A Conscious Dependence on the Holy Spirit (Part 1)

If you are interested in finding out more about me, you can read my profile page here: http://theecccr.blogspot.ca/2014/05/beginnings.html

The Paraclete, the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Ghost. There are a wide arrange of terms used to refer to the third person of the trinity, who we affectionately call the Holy Spirit. The fifth Covenant Affirmation, A conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit, seeks among other things to establish the essence that draws together the body of Christ, namely the Holy Spirit. If you have been paying attention to how these Affirmations are ordered and how they flow in and out of each other you will see that this Affirmation seeks to provide an explanation for how the church as a fellowship of believers is united, and how this reality of freedom in Christ is made possible. We are interested then, in how this Affirmation can be made clearer, how this Affirmation affects us as participating Covenanters, and what the implications of this Affirmation are for us as Canadian Covenanters.

When we first sought writers for this first endeavour of this new round table project, it was not terribly difficult to find people who were interested in reflecting on these Affirmations for the sake of the church and theological reflection. That was the case for all except for this fifth Affirmation. It is always an uncomfortable task for any to attempt an explanation of who the Spirit is and what the Spirit does, primarily because there are mysterious aspects of our faith which when explained never truly reflect the holistic realities of those mysteries, but also because Scripture itself is vague when it comes to identifying this Spirit who we call Holy.

I am sure that many are aware that the word which is often translated into English as Spirit is pneuma(noo-ma) in the Greek, or ruah(roo-ah) in the Hebrew. The difficulty in handling this word is that it can also be taken to mean wind or breath(when we say pneuma, think about a pneumatic drill that is powered by compressed air). There are a number of textual concerns that arise when scholars attempt to understand this word as either Spirit or wind in their contexts. And context is very important when determining whether a word should be translated one way or another. This becomes especially important in the Old Testament where in Genesis 1:2 for instance, the ruah of God hovered over the waters. So, determining when and where “The Spirit of God” is present throughout Scripture, and identifying what this Spirit of God is doing can be challenging to say the least. For example, the NIV translates this verse: “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” Whereas the NRSV puts it like this: “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” The majority of Scriptural references that the Covenant Affirmations utilize in summarizing what we believe the Spirit to be doing in our lives as Christians come from the New Testament.

Among other things, we believe that the Spirit of God who descends upon Jesus at His baptism(Mark 1:10) is the same Spirit who opens our eyes to the wonders and truth of God(John 3), by whom we can participate in this family of faith(1 Cor 15:58), and through whom we are united together as the body of Christ(1 Cor 12:13), and is the same Spirit promised to be with us(John 14:16). But what does it mean to consciously depend on this Spirit? It is perhaps difficult for us as North American Christians to imagine the need to depend upon anything other than our own ability to bring about whatever we put our minds to and the number that the bank tells us represents our financial stature. Why and how could we depend on anything other than our own determination and money? I would make an argument that Exodus 33 can be utilized to understand how important it is for us as Christians to depend on God’s Spirit and what that dependency looks like.

In Exodus, we have the remarkable story of how God responded to the cries of His people by redeeming His people in bringing them out of Egypt. In chapter 19 the Israelites arrive at mount Sinai and Moses goes up to meet God on the mountain top. There Moses receives the Ten commandments, and instruction regarding the conduct that the Israelites are to live by. This goes on until chapter 32, when the Israelites begin to feel uneasy regarding the length of time Moses has been absent for. They create for themselves a golden calf and begin to worship it, similar to the way that we have established the financial institutions we call banks. God is responds to the decision of the Israelites to make for themselves an idol by removing them from His presence. Had He not just brought them out of Egypt? Had they forgotten the lengths He had gone to in order to ensure their safety and deliverance? In chapter 33 the Lord commands Moses to take the people and leave the mountain of His presence. He says,

“go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your descendants I will give it.’ 2 I will send an angel before you… but I will not go up among you” 4 When the people heard these harsh words, they mourned. 15 And Moses said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. 16 For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us?

After sometime, Moses manages to convince the Lord to continue to be present with Israel, to go wih them as they leave for the promised land.

The point is this. Moses and the people of Israel knew that unless the Lord continued with them into the land which was promised to Abraham, there was no hope. the Lord might as well have killed them all at the foot of Sinai, for that would be more merciful. The people had come to depend on the presence of God already. Not only when God led them out of Egypt through plagues, not only across the sea, but even for basic things like food and water. Without God present in the lives of the Israelites, there was no hope for them to survive in the wilderness, let alone any hope to arrive in the promised land.

In the next post, I will discuss the implications of this dependence upon the Spirit in our lives as Covenanters and as Canadians.

The Church as a Fellowship of Believers

Everett Wilson has been a minister of the Evangelical Covenant Church since graduation from North Park Theological Seminary in 1962. After forty-six years as a pastor of five Covenant churches(Saskatoon being one of those churches), he and Donna retired to their home state of Nebraska. In addition to serving in a variety of Covenant Churches, he also wrote a little brochure entitled ‘Covenant Distinctives’ which was an attempt to identify how the Covenant is perhaps different from some of the other evangelical groups.( Evangelical but not exclusive... Biblical but not doctrinaire... Traditional but not rigid... Congregational but not independent)

Around 200 years before Donald Frisk taught systematic theology at North Park Theological Seminary (1945-1975) John Wesley did a pretty good job of describing him. 

      A man of a truly catholic spirit has not now his religion to seek. He is fixed as the sun in his judgment concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine. It is true, he is always ready to hear and weigh whatsoever can be offered against his principles; but as this does not show any wavering in his own mind, so neither does it occasion any. He does not halt between two opinions, nor vainly endeavor to blend them into one. (Sermon 39, Collected Sermons)
      Frisk thought for himself and taught his students, me among them, to think for ourselves; but we had to be alert for his persistent—but always courteous—question: “What do you mean by that?” If he asked it in class he would not let us off the hook by answering it for us. If we did not know what we meant, we should not have said it. He asked the question not to intimidate or ridicule, which was not in him to do, but to teach.
      He taught me pretty well, so now I am asking Frisk’s question as I ponder the fourth Affirmation: “we affirm the church as a fellowship of believers.” What do we mean by that?
      “Church,” “Fellowship,” and “Believers” have so many connotative meanings that the affirmation may mean something of eternal consequence or something too trivial to discuss, or several options in between--some heretical. Heresy is wonderfully inventive.
      I have been asked to summarize the affirmation, but since the affirmation is itself a summary I will let my introductory comments stand in place of a summary. Then I am to address the following questions:

1. What does this affirmation mean? 

2. Why is fellowship vital for the life of a believer? 

3. How does this affirmation affect the life of Covenanters in the pews?

4. How does this affirmation affect the life of the Covenant church as a larger community.

1. To grasp the meaning of the church as a fellowship of believers we must aim very high. No secular definition of any of the three key words applies to them as they are used in this affirmation.
In this usage, Fellowship has nothing to do with coffee, Church has nothing to do with boards, committees, or majority votes, and Believers has nothing to do with opinions.
      Rather, fellowship is the same as participation; specifically, participation in the Holy Spirit. The Greek word, koinonia, is translated as either “participation,” “fellowship,” or “communion.” So in the Lord’s Supper the broken bread is a participation in the body of Christ.
      Believers, therefore, are not defined by their common opinions but by their common relationship with God through the Spirit and Word. It is not formed by the Spirit alone as ecstatic experience, or by the Word alone as rational construct; the church is an incarnate word, the body of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Church as anything less or other than this is no church at all. Paul’s Trinitarian benediction at the end of 2 Corinthians—the grace of the Redeemer, the love of the Father, and the Participation of the Spirit—describes the impenetrable integrity of the church at all times and in all places. It is created by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and born anew by the Holy Spirit. It is a world away from a group of disaffected believers who think they can make a church by writing up some articles of incorporation or a list of affirmations.
      But these affirmations did not spring from the invention of a denominational committee. The Committee rather discerned them from the Covenant’s commitment to the Word and its participation in the Spirit. If my memory is correct—and there are not many still in this world to dispute it—the committee was appointed to express a consensus, not a creed; a description, not a prescription; an IS, not a SHOULD. If we succumb to treating the Affirmations as a creed, as some seem to be itching to do (and maybe getting away with it here and there) the Covenant will end its history as a life movement and become a religious bureaucracy. It has happened before.
      2. Fellowship is necessary to the life of the believer. It cannot be otherwise. The church is the household of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the human achievement of like-minded people. Fellowship is a fact of the church’s existence, like breathing in and out is a fact of yours. In other words, it is a matter of life and death. Because we are fleshly, organic creatures, we require interaction; it is not an option except in exceptional cases, which are required by definition to be few.
      3. If Covenanters have the will to do the will of God, this affirmation will be a constant reminder to bring their behavior in line with it—to rejoice in their common identity with other Christians, to rely upon it and be relied upon in return. If they do not have this will, they will disrupt the peace and purity of the church. Stanley Jones used to say that the will of God is the way the universe is run. You get hurt if you don’t go along. The church is a local expression of the same principle. It goes bad, however, when members confuse a “don’t rock the boat” mindset with the will of God, and treat those who want to do the will of God as troublemakers.
      4. The church is the fellowship of those who are born from above. Any limitation on Christian fellowship that is more limiting than this runs counter to the vision of the founding fathers, even though they were limited by language barriers in our early years. Peter Matson, our first missionary, was distressed by the slowness of the Covenant in the United States to break out of the Swedish Ghetto.
      But we did. Some of it came in a rush. The church was in its 99th year before it had a non-Swede (me!) as moderator of the Annual Meeting. It was my privilege to moderate the Centennial Meeting the next year also. Then the dam broke! I was succeeded by the first woman, and she was succeeded by the first Chinese-American.

The Covenant has always had a world vision.

A Commitment to the Whole Mission of the Church (Part 2)

What does it look like to participate in this mission that we are called to? In this conclusion of Julia Sandstrom's treatise on the third Covenant Affirmation, she looks at some of the implications for both the local and greater communities that make-up the Covenant Church.

Local Congregation

            Local congregations are affected by the third affirmation in several ways. First, as in the case with Avenue, this affirmation brings churches into the denomination. By looking outside our own traditionally Swedish church, the ECC has grown to include Korean, African American, Hispanic, and other minority congregations. Second, the local Covenant congregation is able to partake in the whole mission of the church through the Covenant’s long-standing missionary activity in the world. Linea Lanoie and her husband Leo were sent out by a collection of Canada conference congregations. When asked what the third affirmation has meant to her she said:

[It] means that we are committed to ministry to people who confront hardship, illness and injustice.  As Christ had compassion on those who were brought to him suffering, so he sends us out to do care for others in his name.  When we do this in Jesus’ name we are bringing the good news of Christ’s love to those we serve. 

When Leo and I were sent by the Covenant church to carry out medical work in the Republic of Zaire (now the Congo) we were acting on behalf of the whole Covenant Church and particularly on behalf of the Canada Conference.  We were the hands and feet that took the good news to that place but we did not and could not have done that alone.  We went knowing that the prayers and support of God’s people went with us. We went because of the commitment of the Covenant Church to the whole mission of the church.[1]

The Lanoies are one example of how the local church has embraced the whole mission of the church.

            Third, the local church lives out this affirmation in its local setting. When one church in one city does ministry to the surrounding community, that church is living into the whole mission of the church. In this way we rejoice with the local and global activities of our various ministries.

While we may not agree with our Catholic brothers and sisters on all issues, we can be committed to the common mission of following Christ together...

The Covenant Church

            Finally, the third affirmation has a huge impact on the work of the Covenant church at large. It forces the Covenant to never focus on one thing at the expense of another. The whole mission of the church means we cannot do evangelism and not discipleship. It means we do missions, but don’t neglect our work on a local scale. You can expand this to the value the Covenant places on the work both of the clergy and laity. However, that merges into affirmation number four—the church is a fellowship of believers.

            Many organizations have the luxury of a singular focus. For instance a non-profit that works to combat illiteracy in poor communities within Canada does not have to think about illiteracy in Africa. The Covenant Church affirms that we are called to the near and far –to the illiterate and to the hungry, to the believer and non-believer.

Critique

            This author was surprised that nowhere in Covenant publications does is the commitment to the whole mission of the church ever spoken of in terms of ecumenicalism. The Covenant is a small, but burgeoning denomination which affirms central tenents of the Christian faith. The third affirmation may be critiqued for not stating: a commitment to the whole mission of the whole church. While we may not agree with our Catholic brothers and sisters on all issues, we can be committed to the common mission of following Christ together.

            The Covenant does participate in national and international ecumenical groups. Perhaps the most significant is participation in the International Federation of Free Evangelical Churches (IFFEC). Donn Engebretson, Director for Global Advancement of the ECC is also the president of IFFEC. Engebretson noted that ecumenical participation is most commonly seen in the ECC at the local level.[2] He also explained that the Covenant’s “middle way” position on many hot topic issues makes it impossible to sign on with one ecumenical group or another.

Conclusion

            The third affirmation is a beautiful expression of the call for believers, specifically Covenanters to think locally and globally. It is how we engage our world far and near. It is also one way the local church, conference, and denomination work together towards accomplishing Kingdom work large and small.

The fourth Affirmation, The Church as a Fellowship of Believers, is addressed by Everett Wilson. Who exactly is called to live out this mission that we as the church are committed to? Who do we refer to when we talk about the church? These questions will be taken up in two weeks time with Everett's article on this fourth Affirmation.

---

[1] Linea Lanoie, E-mail to Author, July 14, 2013.

[2] Donn Engebretson, Phone Interview with Author, July 19, 2013.

A Commitment to the Whole Mission of the Church (Part 1)

Julia Sandstrom is originally from San Francisco although she currently resides in Winnipeg Manitoba with her husband Bryan as she serves the Canadian Covenant Conference in a variety of ways. She first attended Covenant Bible College to receive a certificate, then moved to North Park College where she received a B.A. in both Biblical Studies and Philosophy, finally moving on to Regent College in Vancouver to complete an MCS(Master of Christian Studies) in Interdisciplinary Studies. This week, Julia has the opportunity to "un-summarize" the third Covenant Affirmation, A Commitment to the Whole Mission of the Church.  

      The Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) states, “a commitment to the whole mission of the Church” in its third affirmation. This concise statement summarizes what this article will seek to un-summarize. First, we will unpack the affirmation by looking at an official Covenant publication regarding the subject. Second, we will ask these questions: Why does the affirmation matter? How does it affect local Covenant congregations? How does it affect the Covenant Church as a larger community? What might be missing from the affirmation?

Un-summary
      All of the official Covenant materials on the affirmations begin the same way when it comes to this affirmation. They all mention that the Covenant Church began with a group of people who called themselves “Mission Friends”. Before there was an institutional church with affirmations, there were mission friends who lived out a commitment to the whole mission of the church.
      The Covenant Affirmations Booklet explains that Mission Friends were “people who covenanted together for the purpose of common mission both far and near” (Booklet, 11). The Mission Friends knew that they were called to serve those far from home in missions. They also knew they were called to serve those at home. While we may often feel that there are those called to serve far and those called to serve near, the truth is that we are called to the WHOLE mission of the church, far AND near.
      To understand that mission we must look to Scripture. Jesus Christ gives his disciples the great commandment: he said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ this is the greatest and first commandment. and the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40). We walk in obedience when we love our neighbor the way Jesus calls us to.
      While loving your neighbor has a necessary local sense to it (literally your neighbor is in close proximity) the Covenant Church is also committed to the great commission of Jesus Christ: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Being committed to the WHOLE mission of the church means we can celebrate the growth elsewhere while working on bringing growth here at home as well...

Why it matters
      Soong-Chan Rah is professor of Church Growth and Evangelism for North Park Seminary. His book, The Next Evangelicalism, points out that the growth of Christianity is happening in the Southern and Eastern hemispheres.[1] If you picture a globe, you will quickly realize that distinctly cuts out North America from the growth picture. While this can rightly be viewed as an indictment for the North American church to get growing, it is also something to celebrate with our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. If we were committed to the North American mission of the church, the statement would be very depressing. Being committed to the WHOLE mission of the church means we can celebrate the growth elsewhere while working on bringing growth here at home as well.
      A commitment to the whole mission of the church means we are not captive to any one influence of culture. The ECC promotes multi-ethnic churches in hopes that we would look more like the whole rather than one segment. One such segment would be white and middle class. For the local Canadian Covenant church the options may be slim. For instance, the rural church may not have access to the multiculturalism an urban centre church would.
      Access however is provided by our common life together. Church adoptions are one way the ECCC seeks to grow in its commitment to the whole mission of the church. Avenue Community Church is a recent adoption into the Covenant and it is the first predominantly non-Anglo church in the Canada conference. Speaking to why Avenue partnered with the ECC, Pastor John Cho said the Swedish immigrant roots attracted him and his congregation to join the Covenant.
      Sam Williams, associate pastor at Avenue, noted that “there is a tendency for some church traditions to focus on evangelism over social justice or discipleship over evangelism based on their own preferences. Whereas the Covenant Church grounds itself in the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and focuses on sharing the good news of Jesus, building the Church community, serving the people in need and creating a just society. Being part of a denomination that is balanced in its mission endeavors and faithful to the whole mission of the church helps me not to gravitate towards my own preferences and comfort zones when it comes to the mission of the church.”[2]

[1] Soong-Chan Rah, The Next Evangelicalism, 13.
[2] Sam Williams, E-mail to Author, July 19, 2013.

In the second half of her article, Julia stakes out some of the implications of this third Affirmation for both the local congregation and the Covenant Church in general.

The Necessity of New Birth (Part 2)

This week, we read the conclusion of Marc Vandersluys' thoughts on the second Covenant Affirmation. In the last post, Marc drew the necessary point of the life of the Christian to be deriving from Scripture first and foremost. In his conclusion, he alludes to the necessity of new birth to be, not just a once and for all event of conversion, but a journey further up and further in that lasts the entire life of the believer. 

      The Gospels use the language of both “eternal life” and “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven” to refer to salvation. On a popular level, salvation is often thought of quite abstractly as “going to heaven when you die”, with life in heaven understood as a disembodied, non-physical existence in a location somewhere other than earth. But it seems that scripturally a more accurate term would be “entering heaven” or “participating in God’s kingdom,” because the Kingdom Jesus announces does not sound like something that will happen somewhere other than earth, but rather as the establishment of God’s rule precisely here on earth. “Heaven” in this context is therefore earth ruled by God and transformed into a place of justice, mercy, and peace.
      With that trajectory in mind, the affirmation identifies two aspects of God’s work in the world: transformation of persons and transformation of the world. God is making all things new. So in one sense, new birth is necessary simply as a step of obedience, through work of the Holy Spirit, to God’s will and to participate in his plan for the world. If we are not made new, not born again, how could we possibly participate in the new world God is creating? How are we to be agents of reconciliation without first being reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18-20)? In the words of the affirmation, “it is through transformed people that God transforms our world”. Individuals must be changed before the world can be changed.

There is no such thing as a solitary Christian...

      What is the practical meaning of this affirmation for the members, adherents, and leaders of the Evangelical Covenant Church? There are several implications. This affirmation highlights the importance of spiritual formation to the Evangelical Covenant Church. The church cannot force change or spiritual growth on its people, but it can emphasize the importance of a life of obedience and discipline through teaching and providing opportunities to learn about various spiritual disciplines (prayer, Bible study, fellowship, stewardship, etc.) as well as opportunities to serve others both inside and outside the church community.
      The affirmation says that “healthy and effective spiritual growth takes place in the context of relationships.” Being brief, the affirmation does not elaborate on this statement, but it does suggest that the corporate church setting is essential for maturing in the faith. There is no such thing as a solitary Christian; by definition being a Christian means living and growing in community. Through corporate worship, fellowship, and small groups we cultivate a safe atmosphere of openness and vulnerability in which we can encourage each other on our journeys of faith (Hebrews 10:24-25).
      I am not sure if the order of the affirmations was intentional, but it may not be an accident that “a commitment to the whole mission of the church” is the affirmation which follows “the necessity of new birth.” Evangelism, compassion, mercy, and justice are the natural outflow of new birth for individuals, church communities, and the denominations. These things are among the signs of new birth, and should form a part of the life of both individuals and communities.
      While each Covenant church is an independent entity, there is spiritual value in being connected with other churches and partnering with them and the denomination in acts of compassion, mercy, and justice, because new birth is not something limited to the individual, but works on a corporate level as well. When we gather as believing communities we are not simply legal corporate entities, but Kingdom communities formed and being formed in Christ. Our life and existence as church groups, therefore, is not different from our lives as individual Christians. The church as a body is also “born from above” through the work of the Holy Spirit. While the legal end of corporate life has its place, the church’s life and decisions are shaped primarily by the love and grace of God and the new life in Christ, rather than constitutions, legal expectations, and the bottom line.
      I am sure other personal and corporate implications can be drawn out of this affirmation. One thing is clear, however: new birth is not an other-wordly event without current implications. Instead, it is transformative of the individual with transformative implications for our communities and the world.

In our next post, Julia Sandstrom introduces us to the third Covenant Affirmation, A Commitment to the Whole Mission of the Church. What exactly are believers born into? How do they go about living into this new birth? What are these transformative implications which arise out of a transformed life? If any of these questions interest you, check back in a week for Julia's opening post. 

The Necessity of New Birth (Part 1)

Marc Vandersluys(Van-der-sloos) is the Associate Pastor at Malmo Mission Covenant Church in central Alberta. He took up the call to the pastorate after completing his Master of Divinity at Providence Theological Seminary located in Otterburne, Manitoba. This is the first of a two part article written on the second Affirmation, The Necessity of New Birth. In this post, Marc identifies this second Affirmation as that which most strongly connects the Covenant Church with the evangelical community. Furthermore, Marc identifies the idea of "New Birth" being based and found in Scripture.

The Covenant Affirmations form the heart of our identity as a denomination. In some sense who we are is shaped by our beliefs about God, ourselves, and the world. The affirmations present a summary of the core beliefs or values of the Evangelical Covenant Church, as they relate to our understanding of scripture, our relationship to God, to each other, and to the world.

      The second Covenant affirmation emphasizes “the necessity of new birth.” This already succinct affirmation can be summarized as follows. Belief in the necessity of new birth is what puts the “evangelical” in our denomination’s name. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, forgiveness of sin and eternal life is offered to mankind, leading to reconciliation with God, regeneration, and enlistment in Christ’s service. This begins with turning, by faith and with repentance, from sin to Jesus. Turning to Jesus is not simply acknowledging ideas about him or giving intellectual assent to creeds and doctrines. Instead, it is trust in and commitment to Jesus and his way. Salvation is found only by conversion to Jesus. The evidence of conversion or new birth is the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, in our “vitality of life.”

      Conversion is only the beginning of the journey of faith, which involves a lifetime of growing towards maturity in Christ, both as individuals and communities of faith. This growth is developed in relationships with other Christians in community. Following Jesus and being formed in him requires obedience to his teachings -- always costly in some way -- and a life of discipline -- that is, cultivating and nurturing one’s spiritual life both individually and in the context of a worshiping community through prayer, public worship, service to others, and other spiritual disciplines.

This affirmation emphasizes that new birth is not simply about a conversion point...

      “New birth” is one image of or requirement for salvation (or life in the Kingdom) among several used by Jesus. In Luke 10:24ff, a lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds with the two great commandments: love God and love neighbour. In Matthew 19:16ff and its synoptic parallels (Luke 18:18ff; Mark 10:17ff) a man asks Jesus what he must do to get eternal life (equated with the kingdom of heaven/God in vv. 23-24). Jesus replies that he should keep the commandments. When the man says he does, Jesus adds that he must sell everything he has and give the proceeds to the poor. In John 3, Nicodemus does not ask Jesus about eternal life or the kingdom of God, but Jesus, perhaps anticipating where Nicodemus is going with his comments, replies in a manner implying a question similar to the ones asked by the lawyer and rich man: “no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3, NIV).

      “New birth” or “being born again” is the image that evangelicals have embraced to describe conversion. Warranted or not, the term “born again” carries a lot of baggage in the modern West. However, in the context of the question of entering the kingdom of God, all these different images, including new birth, have this in common: Spirit-born change. In fact, all the language we use for becoming a follower of Jesus implies change: conversion (convert from one thing to another); repentance (a turning about from one thing to another); rebirth (new life); turning to Jesus (and away from something or someone else). 

      This affirmation emphasizes that new birth is not simply about a conversion point, that faith does not begin and end at “asking Jesus into your heart”, but that new birth is entry into a new life, a new way of being. It is about becoming a new person, a new creation in Christ through the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 5:17). New birth is not just about accepting certain facts about the self, the world, and/or Jesus, but also about personal transformation and the whole Christian life.

In the second part of this article, Marc develops his point that "New Birth" is not simply a one time event but rather sets a trajectory for the life of one who follows Christ. 

Centrality of the Word (Part 2)

The second installment of Mark Jensen's treatise on the first Covenant Affirmation, The Centrality of the Word. In this half of his article, Mark discusses the roots of the Covenant Church, its influences on the development of this first affirmation in addition to providing some concluding reflections and thoughts.

The Covenant Inheritance: Philipp Jakob Spener on Scripture

Within the Covenant Affirmations the centrality of the word is the first affirmation discussed. The emphasis of this affirmation is on scripture as a living text through which the Spirit brings about new life in the believer. Inspired by Philip Jakob Spener’s 1675 work, Pia Desideria, which offered six proposal of correction for the church during his day, the first of which being a fuller application of the scriptures. The Affirmations state, “For many in Spener’s day the word of God was simply information, or law, or rules; for Spener the word was power—power to effect change in the life of the hearer through the Holy Spirit.”¹ The Covenant considers Spener’s insight on scripture as a living text through the Spirit. Practically, this insight led to the founding of coventicles (i.e., small groups), private devotional reading, and faithful preaching that was scripturally rooted oriented to convicting the human heart of the gospel message.²

This was not simply a change in an understanding of scripture’s purpose (end, telos) for Christians in generating the new life, but Spener also expanded the scope of the form of scripture’s expression by which it comes to be understood. What had been central to Christian practice for scriptural understanding was the sermon which expounded scriptural texts based on a lectionary, in addition to the recited liturgy in worship. Building on this foundation, Spener proposed that Christians should have their own Bible to read privately, but also that they participate in small groups (conventicles). Through this, Christians could meet and discuss the meaning of scripture, something they could not do during the sermon. Conventicles serve to compliment what is lacking in the sermon, with its tendency towards rendering the person a passive listener. Private reading allows one to read and digest scripture at one's pace, yet it misses out on the insights that others more knowledgeable can share when scripture is read in community with one’s fellow Christians. Both of these additions occur outside of the church, but it would be a mistake to equate this to a reduction of church's role. Instead, church practice is amplified to outside the walls of the church into the quotidian monotony of the lives of Christians, thereby transforming monotony into sacred space and building the church as a spiritual priesthood.³ Spener’s conclusion states: 

 This much is certain: The diligent use of the Word of God, which consists not only of listening to sermons but also of reading meditating, and discussing (Ps. 1:2), must be the chief means of reforming something, whether this occurs in the proposed fashion or in some other appropriate way. The Word of God remains the seed from which all that is good in us must grow.⁴

In line with the Reformation, that sought to bring the scriptures to be read by the common people and not simply with the educated. For Spener it is scripture that judges the church, and not the other way around. Scripture points us to Christ and it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us in Christ. 

Spirit and Word, Word and Spirit

     The affirmations are interested in the new the life of the Christian with scripture assisting in the cultivation of this new life. Spener’s insight, then, is scripture’s place as a living text. The Affirmations state:

What was new in Spener’s proposal was not another doctrine of inspiration (there was general agreement on the divine inspiration of scripture in his day), or a new recognition of the authority of scripture. What was new was his recovery of the living nature of the word of God. The word is the “powerful means” to the creation of new life through the holy spirit.⁵

     Now for many this seems straight-forward, for others this might be perplexing due in part to the fact that they have existed within multiple denominations or have been exposed to multiple theological traditions. Allow me to state some reasons one would be confused by this stance on scripture. I will do this by expanding on the logic behind Spener’s position, I want to further illuminate the position taken by the ECC. 

While the Affirmations acknowledge the unity of Word and Spirit as understood by Spener, more must be stated regarding what lies behind this. What is not acknowledged is that not only did Spener dispute certain views of inspiration that he considered to be mechanistic (i.e., scripture is inspired because God dictated it), he preferred a view of inspiration in which God provided the authors of scripture with “divine truth through an inner enlightenment of the heart.”⁶ Rather than saying scripture was verbally dictated by the Holy Spirit, God spoke to the authors in a way that the writers could understand.⁷ The authors, not the words of scripture were inspired.⁸ This seemed evident to Spener by the fact that the original Greek of the text was written both poorly and eloquently at different times and places.⁹ Spener also limited the inerrancy of the Bible when it came to matters of salvation, as opposed to inerrant on all accounts.¹⁰ 

           In adopting such a position, it is less controversial to say that scripture does not supply answers for all questions we may have, but it does raise the question of its silence on certain matters. Perhaps rather than demanding that our questions set the bar for what makes scripture acceptable to us, one has to ask if rather we should be taking scripture on its own terms, asking what questions it asks, what answers it gives, what body of truths it takes as given and significant, what does it seem less interested in addressing, and so on. In being a scriptural people, we should be not be seeing scripture as an answer-book to a set of questions we have already thought up apart from scripture. One needs to also uphold what it is that scripture says, and this requires the difficult task of letting it speak for itself. Yes, in our so-called postmodern age it is a truism that interpretation goes all the way down and that we cannot separate ourselves from our readings of texts, but it would be disingenuous to adopt this truism with a lack of self-critical awareness. Otherwise, we would make scripture voiceless and vulnerable to any dominant ideological reading that takes popular influence, because, hey, it's all perspective anyway. Too often this form of reasoning occurs, and often deriving out of hidden motives that aim to preserve balance where no one can be challenged by the fact that they may be living in error. It is the assumption that scripture has a meaning independent of our individual interpretation that allows us to correct the interpretations we deem misguided. It is one thing to acknowledge we bring a perspective to the text or that the meaning of a text is to some extent constructed by a community, it is wholly another thing to say the text of scripture lacks parameters of meaning or that it has no inherent meaning apart from the person who constructs such a reading. 

       That being said, the issue for the Affirmations is not what view one has on a matter such as inspiration. On such matters there is charity and flexibility towards a multiplicity of views, even if one has views that are considered to be unorthodox and erroneous.¹¹ What is central is that scripture is authoritative in that the Spirit speaks through the text. There is, however, a touch of irony here. The ECC derives its view from Spener, who did have a developed view of inspiration, one that excluded others, but his view is arguably one that promotes a more universal and generous community, even if there are people in that community who hold to views of scripture that disagree with the ECC. Such a view of scripture advocates a bold and singular truth concerning scripture's authority, but it is a generous one that upholds a unity amidst diversity. 

In stressing the Spirit’s role as the true interpreter of scripture, Spener’s claim of scripture as the word of God is qualified. It was God’s word, but until scripture was used it was a dead letter. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the scripture to illuminate and interpret it to the person, and that is how we receive scripture’s salvific message.¹²  What is needed in conjunction with this is an understanding of the agency of the Holy Spirit and how that relates to scripture as a text with a written message.

Word and Spirit exist as a unity in their authority. The Affirmations state, “the Covenant Church believes that the effective power of the scriptural word is inseparably associated with the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit never works independently of the Word, and the Word is made effective through the Holy Spirit.”¹³ The Affirmations continue their elaboration:

It was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the written word came into being (2 Timothy 3:16). Through the Spirit the word of God does not return empty but accomplishes that for which it was sent (Isaiah 55:11). It is through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that the sinner who responds to the word is assured of being a child of God (Romans 8:16-17). 

It is essential, then, to the life of the Church that it be a company of people who desire their lives to be shaped by the powerful and living word of God. The alternative is clear. Not to be shaped by the word is to be shaped by the world. 

On every side attractive and persuasive voices urge us toward conformity to the spirit of this age. There is no escaping from these pervasive influences. Only the church that hears and responds to the word will be able to be a prophetic voice in this wilderness and bring healing to a confused and troubled world.¹⁴

       Spirit and Word relate to each other across the span of historical time where the Spirit is involved in creating the written word. Additionally, Word and Spirit relate to each other in the person's encounter  with the message of scripture through which the Spirit takes up the written word in order that it may speak to the person regarding the message of salvation. In doing this scripture "returns" in full in the transformation of the person in the new birth. Scripture becomes scriptures when it speaks, awakens, and illuminates the hearer. This is because scripture proper is living scripture. 

        For this reason, then, the church is a people who open themselves to hear scripture so that they may be changed by it. Refusing to do so opens a void, one in which the competing voices of the day will seize and form. We all know we are formed by the people around us, one way or another. Whether it be religion, a philosophy, a sensibility, or more concretely the workings the social bodies we participate in, whether that be the working  market and its many manifestations, the shifting dynamics of our "identity," our friends and family, or even the music we listen to. The question is will we have the desire and courage to ask ourselves who are we formed by and who will we be formed by. Who is our Lord? Where will we find them? The community of faith is clear on this matter: in the life of the gathered people who proclaim and worship Jesus as Lord and saviour, the people we call the church, the assembly (ekklesia). These people gather to hear the written word and also desire to be changed by it, and in being changed by it they see the world as the world in the fullest sense of how God intended it. 

        After saying all of this, there are still matters of concern, questions which should be reflected upon although more fully than I am allowed here. For example, how does one reconcile the fact that the ECC seems to state that scripture isn't fully scripture until it has been taken up by the Spirit? Does the Bible's authority, then, not exist in the mere words on the page of the text? Can the scripture serve as a measuring stick of the Spirit? This does not seem the case, simply because the Spirit produced the scripture, not the other way around. Doing so risks an idolatrous form of biblicism that can easily degenerate into the mechanistic dead letter that Spener rejected. On a more sympathetic level, there is some comfort in the mechanistic view of scripture in that it removes all fuzziness in exchange for simple certainty: "The Bible says it. The Bible is God's (dictated)Word. I believe it and that's that." 

If the ECC leans towards a pneumatological basis of their understanding of scripture, this raises another question: Does the work and revelation of the Spirit exceed that of the text of scripture? Or is there a continuity between the two in such a way that scripture can serve as a measuring stick, because it is of the Spirit, therefore, what it says is true of the Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit faithful, reliable, and consistent in its message, or does it move wherever it pleases? In short, a more thorough understanding of the relation of Word and Spirit/Spirit and Word is needed. As an Affirmation, it suffices to summarize Covenant identity, but it does raise many questions that it does not answer. Thankfully, there is another affirmation that discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian.

Conclusion

       I have spoken in ideals. I have not asked the tougher, muddier questions. What about those who feel conflicted about the word? What about those who still cannot commit? Or what about those who desire and want to be transformed but consistently fail in their attempts to embody faith? These are important questions, but I have only been interested to unpack the meaning of Scripture and how it relates to the ECC. There are still other theological pesterings that leave one unsatisfied to remain where I have ended. I could also raise other questions. Why word and Spirit? How does this relate to the Word of God, that John's gospel points to, the Word made flesh? How does the Spirit's working relate to scripture as canon, as a measuring stick. There is a strong emphasis on scripture living quality in the way it speaks to the individual, but how does this escape subjectivism?

     
      There are still more questions that can be asked about the ECC's position in the Covenant Affirmations. I have simply sought to provide an introductory exposition and engagement with these views. These tough questions should not scare us, for as one Covenant writer wrote, "A Christian is a wrestler with eternity."

Endnotes

1. Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 8. ^↩
2.  Ibid., 8. ^↩
3.  This is the second proposal Spener suggests to the church in his Pia Desideria. All the proposals are mutually intertwined because they all ultimately culminate in the pursuit of a reformed church. ^↩
4.  Philipp Jakob Spener, “From the Pia Desideria (1675),” in Pietists: Selected Writings, ed. Peter C. Erb (New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1983), 34. ↩
5. Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 8. ↩
6. Cited in Dale W. Brown, Understanding Pietism, Revised Edition (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Publishing House, 1996), 47.  ↩
7. K. James Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener: Pietist Patriarch (Chicago, IL: Covenant Press, 1986), 151. ↩
8. Ibid., 152. ↩
9. Similarly, St. Augustine was known to have the style of the Bible to be, in Bruce L. Shelley’s words, “crude and barbarous.” (Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 2nd Edition [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 125. ↩
10. Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener, 151. ↩
11. Spener had much to say about what to do about those who promote false doctrines and how to treat them in a Christ like manner. Spener asks that Christians pray for these people, be a Christ-like example, instruct them if we feel competent to do so, love them, and dispute in moderation (Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria, trans. Theodore G. Tappert [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1964], 97-102. ↩
12. Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener, 152. ↩
13.  Covenant Affirmations Booklet, 8.  ^↩
14. Ibid., 8-9. ↩