Quenching the Holy Spirit

Quench
to put out or extinguish (fire, flames, etc.)

I have this habit, and I haven't decided if it's a good one or a bad one yet, where I get a new book and instead of reading it through, I read the first chapter and the last chapter. Sometimes I'll skim through the middle and look for things that interest me. It's surprising how much you can understand what an author is saying by doing that. I tend to do this for a couple of reasons: first, I simply don't have the time (read: don't want to take the time) to read through everything; and second, I got the book because I want to hear what conclusion the author comes to, not really how he got there.

One of the books I've recently done this with is Keep In Step with the Holy Spirit, by J.I. Packer. There are some Christian authors who tend to be either liked or disliked, agreed with and disagreed with. In this camp you would have guys like Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Brian MacLaren, Rob Bell, John MacArthur, and Mark Driscoll for example. And then there are guys who are almost universally accepted and respected. In this camp you would have guys like John Stott, J.I. Packer, and C.S. Lewis. I may be wrong about this, but it's really the sense I get. So when I was reading Packer's book on the Holy Spirit, I was very excited to see how bold he was in calling the Christians and the Church back to "keeping in step with the Holy Spirit." This is a lengthy quote, but I think it raises positively crucial questions for churches today:

"Now it is hard to deny that we inherit today a situation in which the Spirit of God has been quenched. Unnatural as it may be, the Spirit's power is absent from the majority of our churches. What has caused that? In some quarters, certainly, it is the direct result of devaluing the Bible and the gospel and wandering out of the green pastures of God's Word into the barren flats of human speculation. In other places, however, where the 'old paths' of evangelical belief have not been abandoned, the quenching of the Spirit is due to attitudes and inhibitions on the personal and practical level, which have simply stifled his work. Perhaps the words conventionality and traditionalism best express what I have in mind. There is subtle tenacity abroad that remains wedded to the way things were done a hundred years ago. It thinks that it renders God service by being faithful (that is the word used) to these outmoded fashions; it never faces the possibility that they might need amending today if ever we are to communicate effectively with each other and with those outside our circles. Letting our inherited buildings dictate what we do and do not do when we meet in them is part of this traditionalist syndrome - and it is often a very potent part, as surely as we can all see. Churches tend to run in grooves of conventionality, and such grooves quickly turn into graves.

"Here is where the challenge to institutional radicalism comes in: a challenge to which charismatic groups have been noticeably more alert than some others. Only styles and structures that serve the Spirit should stand. Everything bogging us down in lifeless routines or retaining the fruitful use of spiritual gifts or encouraging people in the pews to become passengers should be changed, no matter how sacrosanct we previously took it to be. The Holy Spirit is not a sentimentalist as too many of us are; he is a change agent, and he comes to change human structures as well as human hearts. Change for its own sake is mere fidgeting, but change that gets rid of obstacles to God's fullest blessing is both a necessity and a mercy.

"How much change are we willing to accept, in order to reach the point where the Spirit is no longer quenched? Are we radical enough in our view of traditional patterns as potential Spirit grievers and Spirit quenchers? Are we sufficiently ready to alter them if it should appear that this really is their effect? This question will not go away; we have to live with it, and much depends, for the health of both our own souls and of our churches, on how we face up to it."

Kaitlyn shared with me recently her thoughts after having read her Missiology textbook. She was reading about the history of missions, and she was struck with how often and how consistently it was the human efforts & plans of Christian missionaries that quenched what the Holy Spirit was doing in a people. The fact remains today that we so often get in the way of what the God is doing. In a sense, of course, God accomplishes what He wills and we cannot stop or hinder Him, but in another sense, we have the responsibility - especially anyone in some sort of spiritual leadership - to keep in the step with the Spirit and not hinder or quench Him.

I can't help but think of churches that I know, where allegiance to traditional forms and structures clearly alienates and distances unbelievers. Sometimes these churches weaken and decline so dreadfully that they come to a point of crisis where they are desperate and willing to change simply out of necessity. This is God's discipline on churches, and it is a sign of His love and grace, because it is at this point of crisis that they have hope for change and a fresh new breath of the Holy Spirit.

But many other churches, enamored with "the good ol' days" with the "good ol' ways" continue on, lacking the vitality and life that only the Holy Spirit can give. And not seeing their need for repentance and change, they are content to continue in their increasingly segregated sub-culture of traditionalist Christianity while the community and culture around them grow increasingly distant and unable to understand or relate to them.

The trouble with this kind of talk is that the very people who need to think hard and deep about it are understandably skeptical about it. It smells of compromise. It tastes of those Christians who in an effort to be "relevant" have become indistinguishable from the world. I agree wholeheartedly that that is an extreme to be avoided, but what I am trying to say is that there is another extreme to be avoided as well, one that traditional and conservative churches are far more in danger of falling into.

Tim Keller explains this brilliantly in a short video interview (you can find it on iTunes by searching for The Gospel Coalition podcast. It is a video interview with Tim Keller and Don Carson called "What Causes Fragmentation in Evangelicalism Today?"). He says that there are basically two camps that most evangelicals fall into. On one hand you have those who think that the main problem is that culture is so bad, so corrupted, so sinful, that we have to be extremely vigilant against it, and make sure we do not become polluted - the main problem is that the church is being polluted by the world, and being assimilated into it. On the other hand, you have some who say the exact opposite - that the main problem - is that we have become disengaged, distant, isolated, withdrawn, marginal, too conservative, and out of tune with the lost world. Keller points out that the Bible calls us to a balance between these two (1 Peter 2:12), and watching out for both extremes. Choosing one side over the other is always easier, but we are called to hold these things in tension.

I think that this gets at the heart of a balance that churches need to struggle with. Every one of us is probably prone to one side or the other - I know that I am more prone to the first one, to wanting to separate and distinguish ourselves from the world at all costs - yet we are all called to live in tension and to guard against the unhealthy extremes.

So I ask you, what are you more prone to? What is your church more prone to? What do you have to guard against? And where in your life or your church does there need to be an intentional effort to bring about balance?

As we ask and wrestle with these hard questions, I am convinced that the Holy Spirit will be pleased to empower our efforts, reviving our souls and - Lord may it be so - our churches.