Vince Deagler

hi out there.  for those not following along, my name is vince and i’m a pastor in modesto, ca.  we have been working through ephesians in our sunday services.  many of my blogs have at least tried to connect with that study in some way, not all, but most.  well, this sunday we are dealing with a somewhat controversial issue within evangelical christianity.  ephesians 5:18 challenges us as followers of jesus to be filled with the spirit.  that should not be controversial, but unfortunately it often is.  from my perspective, and i will readily admit i am narrow minded here, much of this controversy is the result of a willingness to elevate feelings, experience, and desires over what scripture says.  now don’t misread what i am saying.  i have specific views in these areas.  i do feel my views are as correct as i can be at this time.  (i do not intentionally hold onto views i feel are incorrect).  but i do not necessarily think i have the only correct views.  i am an imperfect human, and as such the idea that i am always right is unrealistic.  in fact i have found when i look back over the years, my views are liable to change as i gain more information and have more time to consider a given subject.  i think that is what spiritual growth is all about.  but right now, based on my understanding of scripture, i have come to certain conclusions.  what i find troubling is a tendency within evangelicalism to avoid doing the hard work of figuring out what god actually has said.  i cannot think of anything more important, can you?  i mean as far as i can tell, our faith is built on scripture.  to ignore, neglect, or minimize what the scripture actually says, completely invalidates our credibility.  the trouble is, in some areas it is much easier to come to a consensus than in others.  and the holy spirit seems to be one of those controversial areas where i have encountered a genuine unwillingness to dig into certain scriptures and allow them to guide our thoughts regarding his ministry today.  instead, what i find true much too often, is we go to scripture with preconceived ideas that we are looking to prove.  this is not the purpose of scripture.  we are to look to god’s word to establish our beliefs, not impose our beliefs on god’s word.  this happens far too often.  now, because the holy spirit is a vast subject, lets limit our focus today to just what paul addresses in ephesians 5:18.

the text says “do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.  instead, be filled with the spirit.”  the first issue we must grapple with is the meaning of “filled”.  it is easy to conclude what paul is saying is we need more holy spirit.   that would be consistent with our understanding of “filled” today.  but this passage was written about 2000 years ago in another language (greek).  the issue is what did the greek word translated as “filled” mean back then?  well as soon as you start looking you get a different idea.  in luke 6:11 the same word is used .  the NIV translates it as “…they were furious…” (filled with anger).  john 16:6 uses it in the phrase “…you are filled with grief…”.  acts 13:52 uses it in “…the disciples were filled with joy…”.  as far as i can tell, the meaning of being filled with anger, joy, or grief is the emotion takes control of the person and dictates what they say or do.  now why is this important?  it is my experience that many christians see the idea of the filling of the spirit as some kind of second blessing experience where they get more of, an extra measure of the holy spirit.  does that fit with what filled with anger, grief, or joy, means?  is it not more consistent to see being filled with the holy spirit as meaning in the same way anger, grief, or joy can control an individual, so should the holy spirit control the believer.  in fact when you look at how paul leads into the command for filling, i think you see this exact point.  do not get drunk with wine…  was ephasus a church of drunks?  maybe.  or perhaps paul was illustrating what the filling of the spirit is like.  alcohol can control an individual and lead them to do things they would not normally do (debauchery).  for a believer, this would be inappropriate, instead they were to be filled with the spirit.  instead of being controlled by alcohol, they were to be controlled by the holy spirit.  the significance of this is we do not have to figure out how to get more of the holy spirit, we already have all the holy spirit (the ephesians had already been blessed with every spiritual blessing 1:3).  what we need to do is  relinquish the control of our life to the holy spirit.  it is a necessary step to living as a christ follower is supposed to live (paul fleshes out the result of spiritual control in vs. 19-21.)

but do you realize we have just scratched the surface on this topic?  there are all kinds of ideas floating around evangelical christianity as to the results of being filled.  for instance this passage mentions three - praise, thankfulness, submission.  but is that the entire picture?  are other characteristics in play?  for instance, acts 2:4 refers to the filling of the spirit and says the disciples spoke in other languages after they were filled.  is this the same kind of filling?  or were other things taking place in acts 2 that were not in the picture in ephesians?  and what about these other languages?  there are 3 mentions of them in acts - here in acts 2, again in acts 10 ( here the text connects the experience of acts 10 with what occurred in acts 2, see also acts 15:8), lastly in acts 19 (because there is no explanation that this phenomena is different from the earlier incidents i assume they are basically the same).  the only other place speaking in other languages is referenced in scripture is in mark 16:17 (which has some real textual issues), and paul’s epistle to the corinthians.  so are those references in mark and 1 corinthians the same kind of miracle?  if not, on what basis do you say they differ?  how do these texts compare to the practice of speaking in other languages today?  i could go on and on, here is what i’m getting at.  if scripture is important, (i think it is) we need to figure out what it says, what it means, and how it applies today.  to figure out what it says means we have to look at all the scriptures.  to omit some because they are difficult or contradictory to our views will prohibit us from getting at the truth.  once we know what it says we have to figure out what that means…as in filled may be better understood as controlled by.  and then we can figure out how it applies right here and right now. 

i do not practice what are often called the charismatic gifts.  i know many people who do.  the vast majority of them i would lump into the category of “i don’t care what the bible says, this is what i believe”.  others have done some work wrestling with the various texts that address the different gifts, but there are some texts they avoid or misrepresent.  for instance, if the other languages in corinth are different than those in acts (this is the prevailing view among those who practice the charismatic gifts), where is the explanation as to why?  if they are heavenly, prayer, angelic languages (i have heard all of these labels) where in scripture does god speak or angels speak in this way.  every time god or an angel speaks in the bible, as far as i know, they speak a known human language.  another question i have is paul seems, at least to me, to be speaking very negatively about how the corinthians exercised the charismatic gifts.  this is especially true in ch. 14.  he appears to condemn them and considers them childish (14:20).  so why would anyone want to follow that pattern?  and what does 14:20-22 teach us? what is the old testament passage being quoted have to do with this gift of languages? what is a sign? how does it differ from a revelatory gift? if it is a sign, what does it point to? how is it for unbelievers instead of believers? and why would the church want to replicate a practice that paul said the very people we are trying to reach for christ will think we are out of our mind if we do this? (see vs. 14:23)   and what about all the instructions paul gives in this chapter, are they still valid?  are they followed?  and if speaking in other languages will end as it says in 13:8, when will this occur?  please don’t fall into the trap of vs. 9-12.  if you notice in the text, they do not at all mention speaking in other languages.  they refer to knowledge and prophecy only, at least that’s how i see it.  if you see it differently, why?  this is why i refer to interpretation as wrestling with the text, or doing the hard work of figuring out what god actually said.

hey, we could always just make it up as we go along (but that wouldn’t be christianity, would it?)  we could just accept everything we are taught as if it were true (of course that didn’t work so well for the followers of jim jones or david koresh, etc.).  we could say it doesn’t really matter (but why would god have included it if that were true).  etc.  or, we could do the work because it does matter.  will we all come to the same conclusion?  i doubt it, in fact i hope not.  i’m pretty sure i have blind spots and mistaken understandings.  i’m pretty sure we all do.  if we were to all agree these misconceptions would never be challenged or corrected.  will this end all controversy?  probably not, but it should make controversial issues much less divisive.  thanks for putting up with my insanity.  blessings.  vince