

5. The Holy Spirit addresses the Church via the Gospel (Acts 5:5, 9; 15:6–12, 19, 20, 22, 28; 20:28, 32; Eph. 3:14–19; Col. 3:23, 24). If the bishop administers the Holy Spirit, who addresses the bishop, or the pope, or the patriarch? That they have needed speaking to is clearly established from the long record of history. Who stands over the bishop? History attests that often it has not been God. In the New Testament, not only does the Church speak the Gospel, but the Gospel is spoken to the Church. The claim to esoteric, ecclesiastical authority in the Church is really a curious form of “private judgment,” because it lays claim to apostolic authority while missing the authority of the public apostolic Gospel. Even the apostles stood under, and appealed to, the truth of the Gospel.

6. The distinctness of Christ, the Spirit, and the Church is maintained in the New Testament (Act 9:31; Eph. 3:7–13; 4:1–16). When the Church claims the authority to minister grace, these distinctions are blurred. The claim of the Catholics and Orthodox that they assume and continue Christ’s mission and authority in the world must be resisted. The New Testament proclaims that Christ alone finished his own work of redemption through the death of the Cross, and that the Church must now proclaim this Gospel. No question of succession arises, except of the Spirit who makes the Gospel effective to the consciences of men. Christ promised that he would be succeeded by the Paraclete and not by the apostles. It is a mistake to blur the distinction between Christ and the Church, and between the Holy Spirit and the Church; but it is blasphemy for men to claim the sovereignty of Christ which belongs to the Holy Spirit alone.

7. The Holy Spirit works through the Word of truth respecting the crucified, risen Lord (Acts 2:1–3, 22–24, 36–39; 1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Pet. 1:2–5; 1 John 4:1–3). Scripture, Gospel, and Holy Spirit form a trilogy. The claim to immediacy of episcopal relation to God tends to eclipse the historical Word of truth. It is a highly subjective claim to being right, rather than a claim to faith under the Gospel.

In evangelical teaching, the claim to “private judgment,” or “soul liberty,” or “liberty of conscience,” is never esoteric, as is sometimes alleged. It is always conscience, liberty, and faith under the Word of God. It is not conscience alone, but conscience bound by the Word of truth. Word and Spirit go together. The Holy Spirit is given to bring the historical Jesus Christ, now glorified, to the faith of every man through the sequential conditions of time by means of the Gospel.

8. The Holy Spirit functions independently of the sword (Acts 4:7–12, 23–31; 26:1, 15–18, 24–26, 31; Eph. 6:10–20). The Church under the Holy Spirit must be free of the state and must not employ the arm of the state to further its cause. Through the Holy Spirit, the Gospel is its own authority and vindication. It needs none from man. The Holy Spirit suffices.

While this discussion raises questions about church order and sacramental claim and practice, its main points converge on the issue of whether bestowal of the Spirit can be confined to the action of episcopally sanctioned persons. The contrasting evangelical claim is that the Holy Spirit comes into the believer’s life when he receives Christ by faith. For this reason, evangelicals see the interrelation of Gospel, Holy Spirit, and faith as indispensable. Further, they insist that this issue must be recognized as crucial in ecumenical discussion, in the face of growing pressure for rapprochement between the non-Catholic Christian world and its Catholic and Orthodox counterpart.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.