Thursday Theology: Speaking of the Holy Spirit: More Than Vibes, More Than Us

Co-missioners,  

This week I offer a few of my own thoughts on the sort of language I hear myself and others using about the Holy Spirit, wondering out loud if we might not have gone a little bit too far in our confident declarations. 

I covet your thoughts! 

Peace & grace, 
Co-editor Robin Lütjohann 
for the Crossings Community 

________________________________________________________  

Speaking of the Holy Spirit: More Than Vibes, More Than Us 

by Robin Lütjohann 

Descent of the Holy Spirit (Novodevichy Convent)
From Wikimedia Commons

I find myself feeling uneasy about the way we sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit. It has become common in church circles to make confident declarations about the Spirit’s work that are casually expressed as a matter of fact. I have participated in this often, mea culpa. For example, when a worship service is perceived to be particularly inspiring, we hear folks say that one can “feel the Spirit.” Are we so sure about that? Or when decisions in church governance or elections go in a way we agree with, we exclaim, “The Spirit is moving!” How do we know that exactly?  

Since Christ warned severely against blaspheming the Spirit, we ought to be cautious in how we speak of the third Person of the Trinity.  

Even the conclave that elects a pope does not claim to discern the Spirit’s choice directly. In a 1997 interview, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was asked whether the Holy Spirit chooses the pope. His answer was refreshingly honest: “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. . . . There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” 

I agree with the late bishop of Rome! The Holy Spirit does not override our decision-making or guarantee our success. The Spirit accompanies us—sometimes through our mistakes, often through our learning, and always through the Word that calls us back to Christ. The Scriptures and the catholic tradition are consistent on this point: the Holy Spirit is given and promised in the proclamation of Christ crucified and risen, in the sacraments, in the forgiveness of sins, and in the community gathered around that Word. There the Spirit’s work is sure and trustworthy. 

Beyond that—whether in institutional decisions, consensus processes, leadership elections, call votes, meaningful worship experiences, or world events—we may pray for the Spirit’s guidance and give voice to our hope or impression that the Spirit is working through something/someone, but we dare not speak with the same certainty, as if to say: “This is the Holy Spirit!” 

After all, one might also ask: Which “spirit” exactly is being felt or observed when we speak as if we KNOW that the Spirit is doing this or that? Are we sure it is the one called “Holy”? Party spirit (Gal. 5:20), team spirit, fighting spirit, school spirit, “The Spirit of ’76,” the “Spirit of Vatican II,” Zeitgeist, Weltgeist (Hegel), Volksgeist (Herder, Savigny) all refer to certain pneumata (Greek word for all kinds of spirits, not just the Paraclete) that are discerned through collective human experience, a kind of mass intuition often involving very profound and moving experiences — but that does not make these spirits holy! In the Smalcald Articles (III, VIII, 3–13), Luther warned of Schwärmerei (usually translated “enthusiasm”) as he saw it swarm about wherever the “Spirit” was appealed to without reference to Christ or his Gospel. 

We must be clear: The Spirit is a divine Person, who chooses freely when and where to be at work (John 3:8). The Spirit is not an impersonal force that we can tap into if we just concentrate or pray hard enough. Neither is the Holy Spirit a shorthand for the collection of all of our individual spirits, or some sort of ghostly presence that can be invoked or called down by ritual action. Emphatically, the Holy Spirit is not the sum of our collective intentions and experiences–not even our most joyful and transformative, or our most prayerful and scripturally grounded ones.  

Sculpture representing the dove of the Holy Spirit in Saint-Pierre Cathedral in Rennes, Brittany, France.
From Wikimedia Commons

It is noteworthy that Scripture, too, nowhere portrays the Holy Spirit as directly responsible for the voting or decision-making procedure of the church in the manner that has become common among us. When the Spirit’s agency is mentioned in connection with communal decisions, it is always in the mode of guidance through the Word, prayerful discernment, or divine initiative — but never as a sanctioning of human procedural outcomes. 

Nota bene: Matthias is chosen by lot, not by consensus. The seven deacons are appointed by the community as people “full of the Spirit and wisdom,” indeed, but no claim is made that the Spirit did the choosing. At Antioch, the Holy Spirit acted directly and clearly in choosing Barnabas and Saul—not through a vote or communal consensus, but through divine command and speech. And even when the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem conclude that “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit” to include Gentiles (Acts 15:28), this is preceded by “much debate” (v. 7) and study of the Scriptures about a doctrinal issue. The Spirit is invoked as speaking through the Scriptures, not as causing the decision or driving the consensus through a communal dynamic. Where the Holy Spirit is clearly said to be acting in this passage, however, is as having “testified to” (8) Gentiles about the Gospel and “cleansing their hearts by faith” (9), giving them conviction that they “will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (11). 

The Holy Spirit’s work is to point us to Christ, to bring his benefits to us, and to create faith where there was none. The Spirit is not a euphemism for collective instinct. The Spirit is the living God whose faithfulness does not depend on the outcome of our group processes, but who comes to us through Word and Sacrament, with forgiveness, life, and salvation. 

When Christ is proclaimed, when forgiveness is received, when love and patience are practiced even amid disagreement—then we may indeed rejoice that the Spirit is moving. But as for our collective decisions in governance or momentary “vibes”, we ought to be more cautious when associating them with the Spirit’s work. Time will tell. Right now, only God knows. 

I hope you hear me offering these reflections not as pedantry or needless nitpicking, but as a plea for theological care and precision in our shared vocation.