Spirituality means “Life in God’s Spirit” rather than a vague and ethereal sense of “religiousness” or “inner attunement.” From briefly looking at the role of the Holy Spirit in the Bible (see part 1 – Christian Spirituality is Not Spiritual), we see that the Holy Spirit, rather than being in contrast to the physical and material world, plays a vital role in the creation, preservation and restoration of the visible, public, physical, material, bodily, social, and experiential existence of life on planet earth. If Christian spirituality is “Life in God’s Spirit,” then it is not spiritual in the sense that it pulls us away from engaging with the concrete realities of life into a focus on the immaterial and invisible. Christian spirituality rather draws us deeper into a passionate engagement with life, celebrating its joys, mourning its sorrows and pouring ourselves out in love to see its God-gifted purpose restored and flourishing into full flower.

Perhaps a seemingly strange verse to continue our discussion is Ephesians 1:10. Here Paul, at a climactic moment in his broad and sweeping oration of God’s purposes, declares that in Christ, God has publicly displayed “a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things under one head in him, the things in heaven and the things on earth.” The entire drama of blessing, calling, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, grace and mystery are summarized as a unification, a reconciliation, even a restoration of the entire cosmos in Christ. The scope of that which Paul speaks should not be missed. He speaks not merely of individuals being reconciled to God, but rather a fracturing in the entire created order is being mended and set right through Christ. Indeed, for the creation has groaned since its bondage to decay began (cf. Rom. 8:19ff), when its pristine state had been infested by thorns and thistles, its ground soaked with the blood of human violence and its fate imprisoned under the futility of inevitable death. The entire creation’s alienation from God, which had allowed such havoc to run free and spread throughout all its members, is being undone in and through Christ. Heaven and Earth are being united as one. Rather than us escaping the woes of earth to the bliss of heaven, the glory and radiance of the divine life and will as perfectly expressed in heaven will come to earth in a transformation of untold proportions. Heaven and Earth will converge and the fulness of God’s desire and intention for life on planet earth will come to a wondrous fruition. This plan has been set on public display in Christ and has begun its implementation, yet awaits its final fulfillment at the consummation of the age.

Paul continues in verse thirteen and fourteen to call the Holy Spirit, “the downpayment of our inheritance.” The Holy Spirit is thus a “partial payment,” so to speak, in advance of the full inheritance. One day God will fully and finally complete the restoration of the entire cosmos he began in Christ.  In the meantime however, the Holy Spirit is the “down-payment” of such, the living personal presence of the restoration of all things. As people in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, we embody the convergence of Heaven and Earth and the restoration of all things which will be fully consummated when our Lord returns. Here we arrive at a central feature of Christian spirituality. Christian spirituality, that is, “life in God’s Spirit,” means that we (individually, but more so as a community of the faithful) become the place where even now, in advance of its consummation, Heaven and Earth intersect. The renewal of earth’s life is now manifested in the community of God’s people. We are the instrument through which creation’s plight is even now beginning to be undone. So when we speak of “spirituality,” and specifically so, “cultivating one’s spirituality,” this means not so much a private subjective exercise, but rather, engaging in the process by which we expunge the hatred, violence and apathy perpetuating our common plight and become a community in and through which the intersection of Heaven and Earth becomes increasingly expressed, through which the spring time of New Creation bursts into flower. The practices of “spirituality” are those through which even now God is making “all things new” and creating us as a people through whom He renews the face of the earth.

Related posts

• What is Spirituality? Part 1 – Christian Spirituality is Not Spiritual (1)
• Resurrection and New Creation (Part 2) – Whirlwind Tour of the Gospel of John (2)
• New Creation…Starting Now (3)
• A Prayer for Revival (2)
• Why Greek Matters (Part 4) – The Lamb is Worthy (Revelation 5) (0)

What is “spirituality?” Or, what does it mean to be “spiritual”? Spirituality is often understood as that which relates to the immaterial spirit or soul in contrast to that which is physical or material. In another sense, spirituality is that which relates to a certain form of religion or religious belief. Then “spirituality” means a vague or ethereal sense of “religiosity,” “mysticism” or “devotionalism,” which is restricted to a private sphere of internal experience and practice.

The Christian notion of “spirituality” is different. Biblical spirituality always means “Life in God’s Spirit.” At this point I would like to give a few brief vignettes of the Holy Spirit and see how they compare to the definitions of “spirituality” given above.

1) The Holy Spirit is the operative power in the creation of Heaven and Earth - Genesis 1:1-2 – In the beginning  God  created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and  darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was  moving over the  surface of the waters.

2) The Holy Spirit is the life-force which keeps all living things alive – Psalm 104:29-30 - You  hide Your face, they [all living things] are dismayed;   You  take away their  spirit, they expire and  return to their dust. 30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;  And You renew the face of the earth.

3) The Holy Spirit raised the body of Jesus from the dead – 1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.”

4) The Holy Spirit will raise all from the dead at the end of the age – Romans 8:11 – If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

5) The Holy Spirit will be the regenerative energy of the entire creation’s revitalization – Isaiah 32:14-15 – ““For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever, a joy of wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks; 15 until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest.”

If we consider these 5 snapshots of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit is vitally connected to the “physical” and “material” world – its creation, preservation and restoration. Therefore any biblical sense of “spirituality” as “life in God’s Spirit” cannot be about a contradistinction between that which is “physical” and “spiritual,” “material” and “immaterial,” “visible” and “invisible.” Christian spirituality is patently not “spiritual” in this sense. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Life, the Spirit of Creation, the creative energy that interpenetrates the entire universe with the gracious and life-giving personal presence of God. This is very exciting because as we shall see, Christian spirituality is not a detached and isolated private practice, but centers around the God of grace and infinite delight brining about the transformation and restoration of the physical, material, bodily, visible, and public world.

Related posts

• What is Spirituality? Part 2 – Heaven and Earth Converge (0)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)
• Resurrection and New Creation (Part 2) – Whirlwind Tour of the Gospel of John (2)
• Prayers for Revival – The Spirit of Prayer (0)

Christ is bathed in light; let us also be bathed in light. Christ is baptised; let us also go down with him, and rise with him.

John is baptising when Jesus draws near. Perhaps he comes to sanctify his baptiser; certainly he comes to bury sinful humanity in the waters. He comes to sanctify the Jordan for our sake and in readiness for us; he who is spirit and flesh comes to begin a new creation through the Spirit and water.

The Baptist protests; Jesus insists. Then John says: I ought to be baptised by you. He is the lamp in the presence of the sun, the voice in the presence of the Word, the friend in the presence of the Bridegroom, the greatest of all born of woman in the presence of the firstborn of all creation, the one who leapt in his mother’s womb in the presence of him who was adored in the womb, the forerunner and future forerunner in the presence of him who has already come and is to come again. I ought to be baptised by you: we should also add, “and for you,” for John is to be baptised in blood, washed clean like Peter, not only by the washing of his feet.

Jesus rises from the waters; the world rises with him. The heavens, like Paradise with its flaming sword, closed by Adam for himself and his descendants, are rent open. The Spirit comes to him as to an equal, bearing witness to his Godhead. A voice bears witness to him from heaven, his place of origin. The Spirit descends in bodily form like the dove that so long ago announced the ending of the flood and so gives honour to the body that is one with God.

Today let us do honour to Christ’s baptism and celebrate this feast in holiness. Be cleansed entirely and continue to be cleansed. Nothing gives such pleasure to God as the conversion and salvation of men, for whom his every word and every revelation exist. He wants you to become a living force for all humankind, lights shining in the world. You are to be radiant lights as you stand beside Christ, the great light, bathed in the glory of him who is the light of heaven. You are to enjoy more and more the pure and dazzling light of the Trinity, as now you have received – though not in its fullness – a ray of its splendour, proceeding from the one God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

From a sermon by St Gregory Nazianzen

Related posts

• The Baptism of Our Lord (0)
• Prayer for the Baptism of our Lord (0)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)
• Spirit and Flesh – Part 1 (1)

I am personally not a fan of new-years resolutions, because most never get accomplished. However, I’ve decided to take some time to reflect on what it might mean to “sanctify” the coming year to God. My thoughts here are following Jurgen Moltmann’s book Spirit of Life.

Moltmann takes issue with popularized conceptions of “spirituality.” Sometimes spirituality means nothing more than “religiousness” or “devotionalism.” Such equations can cut off spirituality from everyday life. It can also establish a schism between the “religious,” that is, the clergy and the cloistered, and the laity, the common person. One group is “spiritual” and the other, the overwhelming majority, is unable to access such a place. It can also drive a wedge between the “spiritual” and the sensory, assigning greater value to the “spiritual” and a diminished or even negative value to the sensory and bodily experiences of life. Furthermore, life can be neatly separated into its superior “vertical” (Godward or heavenly) and ancillary “horizontal” (relational, human or earthly) dimensions. This dichotomization disintegrates what God made a coherent whole, and in effect “splits life in two, quenching its vitality.” (Jurgen Moltmann, Spirit of Life: a Universal Affirmation, p. 84)

However, it is of fundamental concern that the concept of “spirituality” be vitally connected to the Biblical understanding of the Holy Spirit. Spirituality is, after all, “life in God’s Spirit.” In the Old Testament, the ruach (Spirit) is the power that created all things and interpenetrates the life of all the living (Ps. 104.29ff., Gen. 1). In the New Testament, the Spirit is the power that raises Jesus bodily from the dead, inaugurating the “final springtime of creation (Rom 1.4; 8.11; 1 Tim 3.16),” the definitive restoration of life on earth (Moltmann, p. 84). This gives us an understanding of the Spirit that is immanently connected, rather than opposed, to physical, material, bodily, sensory and relational life.

Overcoming dualistic tendencies with regards to the Spirit and spirituality, Moltmann wants to understand “spirituality” as vitality, as a love for life. This expresses itself in an affirmed social and bodily existence. “In the experience of the Spirit, the spring of life begins to flow in us again. We begin to flower and become fruitful. An undreamt-of love for life awakens in us, driving out the infection of resignation, and healing painful remembrances. We go to meet life expecting the rebirth of everything that lives, and with this expectation, we experience our own rebirth, and the rebirth we share with everything else.” (p. 95)

We can then reach out to the world with the eagerness, innocence and expectation of a child (Matt. 18.1-5). A jaded attitude towards ourselves and the world melts with the rising of a vibrant love for life. The release of the body from the fears of “age-aquired wisdom,” which cynically expects the triumph of death, frees the arms to extend and embrace. The love of life empowered by the hope of resurrection looses the shackles of the soul with a penchant for retreating into the refuge of isolation. Open to the world, faith, hope and love once again flow in the risky endeavor of whole-hearted living (p. 97).

Life in the Spirit is not life against the body, it is life against death. It is everything that stands against the maniacal death drives of modern culture. It is awakening from the slumber of apathy and mechanistic living. “In this world, with its modern ‘sickness unto death,’ true spirituality will be the restoration of the love for life – that is to say, vitality. The full and unreserved ‘yes’ to life, and the full and unreserved love for the living are the first experiences of God’s Spirit, which is not for nothing called fons vitae, ‘the well of life’” (p. 97).

Moltmann wants to recast the concept of sanctification in light of the theology of the Spirit he has already been developing.  He begins by discussing John Wesley’s “methodisitic” holiness. John Wesley’s “societies” arose at the time of the burgeoning industrial revolution. “The Christian discipline to which they submitted themselves and their bodies corresponded precisely to the discipline of their work in the factories” (p. 166). Wesley’s methods had a healing effect on isolated people who had been forced to leave home to search for work in the factories. It gave them community, stability and self-confidence in a time when there was much uncertainty and instability. However, because we are leaving the industrial age and moving into the post-industrial age, we need a renewed vision of the Christian life that is “related to the sickness of the given society in a healing way” (p. 171). The discipline of the industrial revolution has produced a society where production and efficiency have become the highest virtues. When such happens, the human body is reduced to a machine and the mind to a computer. No time remains for full-blooded feeling. The integrity of human being is sorely violated. The simultaneous growth of production and consumption that have flourished under the myth of progress have shown their debilitating effects on the psychological, relational and ecological condition of life on earth. As our production and consumption increases, we find ourselves unable to engage in living-giving relationships that God created the human race to enjoy mirroring His triune fellowship of love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A renewed concept of sanctification begins, for Moltmann, with the concept of spirituality as vitality and is embodied in the rediscovery of the sanctity of all life. Recognizing the holiness of all life effectuates the ethic Albert Schweitzer termed ‘reverence for life’: “Anyone who loves ‘the living God’ loves the life of all living things” (p. 172). This has communal (loving brothers and sisters), social (loving the poor and weak), and ecological (loving creation) dimensions. Reverence for life also “requires the renunciation of violence towards life,” including violence towards creation and violence towards one’s own life.  The “violent regimentation” of one’s own life and body produces physical and psychological infertility, an inability to grow. The life oriented toward self-mastery, which by nature blocks off “whole sectors of life” must be loosed to allow for the “spontaneity of faith” (p. 173). This requires a greater trust in God than the discipline that breeds deeper mistrust. While this may seem contrary to Wesley’s methods, it is not contrary to Wesley’s intention “to heal soul and body” (p. 173). Wesley understood sin as a sickness that required healing (p. 164). The faithlessness, fear, anger and violence that lie hidden beneath ruthless discipline and regimentation must today be recognized as part of the sickness of sin the soul needs to be healed from. In such, specific actions are not sanctified, but entire lives are sanctified in the presence of the God of life. The word “holy” is again recognized in terms of its semantic origin: to be holy is to be made whole, to have integrity of being and life restored to a fragmented and divided existence, for the brutal violence of self-domination and other-manipulation to be relinquished in the trusting spontaneity of faith and sanctifying affirmation of life (pp. 175-6).

With this said, it might seem an attempt to cast off restraint and discipline, that any related “New Year’s Resolutions” would be about loosing the shackles of a regimented, scheduled existence. Such would be a superficial reading. I still plan on having and keeping a schedule. I have a passion to be a faithful steward of everything God has given me, especially time. However, it is true and essential to maintain there is nothing inherently Christian about discipline and it can be remarkably unchristian when it functions to destroy the goodness of what God loves. My New Years resolutions mostly relate to resisting the freneticism that schedules out the breathing space which enables the heart to live and delight in love. I am also keen to resist the constant encroaching of technology which seeks to mechanize life and dull the affections. God calls us to live a quiet and peaceful life, for in this stillness alone can the heart truly be present to God and there discover the “broad and open space” of love for live within which it can flourish and thrive.

My 2010 New Years Resolutions:

1) to never for any reason tell someone else that I am busy and thus imply that my “busy-ness” is more important than them or is an excuse to treat them poorly (thanks to my undergrad spirituality professor Mike Walters for this gem).

2) to leave my phone on silent and not check or send text messages while in the prayer room or when having a conversation with someone. Both when in prayer and in conversation I want to be fully present to the persons involved and not constantly detaching by frenetic digital communication.

3) to check my e-mail no more than twice a day. This is related to the previous one as far as frenetic digital communication goes. I am not so important that I need to be constantly accessible. I will also not upgrade my cell phone to be able to get email or internet. I’ll sacrifice having “the world at my finger tips” in order to maintain my sanity and quietness of being.

4) to regularly give people my undivided attention when talking with them, to interrupt less, speak less and listen more.

5) to periodically (though not frequently) allow significant relationships to disrupt my schedule.

6) to regularly remind myself that the people “under” me as a leader are not cogs in a wheel but people with precious and vulnerable hearts, abounding with love, hope, hurt, fear and God-inspired dreams.

7) to breathe deeply and be more fully present to God.

Related posts

• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (cont.) (0)
• The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God – IHOP Outpouring/IHOPU Awakening (2)
• Prayers for Revival – Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:5ff) (0)
• Love is How We Open to Life (Principles and Practices for the Spiritual Life, Part 1d) (0)
• Emotions Commanded in Scripture (0)

In general, Jewish people reject Jesus as being the Messiah for one central reason. It is because Jesus did not do what the Messiah was expected to do. Christians speak of Jesus “dying for their sin,” “saving their soul,” or “getting into heaven,” but none of these concepts were anywhere close to Jewish expectation for the Messiah. For them to accept such notions would not be in continuity with Judaism, but would be a completely different religion. As simply as possible, the Messiah was meant to save Israel from their enemies and establish justice on earth. I take the time to mention this because my prayer today was partially inspired by the following two quotations from leading modern Jewish scholars, explaining why they do not accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. The first is by Gershom Scholem:

“It is a completely different concept of redemption which determines the attitude to messianism in Judaism and Christianity.. . . In all its shapes and forms, Judaism has always adhered to a concept of redemption which sees it as a process that takes place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community; in short, which essentially takes place in the visible world, and cannot be thought of except as a phenomenon that appears in what is already visible. Christianity, on the other hand, understands redemption as a happening in the spiritual sphere, and in what is invisible. It takes place in the soul, in the world of every individual, and effects a mysterious transformation to which nothing external in the world necessarily corresponds…The reinterpretation of the prophetic promises of the Bible which applies them to the sphere of “the heart”…has always seemed to the religious thinkers of Judaism an illegitimate anticipation of something which could at best come about as the inward side of an event which takes place essentially in the outward world; but this inward side could never be separated from that event itself.”

The second is by Schalom Ben-Chorin. Note especially the underlined phrase, it will come back later:

Schalom Ben-Chorin – “The Jew is profoundly aware of the unredeemed character of the world, and he perceives and recognizes no enclave of redemption in the midst of its unredeemedness. The concept of the redeemed soul in the midst of an unredeemed world is alien to the Jew, profoundly alien, inaccessible from the primal ground of his existence. This is the innermost reason for Israel’s rejection of Jesus, not a merely external, merely national conception of messianism. In Jewish eyes, redemption means redemption from all evil. Evil of body and soul, evil in creation and civilization. So when we say redemption, we mean the whole of redemption.”

The following prayer is for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are meant to, as Gershom Scholem articulated, take “place publicly, on the stage of history and in the medium of the community.” They do not take place in the “invisible world” but in the “visible.” Contra Gershom Scholem (and contra many Christians), Christianity does not speak of a “spiritual” salvation in which nothing in the external world corresponds. The Gifts of the Spirit, particularly miracles and healings, but the others as well, are the tangible signs of the New Creation coming to birth in our midst, showing that God intends to redeem not our invisible and ethereal “souls,” but our entire lives and world, including all physical, bodily, sensory, emotional, relational, communal and cultural aspects of our being. These Gifts are not meant simply to authenticate the message, as often times in both the ministry of Jesus and the apostles, the sign came first, and the message explained the sign. This is because the signs are functioning as signs. They are pointing to something else, to a reality called the Kingdom of God, the age of redemption when all will be made new. These Gifts bring effects on the visible and historical world, demonstrating the gracious and transformative nearness of God’s Reign. They confirm the testimony of Christ, the proclamation that in the midst of this present darkness, the light of life has shined forth in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, heralding the inevitable restoration of the entire creation. We earnestly desire the gifts of the Spirit because, as the Spirit is the downpayment of our inheritance, the Gifts are tokens, indeed, manifestations of the New Creation’s presence here among us, even now, the initiation of the earth’s re-creation. Contra Ben-Chorin, in the midst of this world’s unredeemedness, there truly is an enclave of redemption — the Church operating in the gifts, fruit and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, doing the works of Jesus.

This prayer was inspired by the preceding ideas as well as language from 1 Corinthians 1:4-9.

Almighty God, who calls your Church to bear unceasing witness that Jesus the Messiah died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures: so now confirm the testimony of Christ in our midst; may your Church never be lacking in any gift of your Holy Spirit, that the signs of creation’s restoration may abound among us, joyfully affirming to the world, that, in the midst of this present darkness, an enclave of redemption indeed exists, bearing the seeds of resurrection life, while eagerly awaiting the full revelation of our Lord at His coming, Jesus the Messiah, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

—————–

Both quotations came from Jurgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ (London: SCM Press, 1990).

Related posts

• The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God – IHOP Outpouring/IHOPU Awakening (2)
• Prayers for Revival – The Spirit of Prayer (0)
• Prayers for Revival (3)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 1: The Holy Spirit in Context (0)
• The Baptism of Our Lord (0)

In recent days, a fresh wave of the Spirit’s presence has broken out at the International House of Prayer Missions Base in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) resulting in many supernatural healings, deep heart-felt experiences of the love of God, and a number of unusual manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s presence. It has been wonderful to partake of and I pray earnestly for its increase here and across our nation. If there is anything of which our nation lies in dire need, it is the life-giving, renewing and restorative presence of God’s Spirit hailing the advent of God’s Reign in our midst. In such, I am reminded of Jonathan Edwards’ excellent piece of writing, The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, in which he distills the consummation of his experience and insight from being a central leader in the First Great Awakening. He calls the people of God both to earnestly support the work of the Holy Spirit and to be as diligent as possible in avoiding all misconduct and error. It seems to me that many people excel in one or the other, either wholeheartedly embracing the move of the Spirit, while at times lacking in discernment, discretion and excellence, OR people are so diligent in keeping up their “discernment” and “excellence” that they frequently oppose the work of God’s Spirit (though rejecting a true work of God’s Spirit can hardly be called “discernment”). I am myself desiring to find the middle ground, a via media, so to speak, of which Edwards’ spoke—to wholeheartedly support the work of God’s Spirit, whatever it looks like, yet with the discernment, discretion, excellence and self-control that is becoming of God.

In light of what has been going on recently, and what is sure to happen more in the months, years and decades to come, I am here reproducing a significantly abridged version of this work in outline form. Here I mainly lay out basic indicators of 1) that which cannot be used to indicate a work is not from the Spirit of God and 2) the signs of a true work of the Spirit of God. I leave out all the additional explanation Edwards gives for each point. For these further explanations see the full work which is available for free at ccel.org.

From here to the end, all is directly excerpted from Edwards himself.

I. Negative Signs; or, What are not signs by which we are to judge of a work–and especially, What are not evidences that work is not from the Spirit of God.

1. Nothing can be certainly concluded from this, That a work is carried on in a way very unusual and extraordinary; provided the variety or difference be such, as may still be comprehended within the limits of Scripture rules.

2. A work is not to be judged by any effects on the bodies of people; such as tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies of body, or the failing of bodily strength. The influence persons are under is not to be judged of one way or other by such effects on the body; and the reason is because the Scripture nowhere gives us any such rule.

3. It is no argument that an operation on the minds of the people is not the work of the Spirit of God that it occasions a great deal of noise about religion. For though true religion be of a contrary nature to that of the Pharisees–which was ostentatious, and delighted to set itself forth to the view of people for their applause–yet such is human nature, that it is morally impossible there should be a great concern, strong affection and a general engagedness of mind amongst a people without causing a notable, visible and open commotion and alteration amongst that people.

4. It is no argument that an operation on the minds of the people is not the work of the Spirit of God that many who are the subjects of it have great impressions made on their imagination.

5. It is not argument that a work is not of the Spirit of God that some who are the subjects of it have been in a kind of ecstasy, wherein they have been carried beyond themselves, and have had their minds transported into a train of strong and pleasing imaginations, and a kind of visions, as though they were rapt up even to heaven and there saw glorious sights.

6. It is no sign that a work is not from the Spirit of God that example is a great means of it. It is surely no argument that an effect is not from God that means are used in producing it; for we know that it is God’s manner to make use of means in carrying on his work in the world, and it is no more an argument against the divinity of an effect, that this means is made us of, than if it was by any other means. It is agreeable to Scripture that persons should be influenced by one another’s good example (Matt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 3:1; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7, etc.)

7. It is no sign that a work is not from the Spirit of God that many who seem to be the subjects of it are guilty of great imprudences and irregularities in their conduct. We are to consider that the end for which God pours out his Spirit is to make people holy, and not to make them politicians. It is no wonder that in a mixed multitude of all sorts–wise and unwise, young and old, or weak and strong natural abilities, under strong impressions of mind–there are many who behave themselves imprudently. There are but few who know how to conduct themselves under vehement affections of any kind…

8. Nor are many errors in judgment, and some delusions of Satan intermixed with the work, any argument that the work in general is not of the Spirit of God. However great a spiritual influence may be, it is not to be expected that the Spirit of God should be given now in the same manner as to the apostles, infallibly to guide them in points of Christian doctrine, so that what they taught might be relied on as a rule to the Christian Church. And if many delusions of Satan appear, at the same time that a great religious concern prevails, it is not an argument that the work in general is not the work of God. Yea, the same persons may be the subjects of much of the influences of the Spirit of God, and yet in some things be led away by the delusions of Satan, and this be no more of paradox than many other things that are true of real saints, in the present state, where grace dwells with so much corruption, and the new self and the old self subsist together in the same person; and the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil remain for a while together…

9. If some, who were thought to be wrought upon, fall away into gross errors, or scandalous practices, it is no argument that the work in general is not the work of the Spirit of God. An instance of this is Judas, who was one of the twelve apostles, and had long been constantly united to, and intimately conversant with, a company of truly experienced disciples, without being discovered or suspected till he discovered himself by his scandalous practice. He had been treated by Jesus himself, in all external things, as if he had truly been a disciples, even investing him with the character of apostles, sending him forth to preach the gospel, and enduing him with miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

10. It is no argument that a work is not from the Spirit of God that it seems to be promoted by ministers insisting very much on the terrors of God’s holy law, and that with a great deal of pathos and earnestness.

II. Positive Signs–What are distinguishing Scripture evidences of a work of the Spirit of God.

1. When the operation is such as to raise their esteem of that Jesus who was born of the Virgin, and was crucified without the gates of Jerusalem; and seems more to confirm and establish their minds in the truth of what the gospel declares to us of his being the Son of God and the Savior of humanity; it is a sure sign that it is from the Spirit of God (1 John 4:2-3; 1 Cor. 12:1).

2. When the spirit that is at work operates against the interests of Satan’s kingdom, which lies in encouraging and establishing sin, and cherishing people’s worldly lusts; this is a sure sign that it is a true, and not a false spirit. (1 John 4:4-5)

3. The spirit that operates in such a manner as to cause in people a greater regard to the Holy Scriptures, and establishes them more in their truth and divinity is certainly the Spirit of God.

4. If by observing the manner of the operation of a spirit that is at work among a people, we see that it operates as a spirit of truth, leading persons to truth, convincing them of those things that are true, we may safely determine that it is a right and true spirit.

5. If the spirit that is at work among a people operates as a spirit of love to God and people, it is a sure sign that it is the Spirit of God. (1 John 4:6 – Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God…)

III. Practical Inferences

1. From what has been said, I will venture to draw this inference, viz., that the extraordinary influence that has lately appeared causing an uncommon concern and engagedness of mind about the things of religion is undoubtedly, in general, from the Spirit of God.

2. Let us all be hence warned, by no means to oppose, or do anything in the least to clog or hinder the work; but on the contrary, do our utmost to promote it. Now Christ is come down from heaven in a remarkable and wonderful work of his Spirit, it becomes all his professed disciples to acknowledge him, and give him honor.

3. To apply myself to those who are the friends of this work, who have been partakers of it, and are zealous to promote it – Let me earnestly exhort such to give diligent heed to themselves to avoid all errors and misconduct, and whatever may darken and obscure the work; and to give no occasion to those who stand ready to reproach it. The apostle exhorts Titus to maintain a strict care and watch over himself, that both his preaching and behavior might be such as “could not be condemned; that he who was of the contrary part might be ashamed, having no evil thing to say to them,” Titus 2:7-8

Related posts

• Prayers for Revival – Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:5ff) (0)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (cont.) (0)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 1: The Holy Spirit in Context (0)
• Prayers for Revival – The Spirit of Prayer (0)
• Prayers for Revival – the Fire of Love and Holiness (1)

All three of these prayers for the “spirit of prayer” are inspired by these themes from Romans 8:

Gracious Lord, who saved us in the hope of the resurrection: fill us with your Spirit, that we who live in the time between the breaking of dawn and the fullness of day, encumbered with much weakness, not knowing how to pray, may find help as the Spirit intercedes through us with groans too deep for words, united to the suffering cry of all creation, believing we will see your goodness in the land of the living, through Jesus the Messiah our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

O God, who created heaven and earth by an overflow of your tender, faithful love: as the entire creation suffers in hope that it will be set free from the bondage to decay, may we who by your Spirit have a foretaste of the freedom of the glory of the children of God, by that same Spirit groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly, identifying compassionately, praying fervently, with and for the redemption of our bodies and the resurrection of life, that your will for the fullness of life would be brought to birth on earth as it is in heaven, through Jesus the Messiah, your Son, our Lord…

God of hope: give us grace to perceive the depth and reality of suffering which pervades our entire age and the entire creation. Then so clothe us with the Spirit of love and compassion, that crying out from the depths we would not remain silent, praying that your will for the restoration of all things would come to pass, even in our own day, through Jesus the Messiah your Son our Lord…

Related posts

• Prayers for Revival (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)
• Prayers for Revival – the Fire of Love and Holiness (1)
• Prayers for Revival – Healing (1)

Revival means quite literally, “to come to life again.” If there is anything more desperately needed in our individual lives, relationships, communities, nations, the Church or the world, it is the life-giving, life-renewing, life-regenerating presence of God – the God who spoke all created life into existence, breathed the breath of life into human beings, resurrected Jesus the Messiah from the dead, and thus destroyed the power of death; gave the Spirit of Life to the Church, and is even now renewing the face of the earth by the same gracious nearness that will one day make all things new.

In accordance with my conviction that (1) prayer is the primary means through which such a resurrection of life will happen; and (2) pre-written prayers are of great value for the life of prayer, I have set my hand to writing prayers for revival. My intention is over the weeks and months, to post prayers that draw from Scriptural concepts and images as well as incorporate the theology of the Holy Spirit, inaugurated eschatology, new creation, and Trinitarian relationality that I have been developing here and elsewhere. They will in general be modeled after a long standing 4 part format used for brief prayers over the centuries in Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican traditions: (1) an address to God, giving a description of his nature or actions; (2) a request; (3) the reason or purpose for the request; (4) an ending, frequently Trinitarian.

If these prayers help you pray in a more focused way for a greater experience and expression of God’s life-giving presence in the Church and the world, I will be more than thoroughly pleased.

This first prayer draws imagery from Ezekiel 37 and concepts from 2 Corinthians amongst other sources:

O God whose zeal is not deterred when Your Church seems more like a valley of dry bones than a living witness to the resurrection of Jesus: Breathe the breath of life into your people once again. Renew us by your power and love. Cause us to remember the redemptive purpose for which you called the Church into being, that we might again be your people for the world; agents of reconciliation and resurrection life, through Jesus the Messiah your Son, our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Related posts

• Prayers for Revival – The Spirit of Prayer (0)
• Prayers for Revival – the Fire of Love and Holiness (1)
• Prayers for Revival – Healing (1)
• Prayers for Revival – Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:5ff) (0)
• Prayers for Revival – Boldness in Proclaming the Gospel (0)

In my experience, whether talking to evangelicals or charismatics (or evangelical-charismatics), there seems to be a fairly strong opposition to using pre-written forms in either corporate or personal prayer. By this I am mostly referring to using prayers written by someone else. Even more specifically, I am speaking of using something akin to the historic structured liturgies of daily prayer that have been used in religious communities from time immemorial. It is my contention that this opposition is based both on faulty logic and presuppositions that have much more to do with the spirit of the age (zeitgeist) than apostolic Christianity. Since for the most part the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” seeing how simple it is to acquire the twelve benefits I laid out in the last post (easy, consistent, diverse, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, non-idiosyncratic, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, well-rounded, manageable and profoundly moving) will ultimately be the best reason for someone to use pre-written prayers and forms to aid their prayer life. However, I want to briefly deal with the primary objection I’ve heard over the years (and I myself once espoused) to using written prayers. The objection essentially goes something like one of the following:

“If I use a pre-written prayer, it couldn’t be authentic…”

“It’s not something that is really from my heart…”

“It wouldn’t be a personal relationship between me and God anymore…”

The assumption here is that the central criterion for “good prayer” is that it must be an authentic expression of my innermost self.  Indeed, this criterion has been so exalted that it overpowers all the criteria I laid out in my previous post rendering them inconsequential. Thus expressing your innermost self (or your perception of your innermost self) trumps prayer that is consistent, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, etc. The notion that this is the paramount criterion for “real/good prayer” and is thus incompatible with pre-written forms is flawed in at least two ways.

1) LOGIC – The notion that pre-written forms cannot be authentic is an idea that almost no Christian actually believes, so it is a marvel to me that this argument is even employed. Let me explain. This past Sunday, in every church around the world, whether they were the most traditional, or the most charismatic, people used pre-written prayers to “express their hearts” to God. They were, however, in songs. Although I have regularly enjoyed and still do enjoy singing songs in both corporate and private settings that either I personally wrote in advance or made up on the spot, I have never been in a worship setting where all the songs the congregation sang were spontaneous. Even if that does happen somewhere, the congregation would still be using a form written by someone else.

I have never heard someone attempt to argue that they cannot sing worship songs or hymns written by someone else because they cannot possibly use them to give an “authentic expression of their innermost self” to God. This is because we all know that it is more than possible to express ourselves to God using someone else’s words. In fact, we do it all the time. More so, we frequently find that someone else can put into words, what our innermost self has been wanting to say but has not been able to express.

We also express ourselves to God through another’s words every time we agree with someone else’s prayer. We didn’t come up with those words, someone else did. They were not a spontaneous eruption from our hearts, yet when we say “Amen” we all acknowledge that the other’s words can be an authentic and meaningful way for us to pray to God. If they were not, then we would eschew all corporate prayer, an abstention that no one in the early apostolic community maintained.

2) BIBLICAL/HISTORICAL – Now that I’ve shown nearly all people do in fact believe it is possible to “authentically express your innermost self” to God through texts written by someone else, I would now like to go further by questioning this notion as a central criterion for judging quality prayer. Pause for a second and ask yourself if you ever remember Jesus, the apostles, the prophets, or anyone else in Scripture ever talk about the necessity for the “authentic expression of my innermost self.” It probably won’t take you long to realize that none of them ever do. (Even when there is gut-wrenching heart expression (for example, say, in the Psalms or Lamentations), it is WRITTEN down and intended for others to use as their own form).

If the Bible does not hold up the supreme necessity of “authentic self-expression” then why is this almost a universal, immediate response to the notion of using pre-written prayers in contemporary North-American Evangelical Protestantism? Where is this value and its priority coming from? I guess I already gave it away in the title of this post – it comes from the spirit of the age, to be more precise, the spirit of the age from 1800-1950ish. I am particularly meaning two specific movements of late modern culture: Romanticism and Existentialism.

The Romantic movement of the early 19th century responded to the extreme rationalism of the Enlightenment (late 17th and 18th century), and indeed they were right to do so. Rather they said, the “heart” was the central concern. Notice how such talk could easily be crowded into the same room with Isaiah, Amos and Deuteronomy’s  emphasis on the “heart” and opposition to “outward forms” lacking internal reality. To risk oversimplifying an entire cultural movement, the Romantics encouraged one to look inward, to discover the feelings that are inside of you and make them the center of your life, not least your self-expression. This was codified in Christian thought by F.D.E. Schleiermacher who said that “Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech” (The Christian Faith). Notice the subtle difference between Romanticism and the Scripture. Deuteronomy says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…” while Romanticism says “have loving feelings” and Romantic-inspired theology says “let us describe our loving feelings about God.” In Biblical religion, the object of the love is central, whereas in romanticism-inspired theology, the feeling is central and the object ancillary (In his lengthy treatment of Christian theology, Schleiermacher said “this Other [meaning God] is not objectively presented in the immediate self-consciousness with which alone we are here concerned,” i.e., we’re mostly concerned with the feelings in our self-consciousness, not God).

This brings us to the largely 20th century phenomenon of existentialism (although its harbinger Kierkegaard appeared on the scene in the mid-19th century). Amongst other things, existentialism sought to highlight that each person has a “true self” of authentic existence which must be searched for, found, freed and given full expression. Like romanticism, there are ways this language can be layered within and around the Biblical text (As R. Bultmann aptly demonstrated, for better or for worse). Again, it is subtly different than what the Scripture is in fact saying. Rather than being confronted by and conformed to something larger than and external to ourselves, we must “discover who we really are” and then be true to that authentic self. Growth is not as much a process of conversion and transformation as it is discovery and realization of what was always there within me. Akin to Romanticism, Biblical faith emphasizes an external relationship, the zeitgeist, an inward journey.

From this brief historical lesson, I think it becomes clear where a lot of this talk about “authentic expression from my heart” derives its modern origins. At least in the ways it is often used, it is not coming from the Bible. Sure, Biblical verses are employed, but Romanticist and Existentialist interpretations and applications of those verses. If these passages are in fact explaining how the center of prayer is discovering what is really in my heart and then authentically expressing it to God in my own personally unique way, it is funny how nearly the entire tradition of Jewish and Christian prayer missed that, including the earliest records we have of the church immediately following the writing of the New Testament. When the apostles asked Jesus how to pray, he didn’t give them instructions on how to focus or how to tune into the Spirit really hard. Nor did he tell them to divide up into groups and discuss their personal story and emote what is bubbling up from their inner recesses. He did not lead them in a journey of inward discovery and affirmation. He certainly did not encourage them to abandon forms and structures of spirituality, since his answer was to give them a set of words they can say, which is now known as “The Lord’s Prayer.” It is commonly asserted that the Lord’s Prayer was not a “form,” (predicated on the assumption we already know religious forms are bad!) but a suggestion of the topics one can pray about. It’s fine to use it that way, but that is not what Jesus was doing. Luke’s text is very clear in this manner. It says quite literally, “whenever you pray, SAY: ‘Father…’” (Luke 11:2). Jesus’ central advice on prayer is to have a specific pattern and form of words to “say” “whenever you pray.” Whatever we make of this, it certainly was miles away from what a Romanticist/Existentialist might recommend.

Now don’t get me wrong. As a good product of my time I think “expressing what’s really in my heart” is important and I personally cherish the numerous times I have been able to do so. But it is not central, and it is certainty not the starting place of prayer. If prayer begins with and finds its locus in “expressing my heart,” it would seem to be right on track to transmogrify from a noble and beautiful practice into an ugly and horrid introspective navel-gazing. I know plenty of this from my personal experience. On the contrary, Christian prayer begins with our eyes fixed on God (rather than our emotions) and the Scripture (rather than our own creativity/authenticity), while rooted in Church history (rather than our own idiosyncrasy). What I’ve found is this type of heart-posture, coupled with the method of prayer that I’ll outline in my next post, has led to a significant increase in the regularity of profoundly moving and authentically expressive experiences with the Lord, over the whole gamut of emotions.

While my personal experience is not your own, for me it illustrates the futility and lack of credibility contained within Romanticist and Existentialist applications of Scripture. The difference is stark. When Isaiah rebukes Israel using words like “I hate your festivals,” etc., or Jesus speaks of the Pharisees’ honoring God with their words, but their hearts being far away, or Paul might speak of the liberty of the Spirit, the Existentialist or Romanticist might condemn the use of forms, structures or patterns in worship and prayer. The solution to a dull spiritual experience is the inward search and liberation from “religious forms.” In reality, this analysis is incredibly shallow. Isaiah makes clear the issue is not forms but faithfulness to Yahweh (Isa. 1:12-17). Paul transparently states the law is good and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). I also find it hard to believe that Jesus specifically condemned the forms of Jewish liturgy considering the early church continued to take part in this worship after the Ascension and even after Pentecost (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:42, 46; 3:1). The Existentialist would tell me I need to prioritize authenticity, self-expression and freedom from forms, but I have found that concerted faithfulness to God, attentiveness to his Word and commitment to structured rhythms of prayer is the context within which I have experienced more acute self-awareness, greater freedom in self-expression and deeper religious affections than I have at any previous time in my life. Using pre-written structures and liturgies have dramatically transformed my prayer life for the better, and enabled me to obtain a spirituality that is “easy, consistent, diverse, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, non-idiosyncratic, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, well-rounded, manageable and profoundly moving” (see the previous post for an explanation of all these components).

In my next post I will outline what this specifically looks like for me in my practice of daily prayer.

Related posts

• My Personal Prayer Action Plan (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 3) (0)
• How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 6) – The Prayers (0)
• How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 4) – The Psalms (4)
• How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 3) – The Opening (0)
• How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 1) – Christian Year Overview (8)

In my last post I described the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost as forging the Church as a New Humanity, reversing Babel’s curse of social and national disintegration. Today I would like to look at the coming of the Holy Spirit as establishing a New Covenant marked by the dynamic corporate experience of God.

As with last time, my intention is to interpret Acts 2 through Old Testament narrative of Israel’s history as alluded to in the passage. Previously looking at Genesis 11, we now turn to Exodus 19. This is the beginning of the account of Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai. God comes down upon the mountain with manifestations of fire, smoke and the loud sound of a trumpet. These are common aspects of a Biblical phenomenon called a theophany (literally, “God-appearing”) in which God becomes perceptible in a visible and physical display (cf. 1 Kgs 19:11; Isa. 66.15; Ps. 18).

Immediately following the exodus from slavery in Egypt, this event is what solidified Israel’s identity as a nation through their covenant with God. It is likely that this moment was what later writings referred to as the “creation of Israel” (Isa. 43:1, 15). Israel was offered the covenant by God and when they agreed to the words God spoke, they became his special possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). Their incorporation was two-fold: (1) to have a unique relationship with God and (2) to be priests to the rest of the earth. As a nation, they received promises analogous to those offered to Abraham, which included a special relationship with God, and that he would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. As Abraham (whose covenant in Genesis 12 comes strategically following Genesis 11) was called by God to be the agent of His solution to the problem of sin amassed in Gen. 1-11, so now Israel as a nation carries that priestly task.

Of significant note, is that while God came down upon the mountain, only Moses was allowed to come near to God. Eventually, Aaron, the priests and the seventy elders were permitted to come to the mountain, but only “at a distance.” With the exception of Moses, those permitted on the mountain were told that “they shall not come near.” Furthermore, the people at large were not permitted to come close to the mountain.

Now we turn to Acts 2. Pentecost was traditionally a harvest festival (Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28-26), but came to be associated with both the renewal of the covenant with Noah and the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. It is certain that Jews in the first century associated Pentecost with the Noahic covenant, as it is attested in literature from before that time (The Book of Jubilees 6:17-21; ca. 150 BC). However it is less certain whether it was yet affiliated with the Giving of the Law (though it certainly was in the second and third century). What would make us think then that Acts 2 is meant to be understood in light of Mount Sinai?

First, the great sound and the fire descending upon the believers parallels the sound and fire that accompanied the Sinai event. In Rabbinic writing, fire was commonly used as a symbol for the Torah. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible is there an emphasis on both the descending of fire and a great sound in a theophany except for in Exodus 19.

Second, Philo, a prolific Jewish writer in the century before Jesus, spoke about the giving of the Law in this way: “Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed by it that they seemed to see rather than hear the” (On the Decalogue 46).” This shows us that in time the New Testament was written, the Giving of the Law was being spoken of in terms of communication by fire (“tongues of fire?”) that became recognizable to the audience in their language.

Third, Luke consistently uses Moses typology to talk about Jesus. Jesus is the “prophet like Moses” of whom it was promised that God would raise up. In Luke 9:35 a voice from heaven tells the people to listen to Jesus, much like Israel was to listen to Moses. Moses was “raised up” by God, but Jesus was “raised up” by resurrection (Acts 2:34-36). Moses “received the living words and gave them” (Acts 7:38) but Jesus receives the Holy Spirit and gives it to his disciples (Acts 2:33).

It seems then, that Pentecost is meant to be understood in parallel to the Giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Obviously, much could be said about the relationship between the Law and the Spirit, but that will have to be said at another time and place. For the present, I would like to simply focus on the theophany aspect. If Pentecost is a New Sinai (following the New Exodus in Jesus’ death and resurrection – cf. Lk. 9:30, when Jesus speaks to Moses and Elijah about the exodus he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem), notice how instead of God descending upon the mountain, he descends upon the entire community of believers. Rather than the people remaining at a distance while only Moses approaches God, the community of women and men is the place where God manifests his theophanic presence. The Church, the New Covenant people, become a theophany in person.

The Church is the mountain upon which God descends in theophanic glory and like Israel, takes up a priestly vocation to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth – to be agents through whom God deals with the problem of sin and restores the creation to Himself and to His intentions for it. As Moses proclaimed the Word of God to the people after God met him on the mountain – the assembled believers began proclaiming the mighty acts of God to those who were in Jerusalem.

As I asked previously, so now I ask – what would a “praxis of Pentecost” look like, in light of this understanding? I think, in relation to what has been said here, it begins with the recognition and celebration of the fact that God is with us. There is much to be said concerning intercession for God’s presence and purposes as well as much to be said about the experience of God-forsakeness (cf. Ps. 22). Jeremiah spoke of a time when there would be a New Covenant and one person would not tell another to “know the Lord” because they all would know the Lord. This time of New Covenant has come and is an experienced reality in the community of believers. Few could deny our need to know the Lord in deeper and clearer ways. I am even aware of a deep reticence within myself to speak concerning my knowledge of God, conceivably in order to maintain some form of humility. However, I think we need to find a way to speak positively about our knowledge of God – to recognize that God has descended in our midst, that he dwells among us, and we do indeed know Him. Perhaps a way forward in this is the awareness that the Church corporately is the location of this New Covenant theophany. Individual, all of “see in a glass dimly,” (1 Cor. 13:12) but together “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

Related posts

• We’ve Been Unbabeled – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 2) (1)
• When the Day of Pentecost had Fully Come… (Part 1) (0)
• Out of Exile – When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 4) (0)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)