The Holy Spirit of God, who first hovered over the waters of creation, spoke through prophets and Apostles, and was poured out at Pentecost as a witness to Christ’s promise of another Paraclete (comforter, sustainer, equipper, counselor). Jesus continues His ministry to His disciples by means of the Spirit as His personal, representative agent. The Spirit’s work, at all times, is to draw attention to Christ.

Creation
The ancient hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, composed in the eighth century and part of the Roman breviary of Vespers, is a hymn extolling the Holy Spirit. John Dryden’s magnificent translation renders the opening lines this way: “Creator Spirit, by whose aid the world’s foundations first were laid.”
The activity of the Holy Spirit as Creator finds expression in the second verse of the Bible! Describing the undeveloped creation as “without form and void” and in “darkness,” the author describes the Spirit of God as “hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). Forming a bookend at the close of this opening chapter of Scripture comes the pronouncement of the creation of man: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). The use of the pronoun “our” is a reference to the triune Godhead, which includes the Holy Spirit. From the very beginning, the Holy Spirit has been the executive of the creative activity of God. In the creation of the world, as well as the creation of man in particular, the Holy Spirit was the divine agent.
Pentecost
At the dawning of the new covenant era, Pentecost would be demonstrative of a similar work of creation, or, better, re-creation. Fallen humanity is to be transformed by the Spirit to a degree unknown under the old covenant.
In an action that was meant to be symbolic of Pentecost, Jesus, in an incident that followed His resurrection, illustrated Pentecost’s significance by breathing on His disciples and saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). The action is a reminder of the opening sequence of Genesis: the Holy Spirit, the “breath of God,” is the agent of the “breath of life” (Gen 2:7; John 20:22). As God breathed life into Adam, so Jesus, “the last Adam,” breathes new life into His people. Jesus becomes, in Paul’s language, “a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Pentecost was an epochal event, signifying the dawning of a new era.
Midway between creation and re-creation, Pentecost is the point after which it can be said, “the end of the ages has dawned” (1 Cor. 10:11). Historically, at nine o’clock in the morning, the Spirit gave the disciples a clear understanding of Jesus’ role in redemption and consummation, equipping them with extraordinary boldness in making Jesus known. The gift of tongues that accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit enabled folk from different countries to hear the gospel in their own languages. In an instant, the curse of Babel was arrested (Gen. 11:7–9). Spirit empowered disciples were thus motivated and enabled to take the message of reconciliation to the nations of the world in the certainty that God would accomplish that which He promised (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:4). What appears to be a blessing for the gentiles proves to be a judgment upon Israel. The very sound of the gospel in languages other than their own confirmed the covenantal threat of God issued in Isaiah: “For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people” (Isa. 28:11).
What was to be a blessing for the nations proved to be the very instrument of hardening to Israel, until the “fullness” of the gentiles is brought in (Rom. 11:25).
With this interpretation of Pentecost, repetition cannot be envisioned. Though history records many “outpourings” of the Spirit in extraordinary displays of revival, none of these, strictly speaking, is a repetition of Pentecost. Pentecost marked the major turning point from old to new covenantal administrations. The days of type and shadow were replaced by days of fulfillment and reality.
Read More
Related Posts:

“The defense of our historic American system of liberty under law requires then that we wage war against pornography, because pornography is a major enemy to liberty. The opponents of pornography are therefore no threat to liberty. Rather, they are its friends and defenders. Under the cloak and name of liberty, the pornographers are out to destroy liberty. The real champions of liberty are in every age hostile to pornography.”

Discussions of censorship rarely occur without someone citing the old adage, “I might disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” While it is commendable to champion the rights of others, even those with opposing views, it shouldn’t be assumed that there should be absolutely no limitations on what individuals can express in the public arena.
Though some may initially consider this an infringement on the basic principle of freedom of speech, it is worth noting that even the most ardent Libertarian free-speech advocates reject the idea that people should be able to say absolutely anything they want to without consequence. Take, for instance, defamation laws that prevent libel, or copyright legislation that prohibit the publishing of stolen or plagiarised content.
Consequently, we shouldn’t imagine that all expression is protected as “free speech.” Speech can violate an individual’s right not to be robbed. Victims of libel, defamation, or slander suffer from a loss of reputation, potentially leading to financial damages, while victims of plagiarism are robbed of the credit or financial benefits of stolen labor. As such, justice should always demand restitution for the wronged from the hand of the wrong-doer.
This is not to say such laws are designed merely to infringe on liberty, but rather, they are to protect the liberty and rights of all potential victims.
Herein lies the distinction between liberty and anarchy: Liberty is restrained by law, while anarchy is inherently lawless. Liberty is the freedom to do what is good unhindered, anarchy is to live without the restraints of immediate social or legal penalties for doing bad.
Now, someone might say, isn’t this just the “cancel-everything-I hate” mindset infecting today’s culture? No, our point of contention lies not in whether bad things ought to be penalised, but how we determine what things ought to be considered “bad” and deserving of punishment. It’s not whether, but which. Not whether expression is restricted, but which expression will be restricted and on what basis?
Unless we’re going to embrace anarchy, we all draw the line somewhere. But why do we draw it where we do? Is it just reputation-theft, or should other expressions detrimental to society also be prohibited and censored? What about other immoral expressions, such as pornography?
This issue came up recently in Australia after a major store decided to remove a graphic children’s sex education book from its shelves following online criticism. While many applauded the move, some accused the book’s critics of violating freedom of expression by demanding its removal.
One Libertarian MP referred to those opposing the book’s contents as “book burners,” accusing them of “spitting in the face of parental rights.”
“Parents decide what is appropriate for their children, not the Government, not activists,” he argued.
But is this the approach we ought to take in our effort to secure freedom of expression? Do we, as some have argued, legally protect the bad to ensure overreaching governments don’t criminalise the good? Should our commitment to freedom of speech extend to pornographic content?
In his brilliant, short book, Law & Liberty, R.J. Rushdoony tackles this issue, answering the question of whether censoring pornographic material was a violation of rights. Though he speaks within an American context, the principles advocated are universal. The following excerpt is well-worth the read.
In Chapter 3, Rushdoony writes:
The issue of legislation governing pornography is becoming a major debate on the American scene. Shall legislation be further framed to abolish pornography, or does such legislation become censorship and a violation of civil rights?
Before analyzing the issue, let us examine the arguments for and against. In California, for example, the CLEAN Initiative, in 1966 Proposition 16 on the ballot, was one campaign among many to combat pornography. The advocates of CLEAN called attention to the fact that pornography in the United States has been a two billion dollar business annually. The publishers of pornography openly solicit manuscripts emphasizing perversions and hard-core pornography. Prosecution of avowedly pornographic works is difficult or impossible because existing laws are too weak. District attorneys do not initiate prosecutions, because the present law is inadequate to secure convictions. It is held that, to combat both pornography and its products, criminality and venereal disease, new laws are necessary.
Not so, the opponents argued. There is no necessary connection, it is claimed, between pornography and criminality, between pornography and immorality. Moreover, even if it were proven that such a connection exists, it would be wrong to pass laws against pornography, because such laws would introduce a greater evil, censorship and the loss of liberty. We are told that if pornography is the price we must pay for liberty, then we must be prepared to pay it. Liberty is too basic to the life of man to be sacrificed for any other factor. A lesser good cannot be sacrificed for the greater and basic good. We are against pornography, many argue, but we are even more emphatically against censorship and against any and every attack on liberty.
We can, as we assess these two conflicting positions, appreciate both a concern for moral standards and also a concern for liberty. The argument concerned with liberty is an important one, but it must be intelligently used. And what is liberty? Can it be limited, or is true liberty only unlimited liberty?
Read More
Related Posts:

The vast majority of churches need members willing to serve in ways that will be costly because of the time they take and the type of work they involve. They need members who will willing take up the tasks that do elicit feelings of concern, because those churches won’t be able to function without them. It’s one of those areas where we need to step out of our cultural and follow are Master who came to serve.

It’s a running joke in churches that nobody seems to feel “called” to clean the toilets. Apparently that’s not a very common spiritual gift! But behind the joke there is often a very real concern. In every church there are a set of jobs that need to be done and many of those jobs are not much fun and require serious commitment. Safeguarding, finances, health and safety are more likely to be words that fill people with concern than joy. But the truth is that it’s probably only a luxury of the larger church (who often employ people to take much of the heavy lifting here) to allow people to only serve in areas they feel called and comfortable.
I think there are two issues here, a biblical one and a cultural one.
The biblical issue is around how we use our gifts. We have rightly taught people to use the gifts they have been given (Romans 12:6-8) and take their part in the body accordingly (1 Corinthians 12). We have then also seen that the Apostles explicitly appoint other people to do jobs that they weren’t called to, so they could focus on the ministry of word and prayer (Acts 6:2-4). Should I insist on concentrating on using my gifts and avoid responsibilities that distract from that?
In terms of gifts, I think we are right to see that God has given us gifts and to use them to serve him where we can. We need to be careful here though. The joke about the toilets points to a real problem that our instinct (by which I suppose I mean our sinfulness) isn’t to be called to less enjoyable things, even though we may be very competent at them. If you can do a particular task competently, why are you not gifted in that?
Read More
Related Posts: