Four Views of Spirit-Baptism

Posted on by

About Dr Barry Chant
Barry Chant is an ordained minister in the CRC Churches Int. He is a regular speaker at church services, seminars, conferences and conventions. Hundreds of thousands of his books have been sold around the world. He has degrees in arts, theology and ministry, a diploma in education and a PhD in history. He was the founding president of Tabor College, Australia.
Terms of Use
You are welcome to read, download and print this document without cost. If you want to pass on copies to others or use them in your local church Bible study group or Christian fellowship, please acknowledge the name of the author (Dr Barry Chant), the copyright date and the source of the material (www.barrychant.com).

FOUR VIEWS OF SPIRIT-BAPTISM
Also available here in PDF

The question of baptism in the Spirit has been a controversial one for a long time. Part of the problem lies in the different ways we use the term. It can easily mean different things to different people. It is this different usage which generally distinguishes Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics and Third Wavers from one another.
Surprisingly enough, the phrase ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ doesn’t actually occur in Scripture. This may seem like splitting hairs, because the verbal form ‘baptise in the Spirit’ does. But actually, realising this fact ought to set a red light or two flashing. Nouns tend to result in theological definitions. Verbs tend to speak of a dynamic experience. The biblical emphasis is clearly on the latter, not the former.
The Evangelical view
The Evangelical view is that we are baptised in the Holy Spirit at the moment of regeneration. or, as an integral element of conversion.
Key texts are Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13. Gordon Fee describes the Evangelical position like this—
• Paul frequently refers to conversion in terms of the Spirit (Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:21; Titus 3:6; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 6:17)
• The Spirit plays a leading role in describing what happens to the believer (Galatians 3:2-5; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 12:13)
• Believers and non-believers are described in terms of having or not having the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:6-16; 12:3; Romans 8:9)
Romans 8:9 is a foundational text — ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to him’. On the basis of this, Evangelicals argue that every believer has the Spirit and therefore, given that there is but one Spirit, there is no possibility of any additional or subsequent receiving of the Spirit. Hence, it is plain that we are baptised in the Spirit at the moment of believing.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12:13 is seen as plainly teaching that it is by baptism in the Spirit that we become members of the body of Christ. ‘For in one Spirit, we were all baptised into one body.’ This is seen as indisputable evidence that there is no such thing as a baptism in the Spirit subsequent to conversion. James Dunn says—
…1 Cor 12:13, where the initiatory character is clear beyond any serious dispute: …that is, membership in the body of Christ is what baptism in the Spirit brings about. The conclusion is irresistible, that if a theology of ‘baptism in the Spirit’ is to be based on the NT teaching on the subject, it must refer to the beginning of the Christian experience, the action by which God draws the individual into the sphere of the Spirit, into the community of those ‘being saved’, and thus makes a decisive beginning of the work of saving grace in that individual.’
Writers like John Stott, Geoffrey Bingham and Ken Smith agree. For Evangelicals, the whole purpose of God is that men and women should be indwelt by the Spirit. All of salvation history was geared towards this great phenomenon—that human beings would become dwelling places for the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22; 3:11). Internationally renowned evangelist Billy Graham puts it like this—
The biblical truth, it seems to me, is that we are baptised into the body of Christ by the Spirit at conversion. This is the only Spirit baptism. At this time, we can and should be filled with the Holy Spirit, and afterward, be refilled, and even filled into all fullness. As has often been said, ‘One baptism, but many fillings.’ The perceived evidence of the indwelling Spirit is this promise of Scripture together with a deep, ongoing sense of assurance in the heart of the believer. Paul declares that it is the Spirit himself who testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children (Romans 8:16). The apostle John points out that we know we live in God and that God lives in us because he has given us his Spirit (1 John 4:13).
Passages in Acts which seem to indicate a subsequent experience of the Spirit are generally explained as being a-typical or as actually describing a conversion experience. So it is argued that the records of Acts 2, 8 and 19 described ‘ethnic’ Pentecosts which are never to be repeated. Smith even goes so far as to argue that even though the Samaritans had received the Word of God with great joy and been baptised in water (Acts 8:8, 12, 14), they were not actually converted until Peter and John came to pray with them for the Holy Spirit to come upon them.
It needs to be noted that the Evangelical position does not necessarily exclude the experience and exercise of the gifts of Christ. Evangelical and cessationist views are not the same. Nevertheless, the Evangelical position raises some interesting questions. If it is right, how do we explain Pentecostal experiences of the Spirit? If it is wrong, have most Evangelicals not been baptised in the Holy Spirit at all? Or are there other options?
The Pentecostal view
Pentecostals believe that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience discrete from conversion with the normal initial sign of speaking in tongues.
The Pentecostal concept derives from the Wesleyan idea of ‘entire sanctification’ (or ‘Christian perfection’). According to Wesley, it was not enough to be converted. It was also necessary to be sanctified. This ‘entire sanctification’ was an identifiable experience which followed conversion—a so-called ‘second blessing’. Among Pentecostals, it came to be called baptism in the Holy Spirit with the immediate sign of tongues.
J.R.Williams writes—
Pentecostals view baptism in the Holy Spirit as an experience that presupposes conversion… Pentecostals often speak of baptism in the Spirit as being both distinct from and subsequent to salvation… The distinctive event of Spirit baptism is primarily exhibited through speaking in tongues.
An undated pioneer leaflet distributed in Parramatta, New South Wales, in the 1920s declared—
In all of these outpourings of the Spirit, the same evidence was manifested, the speaking in tongues. The Holy Ghost gave us the three incidents of companies receiving the Holy Ghost to establish the fact that the Spirit always speaks in tongues through a baptised believer.
The Statement of Faith for Good News Hall, Australia’s first Pentecostal assembly, declared, `We believe that a definite physical manifestation accompanies the reception of the Holy Spirit.’The Assemblies of God Statement of Faith was even more plain—
(We believe) in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit for all be¬lievers with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
This has continued to be the Pentecostal position. Some would argue that glossolalia is not an essential initial sign, but a normative one, but in practice, it is expected that it will occur.
The Pentecostal position is based on the view that in the Gospels and Acts there is a clear pattern of people being converted without having been baptised in the Spirit. Given that the phrase ‘receive the Holy Spirit’ is used in Acts about a discrete experience of the Spirit (eg Acts 8:15; 10:47), Pentecostals also use this phrase in this way.
So does this mean that those who are not so baptised in the Holy Spirit, are not part of the body of Christ? For all sorts of reasons, this is unacceptable. If we take a Pentecostal view, this would mean that only those who speak in tongues are members of the Church. If we take an Evangelical view, it would mean that millions of Pentecostal believers have been deceived.
A better understanding of the Pentecostal position can be found by taking up the image used by both John the Baptist and Jesus. Just as John baptised in water, so Jesus would baptise in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11,12; Acts 1:5). John immersed people in water ‘for’ or ‘with respect to’ repentance. But this repentance had already occurred prior to the baptism. So Jesus immerses us in the Spirit ‘for’ or ‘with respect to’ an incorporation into the body of Christ that has already occurred. It is not through being baptised in the Spirit that we are brought into Christ’s body; it is because we are already members of that body, by faith, that we are baptised in the Spirit.
The Pentecostal movement began in several places around the world at the beginning of the 20th century. Because of its radical emphasis on being baptised in the Spirit—and especially glossolalia—its early adherents usually found themselves cut off from mainline denominations. The result was a new movement embracing a large number of denominations such as the Assemblies of God, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the Apostolic Church, the Church of God, the Elim Pentecostal Church, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Christian Revival Crusade and numerous others.
The Charismatic view
The charismatic view is that baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience discrete from conversion but not necessarily accompanied by the initial sign of tongues. It is sometimes called a ‘release’ or a ‘realisation’ of the Spirit.
The movement began in the 1960s in the US and Great Britain and in the 1970s in Australia. It was fundamentally Pentecostal but there was less insistence on ‘tongues’—or as this new movement began to call it, ‘glossolalia’. This time, its adherents were usually not evicted from their churches and remained as active members. Often denominational charismatic fellowships were formed.
Australian writer Geoff Waugh, a former Methodist, writes—
What about tongues? Some groups over-emphasise this evidence of the Spirit’s filling. When we pray for the fullness of the Spirit, we may experience this release, and some people in your group may have a prayer language, which is very meaning¬ful to them. That’s beautiful and biblical… However, we ought to avoid pressing our experience on to others. The gift of tongues is one evidence of the Spirit’s release. There are others.
American Lutheran pastor Larry Christenson puts it like this—
Lutheran Charismatics have generally steered clear of this Pentecostal position… (they) would recognize it (ie tongues) as AN evidence of being filled with the Spirit, but stop short of calling it THE evidence. .
Lederle sees several categories of opinion about the place of glossolalia. He himself tries hard, but unconvincingly, to dismiss the idea of ‘subsequence’ (ie that baptism in the Spirit normally succeeds conversion), although virtually all the people he cites hold to this position including leading charismatics such as Dennis Bennett (Anglican), Larry Christenson (Lutheran), Peter Hocken (Catholic), Steve Clark (Catholic), Rodman Williams (Presbyterian) and Howard Ervin (Baptist).
As Lederle points out, there have been various attempts to re-phrase the doctrine. Catholics, for example, tend to stress a sacramental approach. Hence, they may avoid the phrase ‘baptism in the Spirit’ and use other alternatives such as the ‘release of the Spirit’ they received at baptism. A charismatic Catholic document puts it like this—
Whatever the terminological decisions of each country it is important that all be saying the same thing, namely that the power of the Holy Spirit, given in Christian initiation but hitherto unexperienced, becomes a matter of personal experi¬ence.
To Catholics, this ‘actualisation’ of the reality of the Spirit given in baptism thus satisfies both Catholic and Pentecostal theology. In practice, most charismatics come back to the simple Wesleyan concept, usually accompanied by tongues. However, perhaps because of a laudable desire for unity, there is often a reluctance to claim that tongues ought to be the expected sign.
Larry Christenson argues persuasively for a serious appraisal of the Pentecostal approach, even if they have ‘over systematized their own perception and experience of the Holy Spirit.’
Given the worldwide spread and witness of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements… the church as a whole must consider questions not only of exegesis and systematic theology but also of the Spirit’s strategy. The emphasis on a personal Pentecost—an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in one’s life, a baptism with the Holy Spirit—how are we to understand it? Its key role in the amazing spread of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity is well documented, but what are we to make of it?…
Whether one understands this as an appropriation of something already received (Sacramental, Evangelical) or a reception of something promised (Pentecostal), the strategy of the Spirit will be served: the Spirit will be poured out; believers will talk about the Holy Spirit with a new sense of reality; they will walk in a new dimension of reality and power; and the Lord’s people will register gains against the powers that oppose the gospel.
So the charismatic view is less narrowly defined than the Pentecostal position, but nevertheless, it also strongly teaches that being converted and being baptised in the Spirit are not necessarily the same thing.
The Third Wave view
The so-called Third Wave view is that baptism in the Holy Spirit may occur either at regeneration or as a discrete experience, with or without signs. Spiritual gifts are an expression of this experience.
The Third Wave position is best represented by the Vineyard movement, founded by John Wimber. In Power Evangelism, Wimber argues that both Paul and Luke use the phrase ‘baptise in the Spirit’ differently. He tries to choose the best of both worlds—
Following this line of reasoning, which most conservative evangelicals agree with, the born-again experience is the consummate charismatic experience—what Paul would refer to as being baptised in the Holy Spirit. Any ensuing interaction between the individual and the Holy Spirit would come under the heading of ‘fillings,’ as taught by Paul. Further these fillings may happen again and again—they are both initiatory and repeatable.So, following Paul, it is probably best to speak of ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit.’ But in Luke we find warrant in using ‘being baptised with the Holy Spirit.’ Both terms convey the fact that it is urgent for Christians to seek sincerely the power of the Holy Spirit.
In his attempt to avoid taking a position one way or the other, Wimber actually finishes up with what looked like an ambiguous theology. In practice, he taught that every believer had the Spirit from the time of regeneration. This being so, every believer could use any spiritual gift at any time it is needed—
When I talk with evangelicals about the Holy Spirit, I ask if when they were born again they received the Spirit. If they answer yes (and they should), I tell them all that remains is to actualise what the Spirit has, all that is required is to release the gifts. I then lay hands on them and say, ‘Be filled with the Spirit’—and they are.
A 1994 conference organised by Wimber was described as being ‘for anyone who desires to minister with increasing effectiveness in the power of the Holy Spirit.’
Further, while Wimber was an enthusiast for spiritual gifts, in his writings, he does not give any special priority to tongues. ‘Tongues are not the focus of the Spirit’s filling.’ Yet, on the other hand, ‘too many evangelicals want the Spirit but not the Spirit’s gifts, an attitude that violates scriptural teaching.’
An official Vineyard publication, largely quoting Wimber, declares—
When a person is converted, he or she receives the Holy Spirit, although the Holy Spirit may not be experienced at that time. Conversion and the initial filling experience of the Holy Spirit can happen simultaneously (ie actualising His power and gifts). Anyone born again has the potential of experiencing the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit. We should expect this experience—Scripture teaches it is apart [sic] of the normal Christian life… Many evangelicals do want the Spirit but not the gifts (especially tongues), an attitude that violates scriptural teaching…
Wimber is said to have described his position as evangelical in theology but charismatic in experience. This is helpful, although it could be argued that the same could be said of Pentecostals and Charismatics.
While Australian theologian Geoffrey Bingham would deny that he belonged to the Third Wave movement—or to any such movement, for that matter—his theology is similar. He argues plainly that we are baptised in the Spirit at conversion and that we then have a need to be continually filled with the Spirit. Spiritual gifts are ‘part of Christ’s fullness’ and hence available to every believer. In pastoral practice, Bingham does encourage people to seek a specific infilling of the Holy Spirit. He both believes in and practises glossolalia.
In recent times, C.Peter Wagner has become the best known spokesman for the Third Wave movement, with basically a similar stance to that of Wimber.
A proposed synthesis
A dominant and profound teaching of the New Testament is that from the moment we become Christians, everything spiritual is ours. We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). We have come to fullness of life in Christ (Colossians 2:9, 10). We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:10). His divine promises have given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3, 4). We lack nothing (1 Corinthians 1:7). Everything is in Christ and if we have him we have all we can possibly need (Ephesians 1:1-23; Colossians 1:1-23). This includes the Holy Spirit. Having received Christ, we are indwelt by the Spirit (Romans 8:9).
However, the problem is that often we do not claim or take possession of those blessings that are already ours. So we have peace in Christ but we do not live in a state of peace. We have joy but we do not rejoice. We are forgiven, but we are still beset by shame and guilt.
Similarly, we have the Spirit but we may not be living in the power of the Spirit. It is necessary for us to claim by faith this blessing that is already ours. ‘Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?’ asks Paul (Galatians 3:5). The truth is that the experience of immersion or empowerment by the Spirit is potentially ours from the moment of conversion. And for some it is a reality from that very point. For others, it comes later. Either way, the same evidence of being baptised in the Spirit can normally be expected, namely glossolalia.
It is not enough to say, ‘I have received the Spirit by faith’ if nothing in fact happens. What would we think of someone who testified to being filled with peace and joy but was still living in turmoil and misery? Or to another who rejoiced in being healed but was still in fact sick? By all means, let us thank God for these blessings and declare our expectation that they are already ours (as Jesus tells us to do in Mark 11:24). But this is not the same as actually experiencing them. We need to go on claiming them until they become a reality.
For some this will still seem inadequate. ‘The Spirit is more than potentially ours at conversion,’ they will say. This may be a fair comment. But nevertheless, this attempt at a synthesis of the various views still, I think, has much to commend it.

For us or in us?
The different understandings of the work of the Spirit between Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics finds natural expression in the kinds of songs they sing. The former tend to focus on the objective work of God in Christ for us; the latter on what God has done in us.
Evangelical songs remind us constantly of the great saving work of Christ on our behalf and the truth that everything depends on him. Charismatic songs remind us of the experiential nature of our salvation—that the work of Christ on the cross is actually of no value unless it is translated into personal experience.
Two current well-known songs illustrate the point very well. Jesus, Lover of my soul is widely sung in charismatic churches. It begins—
Jesus, lover of my soul,
Jesus, I will never let you go…
If this had been written by an Evangelical, the lyrics would probably read—
Jesus, lover of my soul,
Jesus, you will never let me go…
The original version focuses on the redemptive work of Christ in us; an Evangelical version would focus on Christ’s all-sufficient work for us. The original emphasises our dedication to Christ; the other his dedication to us.
Evangelicals see the sentiment in the original song as representing a fragile approach to the faith—that everything depends on us and our ability to hold on to Christ. Pentecostals argue that it is appropriate for us to express our passion for God in such fervent terms.
A second example is Reuben Morgan’s haunting and beautiful song, ‘What the Lord has done in me.’
Let the weak say, ‘I am strong’,
Let the poor say, ‘I am rich’,
Let the blind say, ‘I can see’,
It’s what the Lord has done in me…
If this had been written by an Evangelical, the last line would almost certainly read—
What the Lord has done for me
For Evangelicals, it is pointless talking about what the Lord has done in us unless we understand what the Lord has done for us. For Pentecostals, it is pointless talking about that the Lord has done for us unless we also know experientially what he has done in us. The danger for Evangelicals is that by being so focused on the Word they may miss a God-given experience of the Spirit; the danger for Pentecostals is that being so focused on the work of the Spirit, they may wander from the God-given authority of Scripture.
When Evangelicals depart from the Word, there is nothing else to inspire them. When Pentecostals drift from the Spirit, there is nothing to undergird them. Then, when they feel the loss of the Spirit, they may feel they have lost everything.
Clearly, the ideal and safe position is to focus both on what God has done for us and on what he does in us. This means boldly believing the declarative truths of the gospel and equally boldly claiming the experiential power of the gospel. It means both standing on the Word and walking in the Spirit.
Basic assumptions
Before consolidating our position too firmly, it is helpful to backtrack and ask ourselves two similar but quite different questions—
• If the Evangelical position is correct, what would we expect the New Testament to teach?
• If the Pentecostal/charismatic position is correct, what would we expect the New Testament to teach?
In this way, rather than beginning with Scripture and trying to read our viewpoint into it, we are beginning with a viewpoint and seeing whether the Scripture can be seen to endorse it. At first glance, this approach may seem like heresy—like a bad case of eisegesis. But in fact, it is quite the opposite. If our position is correct, then the New Testament will plainly teach it. If not, it will not. God’s Word is the authority.
So the answer to the first of the two questions above should be that both the historical books and the letters would clearly teach that conversion and baptism in the Spirit are synonymous, or at the very least, contemporaneous. The answer to the second question would be that both historical books and letters teach a distinction between conversion and empowering by the Spirit. And this is, in fact, what we find. While the teaching of the epistles could be debated, the difference between regeneration and baptism in the Holy Spirit is plain in Gospels and Acts.
But even so, the letters in no way contradict this position. The reason is not hard to find. Given that they are writing to Christian believers, looking back, the writers do not necessarily distinguish between being born again and being baptised in the Spirit. In the same way, someone writing to university graduates about mathematics, for example, might refer to basic skills or theorems, but with no particular reference to when they learned them, whether at primary or secondary or tertiary level. In the same way, an apostle might write to Christian believers and refer to something like glossolalia without bothering to note whether this was part of their conversion experience or something separate.
How then will we read Romans 8:9? Or Ephesians 1:13? When people approach them from an Evangelical perspective, they may well assume they were written to those who had never spoken in tongues and therefore apply them in this way. When people approach them from a Pentecostal perspective, they may well assume they were written to those who had spoken in tongues and therefore apply them in this way.
What if these passages were written to people who spoke in tongues? The implications for Evangelicals are serious. The Evangelical approach might be like non-Christians reading the New Testament declarations about righteousness and then mistakenly applying them to their own lives. We must fulfil the conditions first.
This is the position taken by David Pawson, for example. He clearly sees Romans 8:9 as applying to people who have already had a charismatic experience. And it must be admitted that if we read the New Testament from this perspective, all the references to the Spirit become consistent. Our difficulty today is that there are millions of believers who have not spoken in tongues but who claim to know Christ and to be genuinely born again. There is no need to deny these claims. As we have seen, there is a distinction between being born of the Spirit and being empowered by the Spirit. But it is also plain that that the New Testament really does not assume such a distinction, and we need to be careful lest we claim more than we ought.
It is these fundamental assumptions we make when we approach the Bible which determine how we understand it and apply it. If we always wear the wrong tinted glasses, no matter how good they may be, we will always come up with the wrong perspective.
James Dunn’s comments on the New Testament church are very apt—
In Acts 19 Paul asks the so-called ‘disciples’ at Ephesus whether they received the Spirit when they took their step of commitment… As with all who claim to be disciples, he expects that they will know whether they have received the Spirit or not… As Leslie Newbiggin pointed out, Paul’s ‘modern successors are more inclined to ask either, “Did you believe exactly what we teach?” or “Were the hands that were laid on you our hands?” and—if the answer is satisfactory—to assure the converts that they have received the Holy Spirit even if they don’t know it. There is a world of difference between these two attitudes. There is indeed!
Those who hold the Evangelical position have to work hard to find a way around the Acts passages as they clearly portray a church where people first believed and then received the Spirit. Those who hold the Pentecostal/charismatic position have no such problem. The Acts passages clearly endorse it and the letters are consistent with it.
Conclusion
There are good and godly people who hold differing views about being baptised in the Holy Spirit. It is important to put aside all preconceived ideas and, as far as possible, take a position that we can hold in good conscience, regardless of previous experience, either positive or negative.
Whatever stance we take, one thing is clear. We must be Spirit-filled (Ephesians 5:18). Of that there is no doubt. And we dare not rest until we know we are.

        Want to read more by Barry Chant?

Easy. Just go to www.barrychant.com and browse around. There is something for everyone – Bible studies, children’s stories, articles, devotional materials, poems, short stories, Christian resources, pioneer Pentecostal research and more. And mostly it’s free.

Reading
Bingham, G., Spirit-Baptism: Spirit-Living, Blackwood: New Creation, 1978
Bittlinger, A., Gifts and Graces London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967
Burgess, S., and Van Der Maas, E. M., (eds), The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, revised and expanded edition, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001
Chant, B., Empowered by the Spirit Miranda: Tabor, 2008
Chant, B., Spirit of Pentecost: the origins and development of the Pentecostal Movement in Australia, 1870-1939, unpublished PhD thesis, Macquarie University 1999 www.barrychant.com
Chant, B., Your Guide to God’s Power Tonbridge: Sovereign world, 1986
Chant, Barry, Praying in the Spirit Tonbridge: Sovereign World, 2002
Chant, K., Clothed with Power Kingswood, NSW: Vision Christian College, 1997
Christenson, L., Welcome, Holy Spirit Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987
Dunn, James, Baptism in the Holy Spirit London: SCM, 1970
Fee, G., God’s Empowering Presence Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994
Fife, E., The Holy Spirit, the Bible and Common Sense, Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1980
Graham, Billy, The Holy Spirit London: Collins, 1979
Green, M., I Believe in the Holy Spirit London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975
Horton, H., The Gifts of the Spirit Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, (1934), 1975
James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975
Lederle, H., Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of ‘Spirit-Baptism’ in the Charismatic Renewal Movement Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1988
Packer, J., Keep in Step with the Spirit Leicester: IVP, 1984
Pawson, D., Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1997
Pennicook, I., Jesus, the Man of the Spirit, study paper, 14 July 2002.
Smith, Ken, Charismatic Distinctives Wyee: published by the author, 1999
Stott, J., Baptism & Fullness: The Work of the Spirit Today Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964
Stott, John, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975
Synan, V., The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1979), 1989
Waugh, G., Living in the Spirit Melbourne: Joint Board of Christian Education, 1987
Wimber, J., Power Evangelism London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986

Tell Me an Old, Old Story

Posted on by

In our quest for academic excellence, it is easy for Christian scholars to forget that much of our best theology was first presented through stories. The teaching of Jesus is the finest example of all. Stories are too often a neglected form of communication. But they have unique qualities. Barry Chant discusses the great potential of stories – both for good and ill – and raises some interest¬ing questions in the process

S
tories are the oldest form of literature. Before reading and writing became common – and especially before printing made books readily accessible – history was passed on through stories told orally. Most peoples have ancient legends and tales. The Tales of the Arabian Nights, the myths of Greek mythology and the Australian Aborigines’ Dreamtime legends are well-known examples. The Bible is a classic model of story-telling. Jesus used stories over and again with great effect.

The oldest sagas were told in verse for ease of remembering. The names of the poets Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, Spenser and Dante are known by millions of people, even by those who have never read a word of their writings. Much of the Bible is written in verse form. The Psalms are obvious examples. But huge portions of the prophets and even parts of the historical books are poetry (the song of Deborah, for example, in Judges 5).

What is often forgotten is that good stories have enormous and important value for all of life. For children, in particular, stories have a unique role to play.

1. LANGUAGE

Stories encourage us in the use of language. Those who read or hear good stories tend to speak and write better as a result. Sadly, the reverse is also true – badly-written stories or film scripts have a detrimental effect. There seems little doubt that children who have little exposure to good stories – or even worse, read or hear only bad ones – have limited language skills as a result. Spurgeon used to encourage his students to improve their own language skills by reading widely – especially in the classics, and preferably in the original languages!

I remember hearing the renowned Apostolic preacher Ian McPherson speak at an editors’ dinner in London during the 1976 World Pentecostal Conference. His word-spinning ability was such that when his time had expired, and he sat down, his address still incomplete, the assembly pleaded with him to continue. Part of his power lay in his story-telling skill. It stirred us all.

That language can be modified by what we read and hear is exem¬plified by what has happened in Australia. The large percentage of American television has resulted in both the introduction of new words into the Australian vocabulary and the replacing of Australian terminology with American equivalents. In a small way, a whole culture has been affected. Some unique Australian collo¬quialisms have been lost as a result. ‘Blokes’ and ‘sheilas’ have become ‘guys’; the ‘flicks’ are now ‘movies’; and ‘deenas’ and ‘zacs’ have gone from our currency forever. Because of American basketball, we now say ‘de-fence’ instead of ‘de-fence’ and Aussie gospel singers now praise ‘Gard’ and sing of his ‘lerve.’

Similarly, when children are exposed to fine language, their own use of words will be affected for good. The language skills of children who are raised on a diet of C.S.Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, John Bunyan, Mark Twain, Kenneth Grahame and the like can only be enhanced.

2. IMAGINATION

Stories stimulate the use of the imagination. Imagination is a God-given gift and it is encouraged by imaginative stories. Even a brief glimpse at nature shows the enormous range of God’s imagination! What infinite variety there is in the world of flowers, animals, insects, birds and fish! God is not dull. C.S.Lewis credited the `imaginative man’ in him for his writing of the Narnia series.

Books have an advantage over television in this respect. Film presents us with images already created for us – the printed page leaves us to form our own images according to how we inter¬pret the text. Guided by the author, we create our own story-world in a way that delights us.

It is helpful to remember that we are often less open to imagina¬tive concepts as we grow older. A few adult readers have reacted negatively to Redgum, the great prophet-figure in my Spindles series. The idea of a talking tree offends their sensibilities. But the children all love him! To my knowledge, none of the hundreds of thousands of children who’ve read or heard the sto¬ries has ever complained yet. C.S.Lewis had a similar problem. In a letter to a friend, he once wrote –

I am glad you all liked The Lion, the Witch and the Ward¬robe. A number of mothers, and still more, school mistresses, have decided that it is likely to frighten children, so it is not selling very well. But the real children like it, and I am astonished how some very young ones seem to understand it …
Four years later, Lewis claimed that the children’s fairy-tale was the best medium for some of the things he wanted to say.

Many of our greatest writers have used fantasy to enshrine their tales. The foremost Christian writer of all time, John Bunyan, made allegory the vehicle for his profound treatise on Christian living, The Pilgrim’s Progress. Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R.Tolkien and George McDonald are others who turned the world of the imagination into a world for God.

But we could also go back to some of the biblical prophets, where the imagination was the prophetic vehicle through which God spoke to them — Zechariah and Ezekiel, in particular. And our Lord Jesus clearly used imaginative stories again and again. In fact, the parable was his primary vehicle for teaching. Now this is not to give a blanket justification to all use of the imagination in writing or film-making. The kind of fantasy em¬ployed is still crucial. Jeremiah warned against prophets who spoke from the `delusions of their own minds’ (Jer 23:26). Much so-called `fantasy’ literature today provokes toxic imagery. The focus is on the sinister, evil, haunting side of life. Even popular Walt Disney films sometimes feature dark, brooding images where huge witches and bizarre monsters fill the screen and young viewers tremble and cringe in their seats.

But good stories do provoke the imagination – and they do so in a helpful way. In fact, we can go even further. Given that the imagination is the primary vehicle through which God’s Holy Spirit communicates with us (Numbers 12:6; Hosea 12:10; Joel 2:28f), its development and fostering is crucial to a child’s growing ability to hear from God. Like the seed in the parable of Jesus (Mark 4:26ff), small ideas can be buried in the deep recesses of the mind, ready to emerge later – sometimes much later – sprouting with a flourishing foliage of brilliant images and exciting concepts. Our Western rationalistic mind-set has tended to shut God out. It is no accident that the greatest divine revelations have been born in the East and that it is in the developing world that the Church is growing best today – where imagination still tends to run free and story-telling is an integral ingredient of life. J.K.Rowling’s Harry Potter series, which has sold millions of copies around the world, and the initial film which grossed over $20 million in its first six weeks in Australia, possibly owe their astonishing and in some ways inexplicable success to the spiritual vacuum in the lives of many children today, who have a sparse Christian background and have little or no sense of the numinous.

3. ESCAPISM

Why do we like stories? Basically, they offer us escapism. The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote of ‘that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith’. So for a short while, we turn our backs on this present world and enter the world of romance — where there is excitement, emotion, action, fun, love and adventure, and where our hopes and dreams come true. This is a healthy way to refresh our spirits and minds and renew our attitude to life.

What is it about stories that captivates us? All interesting stories build on conflict. Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote, `The first essential, the life and soul, so to speak, of drama is the action’ (Poetics, 6). Somewhere in every effective tale, people or events or ideals or movements confront one anoth¬er in an exciting and compelling way. The final scenes of C.S.Lewis’s The Last Battle (109ff) illustrate this point well. So, too, do the great Christian classics like The Pilgrim’s Progress and Paradise Lost. Frank Peretti’s highly suc-cessful This Present Darkness and Dave Hunt’s The Archon Conspir¬acy are examples of recent Christian fiction where the action moves at a gripping pace. This is part of the appeal of the Harry Potter series. They feed both the imagination and the yearning for action.

Action usually involves a sense of suspense. A good story de¬pends on it. Colin Pearce, a popular Austra¬lian story-teller, summarises the place of suspense simply like this: `Chase the hero; put him up a tree; throw rocks at him; then make the tree collapse!’ The action may not be just physical, of course. Emotional and spiritual conflict can be equally exciting. The Bible is again a model here. Biblical stories abound in action, conflict, tension, suspense, courage, danger, passion. The crossing of the Red sea, David’s conquest of Goliath, the Fiery Furnace, Jesus Walking on the Lake, the Crucifixion – all ¬¬these are dramatic sagas that can be told over and over and which grow more powerful in the retelling.

Often, action includes elements of violence. Even nursery rhymes and classic fairy tales are guilty here! And the Bible, of course, has its share. But it is not gratuitous, and there is never a preoccupation with violence for its own sake. In the stories I write for children, I endeavour to minimise negative effects by allowing only the kind of violence that children are likely to experience in real life – tumbling down hill-sides, throwing stones, chasing feral cats, being injured in a car accident, escaping bird-trappers – that sort of thing. Such incidents can be made just as suspenseful and exciting as the grosser acts of violence that are featured in many modern novels and films.

Violence tends to be overdone these days, especially in car¬toons. Modern children view literally thousands of acts of physi¬cal assault, murder, aggression and injury. A 1989 report claimed that by the age of sixteen, the average American child had seen more than 200,000 acts of television violence, including 33,000 murders. Another study catalogued 83 violent deeds per hour and an attempted murder every 30 seconds in one popular children’s series.

No other generation in history has ever had such enormous expo¬sure to such things. The long-term results may already be affect¬ing our way of life.

4. IDEALISM

Good stories offer us idealism. By learning of the deeds of heroes, we are challenged to emulate them. Frodo in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is basically an ill-equipped creature for the enormous task before him, but he comes through as a hero, and one whose deeds can be imitated in their own context by the reader. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is hardly children’s viewing, but it has the same stirring approach to the eternal themes of good and evil. It clearly shows the sinister and seductive nature of power, as symbolised by the ring, the desperate wickedness of evil and the simple, yet profound goodness of humility, selflessness, friendship and sacrifice. The prince in Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper is another whose conduct under pressure and trial is worthy of replication. Through stories, we can identify with heroic figures, and for a brief time share with them a life which is exciting, challenging, difficult and successful. And we are ennobled in the process. The importance of reading books in which the major characters are essentially good is obvious here.

A problem today is the ambivalent hero, where it is not clear whether he is good or bad. The first Batman movie was a case in point. There was so much hype and heavy promotion for this pro¬duction, that, as with the emperor with no clothes, no one seemed prepared to state the obvious – that it was actually a bad film. Not only did it overwhelm us with black images of gloom and morbidity, but it confronted us with the dilemma of a hero who turned out to be almost as corrupt as the criminals he pursued. More recently, the highly-acclaimed The English Patient aroused our sympathies with its splendid photographic images and its tragic, anguished love story; no critic I know of pointed out that in the process it was persuading us to approve both adultery and euthanasia. On the other hand, films like Paradise Road depict the triumph of the human spirit and the power of faith in a way that leaves people inspired and uplifted.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet described the purpose of drama as `to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature’ (II.i.24). Some have inter¬preted this to mean that literature should simply reflect life as it is. Hence, it is appropriate that it should include gratuitous violence, immorality, bad language and the like. A by-product of this has been the questioning of Biggles stories because of their old-fashioned moral values and alleged racism. Similarly, Enid Blyton books are being altered to allow for feminist and humanist ideals.

Some years ago, Gillian Rubenstein, an Australian writer, controver¬sially won a children’s writing award with a book that included crude language. This was justified on the basis that such expres¬sions are part of life. From the Christian perspective, however, literature should not just reflect life as it is, but depict it as it might become – as the Bible does. This is not just a matter of accuracy, but also of moral truth. Truth is more than facts. It is presenting those facts in a way that relate them to the absolute integrity of the universe. Truth should be a necessary part of any story. C.S.Lewis wrote –

Literature written by Christians for Christians would have to avoid mendacity, cruelty, blasphemy, pornography, and the like, and it would aim at edification…

No good story can include approved actions and events which are contrary to moral truth.

What about the slogan, `art for art’s sake’? Should literature be accepted just because it is of value in its own right, whether it has moral worth or not? This is a meaningless question. In both Hebrew and Greek thought, the idea of something being beautiful without being good was an alien concept. The Hebrew tob and the Greek kalos both mean `good’ as well as `beautiful’. This doesn’t mean that stories have to `preach’ or `moralise’. There is no reason why books cannot be plain good fun. There are many delightful children’s stories, for example, which have no overt moral application, but which are nevertheless `moral’ tales. Good examples of this are the writings of Kenneth Grahame, Lewis Carroll, A.A.Milne, Francis Dixon and Mark Twain.

Now this concept that art should portray a message or offer a value judgement is often loudly disputed. Stories, we are told, should be `neutral’. In fact, it is impossible to divorce moral values from literature. Every book or film inevitably and neces¬sarily has a moral leaning in one direction or another. Recently, one of our grandchildren was watching a television cartoon in which the word `voodoo’ appeared frequently. It was being presented as something trivial and amusing. In other words, a positive attitude towards a very evil form of heathenism was being conveyed – or putting it plainly, the cartoon was making a moral statement. Similarly, once popular family television programs like Bewitched, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and The Addams Family clearly portrayed a subtle but dangerous value judgement – in this case, that the world of the occult is innocuous and amusing. The implicit approval of witchcraft in the Harry Potter series has raised questions about the moral values being imparted through them. In some ways, non-judgmental programs and books are more sinister than more blatant presentations of oc¬cultism could ever be.

Mention must be made here of satire. Sometimes, stories or films can be presented which at first glance appear to be negative or ambivalent, but which carry a subtle or hidden meaning. This subtlety may be lost on children. In adult literature, however, it can be very powerful. A case in point was the film American Beauty which confronted viewers with a menagerie of dysfunctional individuals and families yet expected them to laugh. . On the surface, it was shocking, immoral and depressing – a so-called ‘black comedy’ which presented an underlying pessimism and despair. On reflection, however, it conveyed a powerful message: suburbia is in great trouble and something needs to be done about it soon. Of course, the risk with such an approach is that the message may be overlooked and the evil that is being satirised may in fact be seen to be promoted.

It is also worth noting the reactions of leading characters in many modern novels or films, when they are under pressure or in danger. The usual response is to have a cigarette, a drink or a sedative, or to resort to violence. A life-attitude is plainly being offered here. When did you last see a James Bond film in which the hero, confronted by danger, says, ‘Let’s pray’?

We frequently hear arguments against censorship. Why shouldn’t we be free to see and hear whatever we like? The truth is that there will always be some censorship (we do not permit the free dissemination of materials advocating child abuse, for example). Furthermore, we do restrict sales of products which are toxic to the body such as dangerous poisons on supermarket shelves, and it is not inconsistent to censor products that are toxic to the mind. But the fact is that censorship already exists! What is presented to us through the media and bookshops in most cases is usually severely censored: we are only given what the publishers or editors feel we should receive. This explains the bias of much of the news media against pro-life argu¬ments or traditional Christian values and its unquestioning promotion of evolutionary views.

However, there are still openings for positive values to be conveyed. Through good writing, the truth can be subtly taught. This is particularly important for children. Lewis advocated this over 50 years ago in a talk he gave to theological students –

We must attack the enemy’s line of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects— with their Christianity latent … It is not books on Christianity that will really trouble him (modern materialistic man). But he would be troubled if, whenever he wanted a cheap popular introduction to some science, the best work on the market was always by a Christian. The first step to the reconversion of this country is a series, produced by Christians, which can beat the Penguins and the Thinkers’ Library on their own ground …
And again,

Any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under cover of romance without their knowing it.
Some of the great novels in literature illustrate this such as Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities with its wonderful climax of substitutionary sacrifice and Victor Hugo’s extraordinary Les Miserables, whose hero Jean Valjean is so often a type of Christ.

5. AUTHENTICITY

A good story must be believable within its context. With fantasy and science fiction, things may happen which are impossible in a normal context — but they should still be authentic in the set¬ting of the story concerned. For example, animals do not usually talk, but once you have created an environment where they do, it is not a problem, as in Dr Doolittle or the Narnia or Spindles series. In the Spindles stories, furthermore, even though they talk, the Dusty Range animals are still normal animals. Everything else they do falls within their natural capacities.

Authenticity is important. It is disappointing that shoddy re¬search mars some recent Christian writing. There is an apparent willingness on the part of many people to accept anything as long as it seems to support what they believe. This is illustrated by the continual stream of myths doing the rounds of Christian magazines and pulpits. Joshua’s missing day, the discovery of Pharaoh’s chariots, the alleged satanic funding of a large Ameri¬can consumer goods company, the conversion of a pope’s nephew – these and a dozen other fictional tales have been passed on unthinkingly over recent years. Authenticity should be the mark of all writing – and of Chris¬tian writing, in particular. It is encouraging to see Christian novelists like Stephen Lawhead, Bodie Thoene and T.Davis Bunn researching their material thoroughly before going into print.

6. CHARACTERISATION

Characterisation is crucial to effective stories. It is the characters with whom we identify, for good or for ill. In good stories, the characters become our friends. We feel as if we know them. When I was writing my PhD thesis and reviewing some of my work, I came across the record of the death of Sarah Jane Lancaster, Australia’s first Pentecostal pastor. I had known for thirty years that she was dead, yet when I re-read the story, I found tears of grief running down my cheeks! She had become very real to me.

Charles Dickens is one of the most accomplished writers in this area. His characters come to life so vividly they are impossible to forget – Oliver Twist, Fagin, Miss Havisham and Wilkins Micawber are obvious examples. Hugo, C.S.Lewis and Tolkien are others whose characters live in the mind.

Whether characters are depicted as good role models or as corrupt or vicious models, the likelihood is that readers will emulate them in some way. There is a great responsibility on writers to choose the former.

7. EMOTION AND HUMAN INTEREST

Aristotle described the cathartic effect of tragedy – its ability to purge us of unhealthy emotions by our identification with the characters in a drama or story. He claimed that tragedy necessarily evoked pity and fear. These are precisely the emotions aroused by a gripping narrative. There seems good reason to suggest that experiencing these through stories is therapeutic. This blend of conflict and suspense is present in most stories.

Good stories arouse feeling. They stir the emotions. Stories that touch the heart are well-remembered. This is also beneficial for children’s development in helping them to understand the range of sensations that humans experience – and in learning to cope with them. C.S.Lewis does this powerfully in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The sacrifice of Aslan arouses all the sensations of fear, grief, awe, gratitude, wonder and love that lie deep in the human spirit.

In my stories, I have not been afraid to deal with disappoint¬ment, grief, loneliness, pity, pain or loss. Most children will confront all of these at some point in their lives, so it is beneficial to them to meet them early and to explore ways of handling or developing them, as the case may be. Of course, joy, trust, hope, gratitude and love are also evident. True stories reflect the whole range of human emotions.

One of my most treasured memories is of a conversation with a lady who had been reading ‘Spindles rides a race’ to her son. At the end of the tale, they were both deeply moved. The little boy said to his mother over and over, with tears running down his cheeks, `I didn’t know Jesus loved me so much!’ She wept with him as they thought on the wonder of God’s grace. In the corner of the room sat the boy’s father, working at his accounts. He, too, was wiping tears from his eyes! One simple tale had touched a boy, his mother and his father in a powerful way.

8. CONCLUSION

It has been suggested that modern technology will phase out the use of books. This is doubtful. The manager of a leading pub¬lishing house once commented: `If books had not yet been invent¬ed, someone would need to do so now: they will never go out of fashion.’ We may finish up with tiny electronic readers in our pockets instead of paper and ink, but stories will of necessity go on. The means of telling may change but the telling will continue.

Stories are a unique and necessary part of life.

Barry Chant has written several books for children. He is a former editor of the PCBC Journal.

Reference books
Aristotle, Poetics various publishers.
Flesch, R., How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively, Signet, 1951
Lewis, C.S., Christian Reflections, Collins Fount, 1980
Lewis, C.S., Letters, Fontana, 1988
Lewis, C.S., Timeless at Heart, Collins Fount, 1987
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations London: Chancellor Press, 1985
Wirt, S., You Can Tell the World, Augsburg, 1954

Fiction
Chant, B., The Spindles series, Tabor, various dates
Chant, B., The Doom of Drakon, Albatross, 1996
Chant, B., The Scion Factor, Albatross, 1996
Lawhead, S., The Dream Thief, Crossway, 1983
Lewis, C.S., The Chronicles of Narnia, Collins, various dates
Peretti, F., This Present Darkness, Crossway, 1987
Rolwing, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Bloomsbury,
Tolkien, J.R.R., Lord of the Rings, Allen and Unwin, 1954