Secondly, I would caution against too close of a connection between spontaneity and the work of the Holy Spirit. It’s clear from the prologue in Luke that Luke did a lot of ground work (interviews etc…) in writing his gospel. It would be a mistake, it seems to me, to conclude from this that Luke’s gospel is somehow less the work of the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn’t dare to speak for Steve, but from my own research, it seems that in 1 Corinthians 14:26ff Paul included both “ground work” and “spontaneity”. Notice that in 1 Cor 14:26, the believers are coming together with a psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation that has apparently been prepared before hand. However, later Paul recognizes that the Spirit may reveal something to someone during the meeting.

I don’t think (at least from my point of view) the church has a problem with teaching from preparation. However, I haven’t seen as much opportunity for teaching or prophecy that was spontaneous. Similarly, I think my concern is also toward the current practice of assuming that only believers in certain roles or functions are allowed to speak.

-Alan

Your point is well taken. If both prepared and spontaneous participation can be the work of the Holy Spirit, then to limit the service to one may be placing limits on the work of the Holy Spirit in worship. It does seem to me that certain gifts, like teaching, are more likely to be given through preparation whereas others, like speaking in tongues, are more likely to be spontaneous. That may, however, just be my own bias speaking.

The line in Steve’s interview that sparked my comment was “Should we be placing anyone in “leadership” over musical aspects of our gathering, or should music be a spontaneous contribution by anyone in the church so moved by the Holy Spirit?” It seems to me that Steve is setting forth an either or here, but I may be reading it too critically.

Phil Hawkins

When I say “spontaneous”, that obviously includes true spontaneity, but I also mean what appears spontaneous to the rest of the group.

Or, perhaps another way to view it is that we don’t have an agenda where we say “At this point in the service, we’ll sing a song.” Rather, someone may have a song prepared, and it is up to the Spirit to guide in the actual “when” of that song being shared.

For example, in gatherings with other believers, I have sometimes had a teaching prepared. However, in the spontaneity of the Spirit’s leading, I have not shared it during that gathering because other things were coming forth.

Specifically in the area of music, I was drawing a distinction between a leader determining who sang what and when, or what song everyone would sing vs. those who had a song on their heart sharing it as the Spirit led.

Does that help any?

Concerning your response to Craig, I agree that meetings should progress in a way that would seem spontaneous. Of course, it would not be truly spontaneous, but controlled by the Spirit - as you said. In the traditional model, it would be unthinkable for the “preacher” not to preach or the worship leader not to pick and lead the singing. In this model, we limit the work of the Spirit to preparation only. What if, in a particular meeting, the Spirit desires for someone else to speak or the Spirit gives someone else a song (as in your example)? That is not possible… not allowed.

-Alan

The important thing, it seems to me, is that worship be rooted in the work of the Holy Spirit. On this, I think we agree. Whether or not the worship is spontaneous or seems to be spontaneous is, from my view, more a matter of aesthetics than something central to worship. In I Cor. 14, Paul takes the Corinthians to task for being too spontaneous. “All things should be done decently and in order”.

The ‘limiting the Holy Spirit’ argument cuts both ways. We can argue that it limits the Holy Spirit to not be open to what the Spirit might do in a spontaneous way during a time of worship. We could also argue that we limit the Holy Spirit if we do not allow gifted individuals to think creatively about the service as a whole. A professor of mine, who taught worship, used to point out that churches that claimed to have no liturgy usually, in fact, did have a liturgy. They just had a poor one.

I wouldn’t argue with not having an agenda where we say “At this point in the service, we’ll sing a song.” What I would argue with is the claim that having such an agenda is somehow inherently less spiritual than not having one.

You may think this is being picky, but what is your definition of “decently and in order”? I do not think Paul’s definition of “decently and in order” was “don’t be too spontaneous”. In fact, Paul tells the Corinthians that if one person is speaking, and another receives a revelation (spontaneously), then the first person should keep quiet. It doesn’t seem that spontaneity is the same as being indecent or disorderly to Paul.

How, then, should we define “decently and in order”?

-Alan

I wish I could remember what all I typed. It was about 8 hours ago, and I had no idea that it wasn’t here on this post.

Craig, one thing I do remember saying in response to you in my comment that disappeared was along the lines of the following:

I don’t view this as something that is “less spiritual” or “more spiritual”. Rather, in topics such as this, my question is often more: “What is more conducive to the instructions we are given for our gatherings together?”

In other words, what results in the most edification, the most encouragement, the most move toward maturity in the body?

Man, I really wish I could remember the rest of my comment!!! If it comes to me tomorrow, I’ll type it out again, but for now, I’m headed to bed, I think.

If we want to take the “decently and in order” seriously, we need to be prepared to take the rest of the chapter, the previous two chapters, even the entire book seriously, as well!

All that to say that Alan said what I had intended to say earlier: “decent and in order” is not antithetical to “spontaneous”.

I don’t think you’re being picky; that’s a good question. It seems to me that the Corinthians were worshipping in a way where many would speak at once (whether in tongues or prophecy) and would perhaps justify what amounted to chaos by claiming that a prophet can’t really control the prophecy. That’s what I mean by too spontaneous. It sounds like it was one big free for all with everyone (or at least many) speaking at once. To this Paul instructs that there needs to be some order. He limits the number of people that should speak in tongues (two or at most three), instructs that they should speak one at a time and that if there’s no interpreter they should keep quiet. For prophets, he again limits the number to two or three. They are also to speak one at a time, but, as you point out, if a new revelation is given, the first prophet is to sit down and let the second speak (as opposed to them both speaking at once). The main issue isn’t spontaneity (whether too much or too little) but edification. There needs to be enough order so that everyone can learn and be encouraged. So if I sounded like I was reading Paul to be on an anti spontaneity campaign, you’re right to correct me.

I missed your last two posts before I tried to answer Alan’s question. Some of what I said speaks to some of the points you raise.

I hope your original post re appears; I’d like to read it.

I’m all for taking I Corinthians seriously (I hope), I’m not sure what makes you think that I’m failing in this regard. Where we may differ on I Corinthians 14 (26-33) is that I read these verses as corrections of Corinthian abuses in worship and not as instructions on what should be in all worship services. I look forward to exploring I Corinthians in more depth on this and other threads.

I read these verses as corrections of Corinthian abuses in worship and not as instructions on what should be in all worship services.

There are a couple of problems with this viewpoint, in my opinion.

Paul begins verse 26, after having just illustrated the need for more prophecy and less tongues in the gathering, by saying “What then? When you come together, each one has something to offer.” (loosely paraphrased) So he’s giving instructions on how their gatherings should be carried out.

If he is simply “moderating chaos” in the Corinthian church, then are we to conclude that he was compromising in some way with them? Was he really in favor of a more controlled, man-in-front-in-charge format, but didn’t want to push them too far?

In other words, if the instructions to the Corinthians were to correct abuses, would Paul not have wanted to correct them all the way?

Additionally, I’m not aware of any evidence that supports the commonly held position that Paul was correcting extreme abuses in the church of Corinth.

Yes, he is obviously correcting some things that he felt needed corrected, but we somehow tend to paint a picture of the Corinthian church as so completely chaotic and out of control that it was a “free-for-all”. And because we don’t see our churches as having those same problems, we often feel like these instructions are not for us.

In other words, we don’t see a complete lack of chaos in our churches because we have things controlled so well, that we think we don’t have to take the instruction seriously when Paul says, “If one is speaking and another receives a revelation, the first should be silent.”

When was the last time you were listening to a sermon, and something was revealed to you, and you stood up to interrupt, and the one preaching graciously yielded the floor to you?

What happens in our churches if someone tries to do that? (And I have seen situations where this has happened.) The one who interrupts is silenced, either by the preacher yelling over top of them, and/or by someone forcefully removing them from the meeting place.

This is in direct contradiction to what Paul said. And the defense that is sometimes given in those situations? “Everything must be done decently, and in order.”

That is why, when you brought that up, and said that Paul was correcting the Corinthians for being “too spontaneous” by using “decently and in order”, I said that we need to take the rest of the chapter seriously, too.

You’ve already clarified a little bit in your response to Alan, but I wanted to show you why your comment struck both me and Alan the same way.

Do we allow someone to interrupt a speaker when they are speaking? If not, why not?

Do we allow even two or three to speak during a gathering? If not, why not?

Do we actually allow for correction of what is taught to take place in the gathering? If not, why not?

I don’t see how we can disregard those instructions by saying that they were designed to moderate chaos in Corinth. It remains my assertion that 1 Corinthians 14 is the most descriptive passage about our gatherings in the entire New Testament. Why would we only be given this one descriptive passage, if it doesn’t apply to us?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time this morning to give your very thoughtful post the response it deserves, but I’ll try to clarify a couple of things to keep up my end of the conversation.

If he is simply “moderating chaos” in the Corinthian church, then are we to conclude that he was compromising in some way with them?

I wouldn’t say that Paul was simply moderating chaos. The goal of his instruction is to move the Corinthians to a place where their service enables edification and learning. My reason, initially, in referencing I Cor. 14 was to make a small point. I made the point rather sloppily, and I think that has caused some confusion. The small point is that Corinthian worship, if it followed I Cor. 14, would be less spontaneous than what they were doing. I did not mean to imply that it was the spontaneity itself that Paul was correcting. The larger point I was trying to make is that spontaneity should not be too closely coupled with spirituality (in the sense of being from the Holy Spirit).

I also don’t think that Paul was compromising in some way (in the sense of bringing the Corinthians part way to some ideal form of worship). I don’t believe that there is some ideal form of worship. What is ideal for a particular group of believers must take into account culture and even tradition. That’s why I suggested in my original response to your post that it would be interesting to see how much Corinthian worship (as best as we can tell what they were doing) was like synagogue worship.

Was he really in favor of a more controlled, man-in-front-in-charge format, but didn’t want to push them too far?

Additionally, I’m not aware of any evidence that supports the commonly held position that Paul was correcting extreme abuses in the church of Corinth.

Yes, he is obviously correcting some things that he felt needed corrected, but we somehow tend to paint a picture of the Corinthian church as so completely chaotic and out of control that it was a “free-for-all”. And because we don’t see our churches as having those same problems, we often feel like these instructions are not for us.

I don’t think I’m stretching the text here, but I’m open to correction. One could argue that the whole book is a correction of some very extreme (not just in worship) Corinthian abuses. In 14:26-33 doing things in turn and being silent when others speak is repeated and seems to at least imply that the Corinthians were not taking turns so that more than one person would be talking at the same time. It’s interesting to me that Paul seems to have different instructions for tongues than for prophecy. With tongues he just says “each in turn” which seems to imply that each tongue speaker needs to wait for the previous tongue speaker to finish. With prophecy, a prophet could, in effect, interrupt another prophet. I’m not sure why there is this difference. I don’t think (and I suspect you and Alan would agree) that it’s for the sake of spontaneity. My guess is that the newer revelation might supersede the revelation of the current speaker (in this case, newer is better).

I would not say that Paul’s instructions are not for us because we’re so orderly.

When was the last time you were listening to a sermon, and something was revealed to you, and you stood up to interrupt, and the one preaching graciously yielded the floor to you?

What happens in our churches if someone tries to do that? (And I have seen situations where this has happened.) The one who interrupts is silenced, either by the preacher yelling over top of them, and/or by someone forcefully removing them from the meeting place.

This seems to assume that Paul would say the same thing about formal teaching that he does about prophecy. Though it is very rare, this has happened to me when I was preaching. In both cases (that’s how rare) I yielded (so to speak) and no harm came of it. If, after yielding, it seemed to me that the new speaker was not edifying the congregation, I would have needed to take some action. As I said, this didn’t happen.