Visits from the Holy Ghost? Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Word and Spirit in Preaching

It is very hard to estimate the influence of Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ) on non-conformist Christianity in Wales. Leaving a prominent London medical career to minister in a socially deprived locality among the working classes of Sandfields, Port Talbot, his early ministry stood out as tremendously fruitful at a time when many churches were becoming lifeless under the influence of liberal theologies. Later, as minister of Westminster Chapel in central London, he drew large congregations and many people were helped spiritually through his clear, doctrinal preaching. He became a ‘pastor of pastors’ for a generation of Welsh ministers, inspiring many to make a costly stand and leave denominations which had become increasingly hostile to plain, orthodox Bible teaching. In this sense, his impact was clearly substantial.

Still I hesitate, and for this reason. MLJ died 40 years ago this March so I never met him or heard him preach ‘in the flesh’. Through close friendships with older ministers who knew him on personal terms, and by reading his books for myself (and I had better add, reading them with benefit), I came to realise that there is a second MLJ who also exercises an extensive influence on Welsh Christianity. The realisation struck me when I noticed that various men of quite contrary convictions were claiming association with and approval from MLJ in order to bolster the certainty and authority of their differing positions. Perhaps this is always true of the relationship between a great teacher and his students. I concluded that the ‘original’ MLJ was probably a man of broad catholicity, wide enough to embrace and encourage Christians who differed from him. The second MLJ is a caricature, a rather narrow, chameleon-like, pseudo-mythical religious hero, not so much a person as a name which people benefit from being associated with.

Nowhere is this more true, in my opinion, than in the whole area of his teaching on Christian experience and revival. There is no question that this was and is a vital concern for biblically-minded Christians. But it seems to me that where MLJ’s theology of experience and revival was rooted in a prior commitment to a Protestant and Reformed approach to thinking, the emphasis on revival in subsequent generations has, at times, become detached from that strong theological anchor. The impression has sometimes been given that the Holy Spirit ‘visits’ the church in times of revival but might be quite absent in normal times so that, for some, revival is the only thing that matters. I want to try and show that this was not MLJ’s position.

MLJ’s books are not ‘theological treatises’ in the strict sense. He was not an academic author and this needs to be kept in mind when reading him. They are collections of sermons, theological in content but originally prepared to be publicly proclaimed with practical applications. Having listened to recordings of his preaching, I have frequently found myself imagining his voice as I read. Perhaps the closest he came to producing a ‘systematic’ statement of his theology was a series of Friday evening messages given at Westminster Chapel in the years after WW2 and published in three volumes under the title Great Doctrines of the Bible. Although the tone of these addresses is more lecture than sermon, they maintain a strong pastoral and practical emphasis. My interest here is in the second volume, which focuses on God the Holy Spirit, and in particular chapters 5-9, which deal with the work of the Holy Spirit in general, in redemption, in effectual calling, regeneration, and the new birth.

John 16:8-11

MLJ’s interpretation of John 16:8-11 is a good starting point for this discussion. Talking about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Jesus says:

“And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.” (John 16:8-11).

This has frequently been taken as referring to the Holy Spirit’s work in preparing or bringing people to salvation, in the sense that the Spirit will convince people of sin, righteousness, and judgment, in order to show them their need of Christ. Not so, MLJ asserts. The word should not be translated as ‘convince’ but ‘convict’ and the verses are to be understood in the light of Pentecost as a one-off redemptive historical event. From that moment on, “...the very presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church convicts [the world] of sin, and righteousness, and judgement”.

The Spirit’s one “function and business”, MLJ says, is to draw attention to Christ. It was “the very coming of the Holy Spirit” that convicted the world of unbelief in Christ because if they had believed they too would have received the divine gift. The very coming of the Spirit also convicts the world of righteousness. This is intimately linked to Christ “going to the Father” because “the ultimate proof of God’s acceptance of Christ as our justification is the sending of the Spirit”. Likewise, of judgment, because “the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the final proof of the defeat of Satan and the judgment that is pronounced upon Him... What the Holy Spirit proclaims further is that all who belong to Satan will likewise be judged and condemned with him and cast into the lake of fire”. The very existence of the New Testament church, brought into existence at Pentecost, is the fulfilment of this promised ministry of the Holy Spirit:

“Here, then, is a great work that is done by the Holy Spirit, immediately, by His mere presence in the Church, in connection with our Lord’s completed work of redemption”.

The implication is that the mere existence of Christian people gathered to hear the preaching of God’s word - in or out of what we might call ‘revival’ - is evidence of the presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The General or External Call

Next MLJ moves on to what is called the ‘general call’. Nature itself is part of this call because the “heavens declares the glory of God” and, in that sense, appeals to every man, women, and child to seek for and worship God. MLJ’s focus is on the general call in a narrower sense, that is, the preaching of the gospel as a kind of preparatory invite offered to “all and sundry”. He places great stress on the fact that this call does not come through some sort of ‘inner light’ as held by the Quakers:

“The Holy Spirit always works through the Word of God... The Holy Spirit always uses the word... In order to do His work, the Spirit uses the word of God... He reveals, through the Word, the great love of God to sinners in general”.

In this general, external call the Spirit “presents and offers salvation in Christ” through preaching which is “proclaiming these facts about Christ. It is an explanation of the facts, the meaning of the facts, how these facts constitute salvation and are the cause, the means of salvation”.

The ‘facts’ he has in mind here are the central, Reformed Christological doctrines which he outlined in volume 1 of the series. The Spirit also uses preaching to call people, generally, to repentance and faith. Vitally, he links the Holy Spirit’s power, not to the gifts of the preacher or a religious atmosphere, but explicitly to this sacred content:

“So in the preaching of the word in the power of the Holy Spirit, 

these facts and their interpretation are presented”.

Again, if this content is preached as a general invitation to all - in or out of what we might call revival - this is evidence of the presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who:

“...is concerned about giving the general call of the gospel... the Holy Spirit sees to it that that message is delivered and that that proclamation is made, that general, external call”.

“...there is the truth of the gospel, and we have seen already that it is a part of the work of the Holy Spirit to see that that truth is proclaimed to all and sundry”.

It is clear from MLJ’s lectures on Preaching and Preachers that he believed the Holy Spirit would sometimes consciously lead a preacher to a choice of text and may also give a freedom of expression in the act of preaching. Nevertheless, the real evidence that the Holy Spirit is at work, is not that the preacher feels helped or moved or led. In the final analysis, where preaching is occurring in the power of the Spirit it will be marked by clear explanation of the word which magnifies Christ in all His saving power, revealing the love of God, and confronting listeners with the need for faith and repentance. If any of these things are consistently absent - clarity, Christ, divine love, faith, repentance - there is reason to doubt that the Spirit is at work, regardless of the experiences claimed by the preacher.

The Effectual or Internal Call and Regeneration

It is a fact of Scripture and experience that some who hear the general call will remain completely indifferent to its claims. Others will be moved to respond in faith and repentance. The Holy Spirit sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed as an invitation to all. What makes the difference in those who actually become Christians? In addition to the general, external call there is a special, internal call. This too is the work of the Holy Spirit and though it is different to the external call, it does not occur apart from it. “It is not merely something that comes to a person from the outside - it does that, of course, but in addition - there is an internal call which comes to those who are going to be Christians, and it is an effectual call” (emphasis mine).

This leads on, in the next chapter, to a consideration of the doctrine of regeneration. MLJ acknowledges that there has been a lot of confusion on this subject. One key factor is that the Bible uses the language of ‘regeneration’ to talk about distinct but interrelated aspects of Christian experience. Theologians, too, have used the term inconsistently. In particular there is a need to differentiate between regeneration and conversion. Regeneration is a secret, internal work in which the Spirit places a new disposition in the heart: “...the Holy Spirit implants a principle within me which enables me, for the first time in my life, to discern and apprehend something of this glorious, wondrous truth”. This has to happen before the outward call can be heard as an inward call. Conversion is therefore something that comes later - an outward response to the external gospel call, which would be impossible without this unconscious, internal change and inward, effectual call. MLJ stresses that this work of regeneration - note regeneration, not the external call, the internal call, or conversion - as a direct and immediate work of the Spirit. “It is immediate, it is spiritual, it is supernatural, miraculous”. The dual call - external and internal - corresponds directly to the word being preached. But before the external call can be heard as an effectual internal call, something must happen to the person listening. The Spirit acts “upon the soul from within... producing within us a new principle of spiritual action”.  

Key Scriptures and Concepts

MLJ references a range of Scriptures which teach that a saving knowledge of God depends on an inner working of the Spirit including Matthew 22:14, John 6, Romans 8:5-7, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Ephesians 1:17, 2:1 & 8, Philippians 2:12-13, and 2 Timothy 2:25. We will highlight his interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 1:5, the story of Lydia in Acts 16, James 1:18 & 1 Peter 1:23, and two theological concepts.

1 Thessalonians 1:5 “...our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction”. 

MLJ here understands Paul to be talking about the inner effectual call, as opposed the outward general call. “It is this internal work that turns people from sinners into saints; this is preaching in demonstration of the spirit and of power”. From this perspective it is as though Paul was saying “Our gospel did not just come to you as an external, general call but it also had the Holy Spirit-given power and assurance of an internal, effectual call”. Others were untouched and remained outside the church. The ‘Spirit’s power’ (in the restricted sense of the power exercised in relation to the inner call) is implicitly distinct from the ‘word’ which can come with or without this saving influence (although, as we have seen, the Spirit is always powerfully at work in a less restricted sense, relating to the word in the general call). Nevertheless, this is not something which occurs in complete isolation from the word - it is the word that must come with this power - and the outcome, says MLJ, is that the Thessalonians Christians receive the word ‘not as the word of men, but what it really is, the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

This interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 1:5 has been challenged. Robert Letham has argued that the distinction Paul is making is between the powerless teaching of the synagogues over against the powerful preaching of the gospel. In support of this is the historical background of Jewish persecution of the Christians in Thessalonica. This is incompatible with the view of those who suggest that the Holy Spirit is only working powerfully when people are converted and is otherwise absent. Whilst it seems that some of MLJ’s students may have framed 1 Thessalonians 1:5 as such a black-white contrast, I would argue that MLJ does not do so himself. As we have seen for MLJ the Spirit is at work - is exercising His power - in relation to the general call. What MLJ seems to have in mind is not an ‘on-off’ work of the Spirit’s power but an additional exercise of power by the same Spirit who is already working in the very fact that the gospel is being outwardly proclaimed. I would suggest that Letham is working with a strong covenantal lens in which the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, and therefore the hostility of unbelieving Jews to believing Christians, comes to the fore. MLJ on the other hand, is working with a strong experimental lens, in which the difference between the general and effectual call, believer and unbeliever, takes precedent. I do not want to gloss over the differences between these two approaches but, in this particular case, I am not sure that Letham’s and MLJ’s perspectives are necessarily mutually exclusive. As it was the impact of the effectual gospel call that stirred the jealousy and opposition of the Jews (Acts 17:4-5), it seems that they may be looking at different sides of the same coin.

Acts 16:14 “One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul”.

MLJ draws on the story of Lydia to clarify this relationship of the gospel call and the work of regeneration. “The apostle sat down and preached the Word. There was the external call; he told them the gospel”. At this point Lydia is no different to the others listening but then her heart is opened. “Now there it is perfectly”, MLJ says. “The word is preached, yes, but people do not pay attention to it... what made Lydia attend?...The Lord put something in her heart, this internal work”. This work of regeneration is an immediate, direct action of the Spirit on the soul but it has specific reference to, and therefore cannot be ultimately separated from, the preached word. The result of this inward change is that “the external call became the internal call, the general became effectual”.

James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23

These two verses are presented as examples of Scripture which “suggest that our regeneration takes places through and by means of the word”. MLJ does not deny the close association of regeneration and the word but he does keep them distinct. He argues that these verses speak not of regeneration in its strictest sense, as the initial implantation of a new disposition, but regeneration in a more general sense which incorporates the subsequent coming to birth of that new life. With regards this bringing new life to birth “...it is certainly the word which does that. It is the effectual call coming through the medium of the word, that, as it were, brings the seed of life to life”. The word is used “not in the act of generating, but in the bringing out into life of that which has already been implanted within”. He appeals to the parable of the sower to show that whilst the seed of the word must be preached, something has to happen to the disposition of the soil - the disposition of the soul - before that word can be received fruitfully.

Theological Concepts

Attention is drawn to two theological concepts in support of the immediacy of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. The first involves an appeal to Hebrews 11. The argument works from a view of redemptive history that emphasises how little gospel light OT believers had in comparison with NT believers. Whilst they must have been regenerate to be believers, this could not have happened under the fullness of the gospel call which has only occurred after the Incarnation and Pentecost. This is taken as evidence that regeneration is an immediate work apart from the word. They were regenerate without the “something better made perfect” - that is the fuller gospel revelation. Therefore, MLJ argues, “...it is clear that it is not the word that actually performs the act of regeneration. Regeneration is something that is not mediate through the word, but immediate. It was the Spirit of God who dealt with them and operated on them”.

It is not clear to me that the doctrine of regeneration arises directly out of Hebrews 11 and I don’t think MLJ is giving an exegesis of Scripture here, so much as he is using it to illustrate a prior theological concept. In doing this, I think his presentation might excessively downplay the presence of the gospel within the OT Scriptures. Christ may have been “in the Old concealed and in the New revealed” but He is there in the Old. Eyes of faith have always seen Him there and responded to His call through the inspired word. MLJ’s point may still have some validity in relation to Old Testament saints who were regenerated before Scripture was written down. However, even there regeneration enabled them to respond to the call of God’s word - it is just that the word came to them by way of oral communication through angelic messengers or a direct voice from God. Of course, it would be horribly anachronistic to use the experience of these ancient believers as in any way instructive with regards the experience of believers in the New Testament era. I do not, personally, find this particularly convincing as an argument because it seems to already assume what it sets out to prove - my introductory is relevant here: MLJ’s Great Doctrine books are transcripts of lectures; it is not a detailed and comprehensive systematic theology. 

The second theological concept which MLJ appeals to gives stronger support to the idea of a direct work of the Spirit in regeneration. It is the case of saved infants. An infant “cannot receive truth, it does not have the ability; it does not have understanding, it has not awakened to these things”. MLJ, who presents a credo- rather than paedo-baptist position in volume 3 of the Great Doctrines series, insists that infants can be saved because God can regenerate a child “in exactly the same way as anybody else... it is immediate, direct, it is God creating anew as He created the world out of nothing at the beginning”.

Some evangelical Presbyterians would argue that infants of Christian parents are frequently regenerated at the time of their baptism. This is not the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, where baptism itself is believed to cause or secure regeneration in a mechanical way. The Presbyterian idea is rather that, in the free sovereign working of the Holy Spirit, the direct regenerating work may occur at the same time as the baptism. Significantly, it seems to me that there is substantial agreement that the Spirit’s work in regeneration is not tied chronologically to the preaching of the word, even between Reformed thinkers who hold different positions on infant baptism. Both positions hold that the Spirit can do this work of regeneration prior to any conscious understanding of the word. Both hold that there may be a delay before that regeneration breaks the surface in a visible conversion. Both agree that whilst regeneration can occur apart from any conscious understanding of the word, it can only be recognised retrospectively, when it leads a person to receive the word, in response to a general, external call, made personal and effectual. In that sense, the work of the Spirit in regeneration might be perceived as occurring apart from the word chronologically, but it should never be perceived as isolated from the word theologically.

Baptism of the Spirit and Revival

There is not space, nor is it necessary, to consider in detail MLJ’s understanding of Baptism of the Holy Spirit and revival, which are explored in the last few chapters of his volume on God the Holy Spirit. He believed that there were conscious and powerful workings of the Spirit which can occur in a believer after conversion, particularly in relation to personal assurance and empowerment for preaching and other forms of Christian witness. This he termed, rightly or wrongly, the ‘Baptism of the Holy Spirit’. He understood revival as a time when many Christians experienced this influx of spiritual power simultaneously, transforming the witness of the church so as to increase its impact on communities and nations.

In relation to this current topic all that needs to be said is that he held these views within a prior commitment, to, or within the boundaries of, a Reformed theological perspective. He does not use the term Baptism of the Spirit in the sense that the Pentecostal and charismatic churches do; earlier in the volume he has outlined a typically Reformed understanding of Pentecost as a initiatory, one-off, historical event and we have already noted this dimension in his interpretation of John 16:8-11. The experience he refers to - and I think his choice of ‘Spirit Baptism’ terminology does cause some confusion here - is something that happens to people who are already within that Spirit-filled community, the church. It is not an ‘on-off’; it is a greater degree, or a fresh influx of what is already there.

He makes this point explicitly in chapters 22 and 23 in which he states that “we must emphasise that what we considered in the last lecture” - with regards the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and revival - “is in addition to everything we have learned previously about the work of the Holy Spirit - the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration” (emphasis his). He states plainly that “You cannot be a Christian at all without having the Holy Spirit”. “The Holy Spirit convicts; it is He who give (sic) us this new life, brings us regeneration and unites us to Christ”. I am not here reflecting on the rights and wrongs of MLJ’s view of revival. What I am saying is that you cannot appreciate his understanding of the Holy Spirit inside revival in isolation from his understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work outside of revival. For MLJ the Spirit is - emphatically - not absent from Christians outside of periods of revival. Prior to any additional, greater degree of blessing He might give to the church, the Spirit is powerfully present to convict, regenerate and unite people to Christ . To portray it otherwise is to misrepresent MLJ’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

Pastoral Motive

At various points in these chapters MLJ’s pastoral concern in emphasising the immediacy of the Spirit’s work of regeneration comes to the fore. He is clearly not concerned that the Holy Spirit has left the church and will only return when Christians make enough prayer noise, by ‘storming heavens gates’ and so on. His whole position presupposes a foundation in the Spirit’s continual presence in the church wherever the gospel is being preached as a general call, regardless of whether that call becomes an effectual call in anyone listening. Nor was he concerned to distance himself or rebuke other evangelicals who differed from him in their approach to preaching. Nor did he ever suggest that a believer is sub-Christian if they have not encountered unusual experiences of spiritual leading and insight. MLJ does not make the anabaptistic mistake of expanding the immediacy of the Spirit’s work in regeneration to incorporate those unusual spiritual experiences which some Christians sometimes have, traditionally categorised as ‘extraordinary providences’ in Reformed theology.

Fortunately for us MLJ gives several hints about his pastoral motivations in emphasising the immediacy of the work of the Spirit in regeneration. He argues against non-evangelical preaching where Scripture is treated, not as the powerful word of God, but as a kind of moral influence. The idea is that “the truth has a kind of general moral effect on people”. This would have been common in many of the liberal churches of the day - people were seen as basically good and so Bible teaching might help them to improve them selves, give them inspiration to live a good life and so on. Over and against this, MLJ taught the Pauline doctrine that humankind is “dead in trespasses and sins” such that nothing short of a miraculous renewal of the heart can move people to actually receive Scripture in all its saving, life-transforming effect. The underlying problem with this kind of ‘moral influence’ preaching is that it doesn’t really grasp the seriousness of the human condition.

This same concern comes out as he surveys the different views held between different schools of Christian thought. What makes the difference between those who respond to the gospel and those who hear without responding? For the Pelagian, people decide for themselves and the Spirit does nothing. For the Semi-Pelagian love for God originates in the human heart and the Spirit helps. For the Arminian, the Spirit gives a sufficient measure of grace to everyone to accept the gospel if they want to. The stereotypical Lutheran view is that the Spirit’s work is essential because people cannot contribute anything positively but they can resist the Spirit. The Reformed view, expressed in the Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England, and the Westminster, Heidelberg, and Belgic confessions is that “the Holy Spirit of God does a work in those who are saved which He does not do in those who are not saved”. This is necessitated by the total depravity, the utter sinfulness, of fallen humanity. In emphasising the immediacy of the Spirit’s work in regeneration his pastoral concern has to do with the way we understand our condition as sinners. Revival is not in mind here. “The only comment I would make is that the theory we espouse, and are prepared to contend for, will be determined by our view of the condition of men and women in sin, as the result of the fall”.

MLJ aligns himself very definitely with the Reformed view. But he also goes out of his way not to draw too hard a division between those who disagree. Regeneration is a mysterious and secret work of the Spirit. He adds “that here, perhaps more than anywhere else in the consideration of doctrine, it is vital that we should all realise that there is a limit to our understanding, and that we must come to the Scriptures with open minds and not be led overmuch by our own ideas and our own philosophy”. Differences on this matter should not disrupt fellowship between Christians who have come to a real faith in Christ but have not come to the same understanding of how they came to faith: “Fortunately we are not saved by our understanding of these things... I am quite sure that there will be Pelagians in heaven and... Arminians and Lutherans”. Some who hold the Pelagian and Arminian positions ought rightly to be considered heretics and I do not think MLJ is suggesting that such people will be in heaven. Rather he is voicing the broad catholicity that a true Reformed theology frequently produces in hearts which are mastered by its truths: “By the grace of God, men and women, who may be muddled in their thinking and in their understanding of the mechanism of salvation, can still be saved”.

A Few Concluding Thoughts

Brothers and sisters in Christ, should we be divided over the relationship of Word and Spirit in preaching? The topic has generated considerable heat in recent times. Are we not all somewhat guilty of talking past each other, of focusing so much on our own prior concerns that we miss the equally valid concerns being raised by those who appear to disagree? Can we not begin by recognising the great privilege which we all have in common? God has poured His Spirit on the church and promised never to leave us. This is not conditional, it is covenantal. If the Spirit had left us, we would no longer be Christians and we would no longer come together with a hunger to hear the Bible preached. Our very existence as Christians gathered together in churches is a work of the Holy Spirit which convicts the unbelieving world around us. Further, if the gospel is preached - if attention is drawn to Christ, to who He is and what He has done, if the Bible is explained clearly, and people are called to believe and repent - then the Spirit is overseeing that, actively moving Christians to love and give time and money, actively moving pastors to study and pray and preach, and thus ensuring that the general call of the gospel goes out “to all and sundry”. If nothing else happens beyond this, the Spirit has been at work in power and we need to worship God for it.

This is ordinary Christianity. Every time a church gathers in the name of Jesus to worship God, the Spirit is present in a vital way. Scripture does not make this dependent on the state of the preacher. It makes it dependent on the unbreakable covenant promise of God. To link the presence of the Spirit to the preacher is to take attention from Jesus; this is something the Holy Spirit will never do. If Jesus is preached, biblically, clearly, faithfully, along with the inseparable call to faith and repentance, then the Spirit is present and powerfully active. To doubt this is sinful. It is to suggest that there is some good in us that is drawing us to church to hear God’s word. Not so. This too is the work of the Spirit. Left to ourselves our itching ears would find any number of other worldly messages to listen to - messages that do not condemn us in our sin, messages that do not require our repentance.

To pray that God would “visit us this Sunday”  in such a way that gives the impression that the Holy Spirit comes and goes, is to nurture and feed unbelief. The Holy Spirit has said He will be there, and we should pray accordingly. We ask for the Spirit to express our dependence on God because we need Him. But we expect our prayers to be answered because God has promised that He will be present. To suggest the Spirit is not present in the church is to imply - perhaps unintentionally - that  Pentecost did not happen and that, consequently, the world is not condemned for unbelief, Christ’s righteousness has not been accepted in heaven, and Satan has not been judged already. What spirit inspires such a prayer as that?! No wonder there is so much weakness and defeat in our Christianity if we have started doubting that Christ is with us by His Spirit. On our own we are weak and defeated but, if we are Christians, we are never on our own. No wonder people would rather watch the football on a Sunday if the best we can offer is an outside chance that God might visit occasionally. Be gone unbelief!

Thank God that the ‘doctrine of the absent Spirit’ is not a Christian doctrine. If people are gathering to pray and hear the gospel, the Spirit has not left us. And there is more. If anyone hears that general call as an inward, effectual call, and responds outwardly in faith, it is evidence that the Spirit has been working in a special, unseen, miraculous way. Note, this does not mean that He is more present. It means that He is exercising His power in a specific, saving way. If this is going on in your church, even with ones and twos, then hallelujah! This is ordinary Christianity too. Merely ‘ordinary’ Christianity is remarkable, supernatural, and extraordinary. A merely ‘ordinary’ ministry - a straight forward regular gospel preaching ministry with no special frills or bells and whistles - is an expression of the extraordinary presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

Is there more? Is there such a thing as revival? I say this hesitantly: in one sense it doesn’t matter. That is, if you and I are both experiencing this ‘extraordinary ordinariness’ of the Spirit’s presence and power, we have too much in common to allow the question of ‘more’ to divide us. Some brothers have genuine reservations in this area because of the excesses and doctrinal distortions which have sometimes been associated with revival. These reservations, held by sincere believers, must be respected. But I believe that the Holy Spirit does sometimes do ‘more’.

Sometimes the Holy Spirit does all of this with the ‘volume turned up to 11’. Something happens so that now the world senses His mere(!) presence, His convicting presence in the church with far greater sensitivity than before. Christians don’t do anything new but they are drawn to gather and fellowship and pray and love and give with greater energy and fervour than before. As He worked to ensure the general call was heard before, now the Spirit works to make that same invitation louder and clearer, and more loving, shining greater light on who Christ is and what He has done, so that the call to believe and repent becomes even more irresistibly attractive and convincing. And then He works that same miracle of regeneration but now He does it to more people, so that they hear the saving effectual, inward call in greater numbers than before.

The apostle Paul sometimes layered up superlatives to express how great God’s mega-super—overflowing-abounding grace is. In the same vein, the ordinary work of the Spirit in preaching and the life of the church is genuinely extraordinary. Revival is not a categorically different work of the Spirit, it is a greater expression of the ordinary-extraordinariness of the Spirit’s powerful presence in the supernatural-normality of the church. Revival is not an extraordinary work of the Spirit. Revival is the super-mega-extraordinary-but-ordinary work of the Holy Spirit who is always powerfully present in the Church.

Want to read more? Try this: Touch not the Lord’s Anointed.