Holy Spirit/Ghost - Wanted: Dead(?) or Alive(!)
December 7, 2003
This weekend up in Eagle, we spent some time talking about the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians today. Someone made the comment that in a church they grew up in, the Holy Spirit was referred to as the Holy Ghost - the implication being that it was “dead” and no longer active in the ways it was in the early church.
This morning at my Presbyterian (PCUSA) church, we recited the Apostles’ Creed, which refers to the Holy Ghost twice: “who was conceived by the Holy Ghost” and “I believe in the Holy Ghost.”
Recently, I’ve been becoming aware that so many of our issues really come down to language. What are we teaching people when we recite the Apostles’ Creed and refer to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost? Do people pick up on the implication that He may be dead? Simply a Ghost-like being hovering around…? Or do they look past that language and realize that the Holy Spirit is alive and active in our world today?
I found two previous versions of the Apostles’ Creed online, “The Old Roman Creed” and a sixth-century Gallican version of the Creed. They are below:
The Old Roman Creed
I believe in God almighty
And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried
And the third day rose from the dead
Who ascended into heaven
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father
Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit
The holy church
The remission of sins
The resurrection of the flesh
The life everlasting.
The Apostles’ Creed (6th c. Gallican version)
I believe in God the Father almighty,
I also believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord,
conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.
suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried; he descended into hell,
rose again the third day,
ascended into heaven,
sat down at the right hand of the Father,
thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh and life eternal.
Yet, the Nicene Creed refers to the Holy Spirit, just as that - the Spirit, and does not use the language of “Holy Ghost.” So, what does all of this mean? Is our language more theological than we realize? Should we be changing the Apostles’ Creed so it says “Holy Spirit” - and teach our congregations why we are doing that? Are people in our congregation even picking this up…thoughts?
Tags: Holy-Ghost, Holy-Spirit, Theology
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 7th, 2003 at 6:36 pm
Adam: Yes, I agree with you that the issue is language. I want to ask, however, what it is we teach people when we refer to the Holy Spirit as HE. In the Greek, Spirit is neuter ([it]-penuma) and in Hebrew it is feminine ([she] -ruach). Granted, table is feminine in Spanish–we do not (I do not) call a table a she. We may wish to consider getting over gender identifications were they are not warranted.
December 7th, 2003 at 8:28 pm
Tony, thanks for your comments. Damn computer at church froze up on me, so this is try #2. Yes, your comments are why I’m so eager to learn Greek/Hebrew over the next few years [let's see if I can keep my eagerness up while I'm actually DOING it]. Yes, I’ve seen recently just how much power our words and languages have - and most of the time we are unaware of it. My pastor today said “man” today in ref. to 1 Cor 5.17 (which, even the NIV uses “anyone”) and I thought if I was a female, that would really have bothered me. I am still not sure where I stand on all of the gender inclusive issues, but I think we have to be much more careful and we definitely need to watch our language in church [and I'm not talking about profanity here...!].
December 7th, 2003 at 11:15 pm
Adam: To wonder about gender inclusive issues is a wonderful start. I am glad you are beginning to learn GK (I see you picked up Mounce). It’s interesting. If God is not a literal father, why then are we caught up in calling God father? If God is not a literal male, why then call God he? Many have made it clear that no matter the evidence they will not change their view re: same-sex relationships. I have no doubts about that–what is interesting, however, is that gender and same-sex relationships are twin issues. Those who demand God be called father are usually those who dislike queer people. This amuses me–God is not a male, God is not a female–yet God IS, somehow, father. The Spirit IS somehow male. The only one we know for sure was a male: Jesus. And by the jock, hetero-normative standards of many of your people, Jesus was not a very good male. :)
December 7th, 2003 at 11:59 pm
I don’t think language is the issue, but language reflects our beliefs. Is the Holy Spirit dead or is it we do not believe it is alive. Spirit and/or ghost are mere words but the belief is the beginning or end of action. Does God use His (sorry) spirit to communicate, equip, reveal Himself to the believer? Youbetcha. Let us strive to avail ourselves to the spirit (an actual entity not just the concept) of unity and power instead of division and separation.
We bicker over gender issue yet still are demeaning to age and class difference. Language issues never deal with the problem. It only distracts us from loving and serving each other. The woman at the well wanted to get Jesus off the subject by talking about worship, don’t we do the same when we pick apart the words.
Gross generalization do more to separate than words.
December 8th, 2003 at 6:01 am
In popular parlay, I don’t think the word “ghost” connotes inactivity OR death at all… on the contrary when someone speaks of a ghost they are speaking of a very active and living being of the spirit world. The only reason that ghost may be associated with death in popular culture is that it is the primary means by which we experience the disembodiment of a “spirit” from “body” — in popular terms a ghost is a living being without a body. But again, when was the last time you heard of an inactive ghost? Actually, I think reference to the Holy Ghost is a great way to communicate his 1) activity; 2) non-physical nature.
In regard to being gender neutral in relation the the Spirit… I think it is more of a travesty to refer to him as an “it” and to de-personify the 2nd person of the Trinity. Tony, do you have a better personal pronoun than he or she (both of which denote gender)?
December 8th, 2003 at 6:11 am
Um, it’s really late, and I just realized I started my last post with a terrible misappropriation of the word “parlay”… I meant to use the word “parlance” but now I have been exposed for the idiot that I am.
December 9th, 2003 at 10:38 am
hey adam…i am a little behind on reading, but wanted to jump in to the semantics discussion.
words do carry a lot of weight and a ton of meanings both implied and interpreted. like holy ghost and intolerant….
as an anglican, we say the nicene creed each week which does use the holy spirit, rather than the holy ghost. we have two services rite 1 and rite 2, rite 2 updates most language and changes holy ghost in the apostles creed to holy spirit.
now i grew up in the disciples of christ church and i usually joke that the holy spirit was the holy ghost….you never heard about our saw it….basically the holy spirit was the unknown person of the trinity…
i had to be introduced to the power and the presence of the holy spirit in college through my intervarsity small group that happened to be “charismatic” …
soooo i do feel that holy ghost gives a negative, dead, uninvolved view of the holy spirit…
i mean think of all the ghosts in film…haunted mansion etc….
we need new/old definitions cause many don’t even know the first thing about what we are trying to say…
trinity is that girl in the matrix right?….
lots more thoughts…but really must work today…
i do think that the holy spirit expresses the feminine side of god!