Christians are just now celebrating again one of the big moments in the “God story,” the phenomenal, confusing, exhilarating event we call Pentecost. On that day, the early followers of Jesus were seized by God’s presence, and they came to understand this as the gracious act of God whereby the Holy Spirit was now taking up residence within believers.
That is generally considered a good thing. In writing that sentence, I realize this is a stupid statement. The presence of God in us, in power and love, is so overwhelmingly beneficial that to describe this as “generally a good thing” must seem bizarre. The common testimony of those who have experienced, at some point in their lives, a sudden, intense awareness of God-within, is that they felt ecstacy, cleansing and awe. That is profoundly a good thing.
Yet these are not common moments in the life of the believer, and many Christians spend all their days without a spiritual experience of that sort. Nevertheless, every Christian believer, with or without exceptional moments of ecstatic worship, is only able to exercise faith and make moral progress through the coaching and encouragement of the Holy Spirit.
And here is why this is “generally considered a good thing,” but not entirely. When God takes hold in our lives, the goal is an extreme makeover. In the end we will be far better, but getting there is anything but serene. Every time God calls attention to my pride, lethargy, willfulness and impure desires, my soul is restless until it is properly addressed. So, the disciplining work of the Holy Spirit is “generally a good thing,” because the result is my sanctification, but in the short term the awareness of the Holy Refiner turning up the heat is humbling and hard.
To me, this puts in a better light the vow everyone takes at ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA), to “further the peace, unity and purity of the church.” There is a lot of discussion across the denomination about this vow, in view of the deep conflicts over the range of acceptable beliefs and behavior for church leaders. Is it possible simultaneously to promote peace, unity and purity?
I think we get off to a bad start if we assume primary responsibility for creating a church that is at peace, unified, and pure. We will always bungle this, because we lack God’s perspective. The Holy Spirit, who is now at the center of the church, is the disturber of the peace. The peace that we enjoy as God’s people is a by-product of the purifying work of the Spirit. Peace is that deep assurance that the holy God will not let us alone but will reshape us until we are conformed to the likeness of the Son of God.
I am willing to further the peace, unity and purity of the church, as long as everyone knows I am not driving this project. On the contrary, when I sense the presence of the Holy I am aware once again that not only am I not driving; I am driven.
Journeys 
What does the last paragraph mean? Is “I” the reader or Rick Carter, I? Double negative means, I am driving, I am driven? And in the prior paragraph, “reshape us until we are conformed” and “to the likeness of the Son of God.” Is there any room for opinion here? What if a person wants to ignore the reshaping? And would the push back be the “Disturber” of the peace working thru us??
Also, “range of acceptable beliefs” used above implies so many things. Could you clarify this?
Also, “perfection can exist in this world and other existences cannot be denied, even if they are not perfect.” Does this fit “the range of acceptable beliefs? Can we choose what we believe?
I ask all above with all seriousness, theologically.
By: Rich on May 31, 2012
at 8:40 pm
Great questions, Rich. Yes, I am speaking personally here. In the double negative, “not only am I not driving,” I call attention to the fact that my desire is not to let my agenda eclipse what God wants to do through me. It’s a prayer and hope: “God, may I be driven by the Spirit.”
Regarding the reshaping, yes, there is room for opinion on what God is trying to create in us. Precisely because we do not perceive God’s will perfectly, we will always get it wrong – a little or a lot. And you’re right: that is why we must welcome the Disturber of the peace to move us closer to the goal.
The “range of acceptable beliefs and behavior” is that centuries-long debate about how narrowly or widely to define our faith. For instance, a current debate, not just among Presbyterians, is whether to say Jesus is my Savior I must also affirm the theory of atonement. Or, to illustrate in terms of behavior, forty years ago it was not uncommon to hear Christians teach that if one has initiated divorce on unbiblical grounds, that deliberate sin may have jeopardized the person’s salvation (or proven that the person never was a Christian). The basic question is, are there any actions or behaviors that call into question whether someone is saved? There is a range of answers among Christians.
“Can we choose what we believe?” On the face of it, everyone does, and we hope that every believer does so with sincerity, humility, a passion to go deeper into God’s Word, and a willingness to be corrected.
By: rickcarter on June 7, 2012
at 1:13 am