THE RELATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THE SELF

by

Richard S. Taylor

            Exactly what is the nature of the Spirit's relation to the self? Closely related to this question is a second: Is the self and the body a dualism or a monism? What we believe about the nature of man will affect our answer to the first question; similarly our conclusions concerning the relation of the Spirit to the self will shape our doctrine of man. In this inquiry therefore it can be expected that our theological question will be continuously interwoven with the anthropological question.

            Of recent years the influence of Oscar Cullmann in his rejecting of the platonic type of dualism, the rediscovery of man as a unity and the redirecting of emphasis on man's resurrection, has in some quarters resulted in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"-the "baby" being man's spirit. Coordinate with this has been a drift toward conditional immortality. An ancillary purpose of this paper therefore is to show that unless there is a personal agent distinct from the brain, the relation of the Spirit on the self cannot but be the direct operation of the Spirit on the brain itself, with necessarily deterministic implications.

            First of all may it be said that the so-called mind-body problem (the ability of immaterial substance to control material substance) cannot be a valid problem for the Christian who builds on the premise that the Bible accurately reveals God's relation to the world. For a basic tenet of Biblical revelation is that God is spirit, and as Spirit has created and sustained matter. But if God as spirit can create and control matter, there is no inherent impossibility in the postulate that human minds as immaterial entities can control physical brains and bodies.

            This traditional distinction between mind and brain means that selfhood is more than phenomenal. Cerebral activity and selfhood are not exact equivalents. A homey analogy is provided by Madeleine L'Engle in an interview in Christianity Today. 1 At 17 years of age she had a date with a boy whom she thought was quite sophisticated, until he opined "that death was death and that was that." We are, he said, our cerebral cortex. "When it's gone, we're gone."  In outraged reply this 17 year old girl said: "I can't even see you without my glasses. Are they doing the seeing? No. I am. I'm seeing through them. My brain isn't doing the thinking, I am. I'm thinking through it."

            As we all know, this historic and traditional concept of selfhood flies directly in the face of behaviorism and materialism. In a recent article on the brain, written by Patrick Young for Newhouse News Service, the author, after detailing some recent discoveries concerning neurotransmitters, calmly concludes: "As a result of such finds, the mind and brain are no longer regarded as separate." Later is a slight qualification: "The new neurobiology has blurred the strict demarcation of mind and body that long dominated scientific medicine."

            But ironically neurobiology cannot consistently maintain this stance, for in spite of itself it drags the concept of a distinct self back into the reckoning. Notice how the author of the article unwittingly acknowledges this. Suddenly the concept of personhood as more than brain is reintroduced. He reports the concession of modern medicine that a person's reaction to adverse life events is the cause of mental illness. Implied is that this reaction is more than preprogrammed physiological response, but is voluntary. He even speaks of the benefits of prayer and meditation. Also he says: "Biofeedback teaches people to exercise thought control over such stress-associated physical problems as high blood pressure, fast heart-beat and tension headaches." 2 To speak of exercising thought control is to imply an agent who in some sense is distinct from the brain. Instead of the self being equivalent to celebrations, or completely at the mercy of brain activity, here is the admission that there is a higher "boss." The brain can be acted upon by this agent in a relationship that is consciously volitional. 3

            There is therefore a self which in this world includes the brain but is not defined solely by the brain. We are now ready to plunge more directly into the primary subject of the paper-the relation of the Spirit to this self.

            Some years ago the Lutherans (Missouri Synod) put out a symposium entitled, What, Then, Is Man? 4 They made a valiant attempt to integrate behavioral brain science with Christian orthodoxy. Much of the volume was spent analyzing Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus. They felt compelled to assume that coincident with Saul's conversion was a substantive change in Saul's brain. Of the three theories advanced as attempts to explain what happened the authors conceded that the theory most in harmony with revelation was that of a cerebral miracle. Yet this hangs them on the horns of a dilemma: first, because it is incompatible with their Lutheran premise that the Spirit converts solely through "the Word and the Sacrament" (p. 28), never directly; and second, because they think they see in the idea a crypto-Calvinistic implication, viz., irresistible grace-and this they cannot abide (p. 193). As far as I could tell, they never succeeded in resolving their dilemma.

            But the problem is real; for, as they say: "After all, we see that Saul speaks and moves differently immediately after his conversion; speaking and moving are bodily events, produced by muscular action; muscles are controlled by the brain. To deny that man's brain is changed in some respects when he undergoes conversion would be scientifically absurd" (Ibid.). Since no one wants to be scientifically absurd, we had better concede the involvement of a lot of cerebral activity. But must it be explained deterministically and irresistibly? The question is: Was the cerebral activity caused by the Spirit such that conversion was its infallible result? or was it simply coordinate with the conversion, a phenomenon essentially spiritual, only secondarily cranial?

            When we turn to the Scriptures we find that the Holy Spirit at times does work both irresistibly and physiologically. The gift of tongues on the Day of Pentecost is an example. Here were Spirit-filled believers unexpectedly and miraculously enabled to speak in languages which they did not know; in fact, the narrative of Acts 2 gives the distinct impression that their brain patterns and vocal cords were literally taken over by the Spirit and operated transvolitionally. Since such total possession sometimes occurs in demon-possession, there is no inherent impossibility in similar action by the Spirit. The Bible does not tell us whether this language speaking was a physiological miracle for this occasion only, or whether a knowledge of the language was imparted to their brains, so that henceforth the language was available at will.

Careful study will suggest that such irresistible and unexpected action of the Spirit is related to gifts, rather than personal salvation; i.e., endowments given for carrying on the work of God, normally given to those already in a grace relationship to God. The miracle at Pentecost was not their conversion to Christ, but was experienced by persons already spiritually yielded and pliable-hence not, strictly speaking, an example of irresistible grace.

That the Spirit can be resisted at the moral and soteriological level is made clear in the Scriptures. At once we think of Genesis 6:3: "My Spirit will not contend with man forever." Speaking of the children of Israel Isaiah says: "Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit" (63:10). In the New Testament we are reminded frequently of the fatal peril of resisting the Holy Spirit. Stephen minced no words in his chastisement of the Jews: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your  fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!" (Acts 7:51; cf. John 16:8; 1 Thess. 4:8; Heb. 10:29).

At this point let us take our own look at the Saul's conversion. Was it an example of irresistible grace? And did it really require a cerebral miracle? On a monistic basis, we must say yes, for on a monistic basis conversion would have been ipso facto a brain alteration, and the brain alteration would have constituted the conversion, with no remainder. Obviously this would have been extreme monergism, with resistibility no longer an open question. Such a conversion would be undeniably coercive.

But on a dualistic basis no such direct, arbitrary miracle needs to be postulated. On this basis self and brain are not equivalent terms. It was Saul as a person, a self, who was converted, and this conversion impacted his brain and every other facet of himself, bringing the whole into a new alignment. As a self Saul was aware of what was happening; he was an active participant; he was making a decision; and he could have reacted differently. Whatever Saul was consciously doing had its parallel activity in the brain, no doubt; but the conversion was not the effect of supernatural brain change.

Admittedly there were supernatural and highly dramatic events which forced Saul into a person-to-person confrontation with Jesus Christ. But notice the psychological factors. Having fallen to the ground in a physical response to the blinding light he received a normal communication, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" This was not an inner impression on his brain, but a signal received and decoded by his brain via the normal process of sound waves. Saul's perfectly normal, uncoerced response was, "Who are you, Lord?" When Jesus identified Himself, and the awful truth broke in on Saul's mind, it was in perfect possession of his faculties and entirely as a free agent that he spoke his next words: "What shall I do, Lord?" This was a conscious, totally free acknowledgement of Jesus' identity and a capitulation to Him as Lord. Saul's brain of course was fully involved; by means of his brain he was thinking, deciding, and speaking. But the brain was not the actor; Saul was. The brain was his instrument no more and no less than it had been that morning when he ordered breakfast at the wayside inn.

Why did Saul surrender to Jesus in this dramatic moment instead of persisting in unbelief (which he could have chosen to do, even as did his compatriots when the sky darkened and the earth shook and the rocks rent and the temple veil was torn in two on Black Friday)? There are two clues. One is the implication of Jesus' words: "It is hard for you to kick against the goads"-more literally, to "keep on kicking against goads" (A. T. Robertson).5 The implication is hard to avoid, viz., that Saul was already under conviction, and was battling within himself. His very rage against the Christians, excessive and unreasonable as it was, was possibly his angry attempt to hide even from himself his own uncertainty and agitation. Saul therefore was partially prepared for this sudden confrontation-at least at a subliminal level.

The other clue is in the fact of Saul's basic honesty and sincerity. Saul was not yet, at least, deliberately walking against light. He himself years later explains God's seeming favoritism with the words: "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief" (1 Tim. 1:13). What this means is that Saul's will was already on God's side. His violent opposition to the Church flowed out of piety, not wickedness; loyalty to God, not conscious rebellion. His conversion was not to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but to God in Christ. This was the new burst of enlightenment which redirected and restructured the religious devotion which was already his.

There really seems therefore to be no need to explain Saul's conversion even on psychological grounds in terms of a cerebral miracle. God used both providence and the Gospel to force upon this person a spiritual crisis. The providence was the blinding light, unusually supernatural and radical, perhaps, but not really essentially different from an accident which today puts a person flat on his back where God can get his attention. The Gospel was given to Saul first by Stephen, then confirmed by Jesus Himself: "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting." The profound disturbance of conscience was the impact of the Holy Spirit, one spirit impressing another spirit, utilizing perhaps the Stephen event as His catalyst. But at no time was Saul's freedom abridged, or his personhood reduced to puppethood. He was influenced by the Spirit but not overwhelmed. Rather, he was wooed and won.

But was Paul's conversion simply a psychological breakthrough without distinctly supernatural elements? No; all true experiences of regeneration require the direct action of the Spirit upon the self in creating a real change, by which the self is made spiritually alive and dispositionally turned toward heaven. This is the divine culmination of the previous preparatory influences which we call Gospel, Providence, and Prevenient Grace. But we are not under obligation to see in this supernatural action of the Spirit any more than action primarily on the hitherto dormant spirit, with cerebral activity being consequent-perhaps coordinate-but not causative.

Some additional insights into the nature of the Spirit's relation to the self can be found in Ephesians 5:18-21: "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit" (v. 18). The contrast is striking. Both wine and the Spirit are entities to be received voluntarily and internally. Both are expected to exercise some kind of control. The effect of wine can be explained scientifically, in physiological terms. In the words of Jerry G. Dunn:

Ethyl alcohol, when taken into the body, goes almost immediately into the blood stream and up to the brain. It begins to affect the cortex of the brain, where the higher brain centers that have to- do with memory, conscience, and judgment are located. The anesthetic effect of alcohol slows man's reactions measurably. It decreases his ability to judge distances and to tell the difference between visual and auditory stimulae. 6

What this means is that the person full of wine has surrendered his person-hood to a chemical force which takes possession of his entire being, altering radically his state of consciousness, his perceptions, and his behavior. The power of this chemical is reductionist, enslaving, and debasing. He is less free than before, for the chemical induces him to say and do things which he would not say or do if sober. He is less of a person than before, for he is no longer in charge of his thinking or of his behavior. In this direction is debauchery indeed, exactly as the text says.

The contrast between this and Spirit-fullness is both in comparable effects and in kind of effecting. The effects of Spirit-fulless are as ennobling as winefulness is debasing. Never is a person more free than when filled with the Spirit; never is he more truly himself. Such differences in effects prove conclusively that the action of the Spirit is radically different in nature than the action of alcohol. This difference focuses on the fact that the Spirit is not a chemical or a physical property, but a person, whose influence is primarily spiritual and moral. The Spirit does not arbitrarily change brain cells or brain condition as a means of supplanting the freedom of the self, contriving thoughts, decisions, and judgments which are being programmed rather than chosen. In other words, Spirit-fullness is not a physiological intoxication.

The crucial point is that alcohol affects the brain directly and physically, in such a way that personhood is diminished and moral judgment is anesthetized. But the Holy Spirit accepts the reins because they have been given to Him and will hold them only as long as they remain surrendered to Him. We are not dealing with a physical force but a spiritual presence and a spiritual reinforcement.

This nature of Spirit-fullness is illuminated further by our Lord's description of the Spirit's promised relation to believers (John 14-16). He is called the Parakletos, one called alongside to help, not to work the machinery. The term is translated Helper, Strengthener, Advocate, Spokesman, but never operator.

Furthermore, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach, i.e., make truth clear, and enable the understanding. But does this include the impartation of truth cognitively? Yes, for "he will tell you what is to come," Jesus said (16:13). This means the Spirit can impress the mind communicatively; He can impart new information. Our thoughts therefore are subject to the Spirit's action. But normally the Spirit's method will be the quickening of recall: He "will remind you [Jesus said] of everything I have said unto you" (14:26).

We cannot pursue further the rich multiplicity of ways the Spirit relates Himself to the believer, as Guide, Reprover, Enabler. In summary it is clear that He can communicate to the self by spiritual impression, by emotional incitement, by creating thoughts, by arousing the conscience. All of these methods of course involve brain activity, but they do not consist of arbitrary cerebral manipulation in such a way as to mechanically induce desired ends. The manifestations of Spirit-fullness (to return to Ephesians 5), which are speaking with one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord, giving thanks for all things, and submitting ourselves one to another in the fear of Christ, are things we do, freely, volitionally, gladly. We have been convicted by the Spirit, and brought to believe in Jesus by the Spirit's enlightenment and enablement, and we have been helped in putting away sin from our lives, and we have been drawn by the Spirit to a complete consecration and surrender, until the Holy Spirit has moved into the center of our being as Comforter; and in this role He makes Jesus real to us, imparts His love, joy, and peace, reminds us of duty, alarms us of peril, urges us to pray and witness; and now we find ourselves disposed to sing and speak and praise and submit. But all of these benefits of the Spirit's presence come in the form of one person's influence on another, not as a puppeteer pulling strings. We are still free to grieve the Spirit and to resist Him. Let us remember that when this personal freedom is gone in the relationship, the relationship becomes mechanical and nonmoral - and dead.

            In admonishing believers to avoid being filled with wine but to be filled with the Spirit the apostle Paul is implying real options. No one is preprogrammed for one or the other. There is a person who is free to go either direction. But in one direction he will lose his freedom, in the other he will enlarge it. We cannot insist too strongly that the Spirit is not in the business of supplanting personhood with Himself. He does not have to make us less than ourselves in order to rule us. It is not a conquest which spells abridgement of the self, or its absorption into the divine. The Spirit does not reduce the self but energizes it.

Surely it is clear that while "wine-fullness" is chemical and physiological, Spirit-fullness is on a different level of personhood. It is spiritual and moral (Psalm 51:10). But do we thereby rule out any direct, supernatural action of the Holy Spirit on the brain as a physiological organ? By no means. But perhaps we can say that the Spirit's action on the brain is primarily restorative healing, rather than a causative manipulation. The miraculous deliverance from drug addiction experienced by some would suggest such a healing.

What about dispositional tendencies and behavior? We believe that the Holy Spirit cleanses when He fills, and that at a very deep level. There is a cleansing of the carnal mind. by which we mean the inherited predispositional bent toward self-sovereignty and self-willfulness. This can be radically displaced with a bent toward pliancy, submissiveness, and humility before God. Is this a cerebral miracle? We cannot say dogmatically. But insofar as a disposition is tied to an established brain pattern (as truly as an addiction), there is no reason to suppose that the Spirit could not perform a miracle directly on those brain patterns, and rearrange them. He would do it without bungling, without injury, and without risk of complications.

Yet the alteration would not be itself unalterable. The brain is a plastic organ, and takes on the pattern of habit and thinking chosen by the self. The person whose brain has been healed, either of chemical addiction or carnal-mindedness, can reestablish the evil pattern if he trifles with the occasion of his former bondage.

Where has our exploratory essay brought us? Some basic pointers emerge. The relationship of the Spirit to the self is an interpersonal relationship, not a mechanical one. Neither is it chemical in nature, as in the case of alcohol. We must avoid therefore any concepts which imply that the Spirit acts upon us in any way analogous to the action of alcohol.

But to preserve the essential interpersonal nature of the Spirit's relation to the self we must carefully preserve the freedom. To the extent to which persons are acted upon arbitrarily and irresistibly to that extent is their personhood violated and they become things. We must therefore not only resist secular determinism, but theological determinism as well.

Finally, we need to be alert to the bearing of this on our doctrine of man. An interpersonal and thoroughly ethical relationship between the self and the Spirit can exist only on a dualistic basis. If man is not spirit first and brain second, there is no alternative to total Spirit-control of the person via the brain. I see no middle ground. If there is no agent capable of cooperating with the Spirit's impressions or resisting them, then our traditional (and I believe Biblical) concept of personhood disappears. All that is left is a thing being acted upon, with results unavoidable and predetermined. But in that case the concepts of sin and holiness go out the window also.

Endnotes

Note: Bible quotations are from NIV.

1Christianity Today, June 8, 1979.

2"Researchers learning language of brain," by Patrick Young, Newhouse News Service. Oregonian, n.d.

3As Donald M. MacKay says: "It was I who chose; and no doubt as the correlate of my choosing, certain things happened in my brain mechanism which set the course of the physical outcome" (Brains, Machines, and Persons [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980], p. 86).

4What, Then, Is Man?-A Symposium of Theology, Psychology, and Psychiatry (Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1958).

5Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1930), Vol. III, p. 448.

6God Is For the Alcoholic (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 17.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.