The expression came as quite a shock. I was reading a church magazine, and there it was: that the Holy Spirit should 'become cold, dirty and stagnant'.

 It must surely be impossible for God's Spirit to be ineffective and unpleasant as the phrase seemed to imply. Of course, it was a picture, a metaphor of a spiritual reality. But no! Impossible.

 Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well about the water that He would give, a spring of water welling up in her, to eternal life (John 4.14). And on the last day of the feast in Jerusalem, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, "If any one thirst. let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water." (John 7.38.) Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This picture of the Spirit is of living water, clean, clear, fresh and moving. In John 6.63 He states "It is the spirit that gives life... the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The word of God is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (Hebrews 4.12-13). Nothing ineffective there. Christians are "a letter from Christ, delivered by [the apostles] written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God", written on our hearts and not with a ball point on paper (2 Corinthians 3.3).        For the Spirit gives life. "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Romans 8.11).

 This effectiveness of the Spirit was seen in Acts in particular actions. The power promised by Jesus "when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" was demonstrated when they spoke in foreign languages (Acts 2.4); when they "spoke the word of God with boldness"(Acts 4.31); when Paul looked intently on Elymas the magician, and spoke to him and he became blind (Acts 13.9).

 Having considered all of this, I had a creeping thought whether there might be a valid point lurking behind the unpleasant, and inaccurate and unscriptural expression in the magazine. After all, did not Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5.19 say, "Do not quench the Spirit"? A different picture obviously, the Spirit as fire and not water, but what would be the state of things in that fellowship if the Spirit had been 'quenched'? Or with Timothy if he failed to rekindle the gift of God that was in him through the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1.6)? Why should Timothy bother to train himself in godliness (1 Timothy 4.7)? And what about the servant in Jesus' parable, who failed to make use of the talent he had been given (Matthew 25.18)? In all these cases there is a coldness, an ineffectiveness, a stagnant faith. The deficiency is not in the Holy Spirit (perish the thought!) but in our response.

 In fact, as I read the whole article, 'the constant flow of the Holy Spirit' was compared to having a shower. The water is pure, clean, and above all else, flowing..., not cold, dirty and stagnant, but enriching and prosperous. It is not the Holy Spirit that needs to be refreshed but ourselves, so that we are able to grow and be of use when this generously given gift is bestowed on us.

GC