Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 12 - The Doctrine of Accidental Sanctification

The following post will be a final reading reflection for the THEO 351 blogging assignment. It will be a reflection on a section entitled “The Spirit of Jesus Christ” from the book Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, by Gary D. Badcock.[1]

Badcock writes that some early christologies had a broad pneumatic character to them, but in later theology the Holy Spirit was excluded from the christological category of theology, resulting in negative implications which are still with us today.[2] In this article Badcock is concerned with how to reintegrate pneumatology into christology in order to gain a more holistic understanding of Christ and the Spirit, and of God’s salvific work in creation.[3] He examines the Roman Catholic reappraisal of the scholastic doctrine of the “habitual” or “accidental” sanctification of Jesus, which describes the relation of the Spirit and the Logos to the human nature of Christ, within the doctrine of the hypostatic union (the union of the two natures in Christ).

In the scholastic doctrine of the hypostatic union a distinction is made between the grace of union and habitual, or accidental, grace. The grace of union is strictly concerned with the Logos assuming the human nature in the incarnation. This anointing of the human nature with the divine gave Jesus essential or substantial sanctification. Accidental or habitual sanctification and graces are graces received external to hypostatic union, and appropriated by the Holy Spirit. In the case of Jesus habitual grace enabled him to live a godly life, and heal the sick. In this doctrine then, the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ life is secondary to the hypostatic union.[4]

It should be noted that there is no time lag or long process involved here. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Since he [Jesus] had already reached the goal of creaturely union with God from his conception, through his substantial sanctification in the grace of union, the accidental graces of the Holy Spirit must also have been present in their fullness from the beginning.”[5]

The purpose of this doctrine of hypostatic union was to “acknowledge the true humanity of Christ and to provide a distinctive role in Christology for the Holy Spirit in its relation to humanity.”[6] The problem, Badcock writes, is that since the accidental sanctification of the humanity of Jesus is a function of the incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit ends up appearing superfluous. Badcock goes on to examine Heribert Mühlen’s corrective to the doctrine of accidental sanctification as a possible solution.

This is a new doctrine and new discussion for me. It has taken me quite a few readings to get a grasp on the various terminology and ideas being expressed. I have hardly mastered this doctrine, but I think I have not too bad of an understanding of it now. One of the things that I have wondered as I have read through this article is what kind of effect the doctrine of  the communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) would have in this discussion. I will give two examples.

Badcock writes that the concept of human nature in the doctrine of accidental sanctification is defective since it does not allow for “growth of movement in Jesus’ human relation to God”; such development is “essential to human existence,” and without it one cannot be human.[7] Reference the communicatio idiomatum, Lutheran theologian A.G. Voigt writes:

“Full justice is not done to such declarations [as found in Matt 9:6; 11:27, 28:18; John 5:27; Phil 3:21; Eph 4:10] by attributing to the human nature of Christ only extraordinary, but limited powers, while the divine properties are exclusively restricted to the divine nature . . . . Such utterances show that the human nature participates in the glories of the divine, that is, the attributes of the divine nature are in their operation shared in by the human  nature.”[8]

Given the way that the human nature of Christ shares in the divine nature, I wonder if Badcock’s statement about the necessity of development as a requirement for being human is really valid for Christ. If not, then there is no problem.

In another example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that since the mission of the Holy Spirit is to bestow habitual grace, and since the Holy Spirit rested on Jesus, it is therefore evident that Jesus must have possessed habitual grace. And, since Jesus’ human nature is not confused with the divine after hypostatic union, it is therefore necessary that Jesus participate in the divine just like any other man, i.e. through the reception of habitual grace by the Holy Spirit.[9] In the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum Christ’s two natures are not confused, but there is a true communion between them, and each nature shares in the attributes of the other. Again, given the communication of attributes between the divine and human natures, I wonder if St. Thomas’ statement about Christ having to participate in the divine just like any other man (and hence the necessity for habitual grace) is accurate.

Regardless of whether my thoughts regarding the communication of attributes are correct or not, this article has made me interested in doing further study on this topic. I would like to think further on the necessity and benefits of developing a christology with a broader pneumatic character.

______________________________

[1] Gary D. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 145-153.

[2] Ibid., 145-146.

[3] Ibid. 147.

[4] Ibid., 146-147. (for this whole paragraph)

[5] Ibid., 147.

[6] Ibid., 149.

[7] Ibid.

[8] A.G. Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics, American Lutheran Classics Volume 3, ed. Jordan Cooper (Fairfield, IA: Just and Sinner Publications, 2013), 126.

[9] Badcock, Light of Truth, 147.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 11 - Kärkkäinen on the Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg

The following post is a reflection on a journal article entitled “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg” by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen.

Kärkkäinen writes that the most characteristic feature of Pannenberg’s pneumatology is his comprehensive and holistic approach in showing the critical role of the Holy Spirit in Creation, salvation, the Church, and the eschaton.[1] The section titled “The Spirit, Salvation, and Christian Community” (pages 25  - 28) is the part of the article that I enjoyed the most. I appreciate Pannenberg’s emphasis on salvation being “always mediated by the church, by its proclamation and administration of the sacraments.”[2] I found interesting Pannenberg’s explanation of how having a pneumatology that is integrally related to creation and eschatology guards against both the view that sees the work of the Holy Spirit as only in the fellowship of believers, as well as against a harmful enthusiasm, as manifested throughout church history in groups like the Montanists.[3]

An area that I am in agreement with Kärkkäinen is his caution towards Pannenberg’s use of field concept to depict the Holy Spirit as a force field.  Pannenberg uses field theory in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit to help explain how the presence of the Holy Spirit “pervades all of creation.”[4] Among other problems with this, Kärkkäinen states that this makes the Holy Spirit impersonal, which is a notion completely foreign to Christian theology.[5] He also questions the adequacy and appropriateness of borrowing ideas from the physical sciences to explain theology.[6] I agree. Scientists have a way of changing their ideas and concepts from time to time, and I find it difficult to see how something like field theory could be adequate to explain God in any kind of enduring way. Despite Kärkkäinen’s apprehension of Pannenberg’s use of field theory, he still writes that “its potential for building bridges between science and the public sphere is undisputed.” This sort of approach thinks that if we can just appeal to such and such a group enough, they will be so impressed with our openness that they will want to become Christians. This approach to evangelism is not helpful, and can even have the opposite effect. There is also very real potential for adopting ideas that can prove wrong, and even harmful.

Overall, Pannenberg is most enjoyable when he sticks to traditional theology. Although I am not convinced by his more innovative ideas, this article was interesting to read.

 ______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Working of the Spirit of God in Creation and in the People of God: The Pneumatology of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Volume 26, No. 1, Spring 2004): 25, 31.

[2] Ibid., 26.

[3] Ibid., 27.

[4] Ibid., 20.

[5] Ibid., 23.

[6] Ibid., 32.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 10 - The Filioque

The following post is a continued reflection on the journal article entitled “Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit” by Warren McWilliams.[1]

In this article McWilliams surveys two Reformed theologians, Barth and Moltmann, who have directly opposing views on the filioque. Barth believes that this phrase is absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of the Trinity, salvation, and eternal nature of humanity. Moltmann rejects it and believes that it subordinates the Holy Spirit to the son, is not faithful to salvation history, and is superfluous. Moltmann proposes the formulation, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son” to replace “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

I find Barth’s argument most convincing, and think that he is correct both in what the filioque clarifies as well as with what it guards against. I do not think Moltmann’s proposal for a revised formula is helpful. We do not need three (or more) versions of the creed. Would this not have the effect of adding more disagreement and confusion throughout the church? On the issue of authority, I must admit that I do find it surprising that Western Christians felt that it was okay to amend a creed that was formulated and agreed upon ecumenically in a council. Nonetheless, at this point in history I do not think that the answer is to retract the filioque. There is a similarity between this issue and the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Prior to the Reformation the doctrine of justification was not formulated or stressed in the same way that it came to be in the Reformation. It came to be formulated because of the circumstances in the Western church at the time. It was also formulated non-ecumenically; that is to say, it was not formulated and agreed upon by bishops representing the entire church. Even so, Protestants still believe that this doctrine is biblical and true. Most would agree that having been enlightened by the truth of this doctrine we should not retract it, or say that it does not matter, even for the sake of unity.[2]  The similarity with the filioque is that it also was formulated non-ecumenically. Just as differing opinion and opposition remain with the doctrine of justification, differing opinion and opposition remain with the filioque. Similarly, those who hold to the phrase believe it to be biblical, true, good, and salutary. I believe the Protestant doctrine of justification is a weightier matter than the filioque, but we should not get rid of something that we know to be true just for the sake of unity.[3]

The creed without the filioque is not wrong, but neither is it wrong with it. Forcing one side to either add or subtract the filioque could have the effect of harming consciences. Perhaps this is an area where we could maintain Christian unity while letting each side of the church carry on confessing the creed as they have been accustom to doing.
____________________________

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 168-181.

[2] Not all agree. The Lutheran World Federation prepared the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” with the Roman Catholic Church in 1999. This has been rejected by confessional Lutheranism.

[3] I suspect this comparison probably falls short, but just a thought.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 9 - The Filioque and Christian Unity

The following post is a reading reflection on a journal article entitled “Why All the Fuss about Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit” by Warren McWilliams.

In the previous article that I read for this assignment the evangelical theologian Clark H. Pinnock voiced his opposition to the filioque. Pinnock believes that the addition of this phrase by the Western church was an abuse of power.[1] He believes that the creed was better before it, and that removing it would be “healing to the divided church.”[2] Likewise, in this current article Reformed theologian Jurgen Moltmann also opposes the filioque and believes that returning to the original form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed would help end the schism between the East and the West.[3] McWilliams goes on to show in this article that the World Council of Churches also takes this point of view and has recommended that all churches recognize the Nicene creed without the filioque as normative.[4]

There is something that seems a little odd to me in this sentiment. If the Roman Catholic Church were to retract the filioque then I could see it as plausible that a significant step towards repairing relations with the East could possibly be made, since those two communions have a fair bit in common; however, I cannot see it doing the same for any Protestant communion. It is worth nothing that the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) condemned Protestants as heretical on many points.[5] The filioque is probably one of the lesser issues between Protestants (of those who follow the creed) and Eastern Orthodox.

I also wonder if it is not at least a little ironic that Christians who do not believe in baptismal regeneration are taking strong issue with the filioque, but not with, “I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.”[6] There is also the question of who speaks for Protestantism.

As is probably evident I have become a little cynical when it comes to the achievement of Christian unity, but I am certainly not against working towards unity with other Christian denominations. I am happy to see such efforts and fruit in my own denomination.[7] Christians should seek unity and agreement wherever we can, but I am skeptical that rolling back the clock on the filioque would have the results for which Pinnock, Moltmann, and others are hopeful.

______________________________

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 197.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Warren McWilliams, “Why all the Fuss about the Filioque? Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann on the Procession of the Spirit,” Journal of the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (date and issue unknown): 173.

[4] Ibid., 180.

[5] The article at the following link shows instances of the historic opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy against both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: “Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical?,” Orthodox Christian Information Center, accessed 25 June 2016, http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx.

[6] Responses #6 and #7 of the discussion at the following link give a nice explanation of the Reformed view of this phrase: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/39146-The-Nicene-Creed-quot-One-Baptism-quot


[7] See the following links for some nice examples of ecumenical work by confessional Lutherans with Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and other Lutherans:

http://www.canadianlutheran.ca/confessional-lutherans-and-anglicans-draw-closer-together/

http://ilc-online.org/2016/05/12/second-meeting-ilc-pcpcu-dialogue-group/

http://ilc-online.org/2016/05/18/nordic-lutheran-dioceses-enter-fellowship-talks-german-english-lutherans/

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 8 - Pinnock - Part 2

The following post is a continued reflection on chapter six of the book Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Clark H. Pinnock.

In this chapter Pinnock lays out an argument regarding the question of salvation for those who have never heard the gospel, and related to this, how God might work through other religions. Pinnock’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit is what enables the rest of his conclusions on this matter. In this post, I will try to focus only on Pinnock’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit as it relates to the topic.[1]

Pinnock writes that “participation in salvation is not impossible for people outside the church,” and that people who have never heard the gospel can gain access to it through the Spirit.[2] This is because “grace is always present by the Spirit,” and the Spirit is present everywhere.[3] It is in this manner that God penetrates other religions and cultures with his truth.[4]

For Pinnock, the Holy Spirit is a general presence of God that is present throughout all of creation and present in every living creature. In order to cultivate the idea of a general, universal presence of the Spirit, rather than refer to “the Holy Spirit,” Pinnock usually drops the definite article and simply refers to “Spirit.”  So it is through the ubiquitous presence of “Spirit” in creation, and the association of ever present grace with the presence of “Spirit” that Pinnock is able to conclude that there is a possibility of salvation for those outside of the church.

At times Pinnock does not seem to be saying anything out of the ordinary. For example, yes, Christ died for all. Yes, God's grace is universal, and yes, everyone who is saved  is enlightened and drawn to God by the Holy Spirit. But, overall I am not comfortable with Pinnock's view. It seems to be along the lines of panentheism, and appears to confuse the breath of life given to man with the regeneration and sanctification received through conversion. It is true that the Scriptures talk of the Spirit as “moving over the surface of the water” at creation, and compares the Spirit to the wind blowing where it wishes, but this does not negate particularity or definiteness to the presence of the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2; John 3:5 MEV). The ancient creeds—Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian—do not talk of the Holy Spirit as a general presence either. Likewise, I believe that the act of the Spirit associated with the giving and sustenance of life (Job 34:14; Psalm 104:29-30) is different from the experience of regeneration by the repentant (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5). At the moment, I cannot think of any where in Scripture where a general presence of the Holy Spirit is equated with “grace,” although that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” does come to mind (John 1:17).

For Pinnock it is also important that Spirit be seen as having a particular mission, distinct from that of the Father and the Son. It is for this reason that Pinnock is opposed to the filioque, as he believes that this phrase “can threaten our understanding of the Spirit’s universality,” and that it “diminishes the role of the Spirit and gives the impression that he has no mission of his own.”[5] In light of the doctrines of perichoresis and opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt  I do not believe that these concerns are warranted, and I am also not willing to oppose the filioque.

Overall, I find Pinnock's doctrine of the Holy Spirit troubling. It would seem that without his pneumatology his overall argument does not work; however, this would require a separate study.

______________________________

[1] Pinnock’s overall argument deserves a response; however, as the due date for this course is very close, I do not have time. On this topic I am inclined towards the explanation presented at [1a] by Pr. Sam Schuldheisz, including comment #9 from Pr. Don Kirchner in the comment section. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the remarks in the letter at [1b] from the late Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart are also good to bear in mind.

[1a] http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/10/qa-what-about-those-who-havent-heard-the-gospel-do-christians-and-muslims-believe-the-same-thing/

[1b] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/theologoumena-from-a-great-theologian-rev-dr-marquart-on-who-may-be-saved/

[2] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 211-212.

[3] Ibid., 202, 212.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 196.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 7 - Pinnock - Part 1

The following post is a reflection on chapter six of the book Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Clark H. Pinnock. Chapter six is entitled “Spirit and Universality.”

After reading chapter six in Flame of Love it is evident that Pinnock is wrestling with the questions, “Can those who have never heard the Gospel be saved?” and, “Does God work in other religions?”  It is a rather confusing article to read. Pinnock first gives the impression that he believes that all will be saved, only to eventually state that he does not believe in universalism. He then gives the impression that he believes that people can be saved through other religions, only to later firmly state that he does not. I will illustrate with some examples:

“Theology has not found it easy to handle biblical universality. It has tended to place so much emphasis on the uniqueness of the work of Christ that it has often left the impression that most members of the human race are without hope of salvation. Many people think that unless persons become Christians and church members, they are going to hell through no fault of their own, and there is no remedy. Even though such a notion does little justice to God’s desire that all receive his love and be saved . . . .”[1]

This is the tone of the first five pages of the chapter, but then on page six Pinnock writes:

“There are two errors to avoid when we think of the gospel’s universality: one is to say dogmatically that all will be saved, and the other is to say that only a few will be. The first error, called universalism, is widespread in mainline churches; the other, called restrictivism, plagues traditionalists.”[2]

Pinnock is not a universalist, he is against “restrictivism.” Pinnock defines restrictivism as "the doctrine that non-Christians will all be damned, whether they hear the gospel or not."[3]  Regarding other religions Pinnock writes:

“God is drawing the nations, and religions supply occasions when people can respond to him.”[4]

“Spirit, who is at work everywhere, is at work in the history of religions, and religions play a part in the history of grace, as the Spirit moves the world toward the kingdom. The world is being prepared for the gospel as redemptive bridges are built in human cultures. No wonder we find saintly people and signs of truth in world religions. They may provide a window of opportunity for the Spirit to engage sinners, without diminishing the importance of Jesus, the fulfillment of all such aspirations.”[5]

“Though Jesus is not named in other faiths, Spirit is present and may be experienced.”[6]

But, Pinnock also writes:

“However many positive elements are found, non-Christian religions lack the knowledge of God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ.”[7]

“Rahner goes too far with his category of ‘lawful’ religion. He goes beyond admitting, as I do, the possibility of the Spirit’s speaking to people of other faiths to say that religions are valid as temporary means of salvation before evangelization.”[8]

Ultimately, Pinnock believes that the majority of humanity will be saved. Those who actively and knowingly reject God’s grace will not be, but they will be the minority. God is at work throughout the entire world drawing people into salvation. That is, people can participate in salvation whether they are within or outside the church. Knowing Jesus or being part of the church on earth is not the criteria for salvation; salvation has to do with living out good behaviour in-line with how Jesus would want us to live. As such, those who have never heard the gospel, or never come into physical contact with the church can be, and most likely will be, saved.

 

Pinnock is rightfully concerned that the universality of God’s grace be championed. His fuel for doing so, however, appears to be the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination.[9] At times his arguments do not seem to take into account those who hold to universal grace, but not limited atonement. Nevertheless, Pinnock's theological basis for what I summarized in the above paragraph is his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. To this I will turn in my next post.

_____________________________

 

[1] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 186.

[2] Ibid., 190.

[3] Ibid., 191.

[4] Ibid., 201.

[5] Ibid., 203-204.

[6] Ibid., 204.

[7] Ibid., 206.

[8] Ibid., 207.

[9] Ibid., 191.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 6 - Kärkkäinen - Epilogue

The following post is a reading reflection on the epilogue of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

In the first part of the epilogue Kärkkäinen affirms a more traditional view of the Holy Spirit’s work. He affirms that the main work of the Holy Spirit is to “turn our eyes away from himself to the Son and through the Son to the Father.”[1] He also applauds the theologians of the first centuries in refraining to speculate too much on the work of the Spirit.[2] But, as seems to be expected of a good scholar, he then goes on to affirm the validity of the various views of the Spirit surveyed throughout his book. He writes, “The one Spirit of God opens himself into a myriad of experiences . . . . Each of these, and many more, testify to the endless bounty and richness of the Spirit’s agenda in God’s creation.”[3]

But, is the Spirit’s agenda the same as the feminist agenda, complete with its adjustments to the doctrine of God? How about the ecological agenda, or process theology? How about the universalist tendency of Rahner and Pinnock, or the panentheism expressed in ecological pneumatology?[4] Or how about the discernment of harmful spirits in market commodities (African pneumatology)? What of the mystic tradition?

I have a difficult time believing that the one Spirit of God is behind all of these varied interests, concerns and innovations. As Kärkkäinen writes, there is indeed “something honorable [sic] and enlightening in the reservation of the theologians of the first centuries to say too much about the Spirit.”[5] Rather than looking for “a fresh interpretation of what the Spirit is doing,” I think I will stick to learning about pneumatology from traditional theology.[6]

______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 175.

[2] Ibid., 176.

[3] Ibid., 177.

[4] Panentheism is also an element that seems to be present in Rahner (112), Pannenberg (122-123), Moltmann (127), and process theology (150).

[5] Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 176.

[6] Ibid., 177.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 5 - Kärkkäinen - Chapter 6

The following post is a reading reflection on chapter 6 of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

Kärkkäinen writes that “theology can no longer be the privilege of one people group. Instead, it must be context specific as it addresses God and God’s world in specific situations and in response to varying needs and challenges.”[1] It is with this in mind that Kärkkäinen surveys in this chapter process pneumatology, liberation pneumatology, ecological pneumatology, feminist pneumatology, ecofeminist pneumatology, and African pneumatology. He concludes the chapter stating that these surveys “reveal the need to connect theology to specific contexts,” and that “the future of pneumatology lies to a large extent in the emergence and proliferation of these new, fresh, contextual approaches.”[2]

Common among these pneumatologies is a negative view of Western theology which is blamed for the perceived evils of dualism, hierarchy, patriarchy, exploitation etc. In these pneumatologies it is as if the adherents are tired of the Holy Spirit’s work in salvation, and would rather attribute to him whatever particular interest their group has: process theology’s main concern is the compatibility of God with contemporary science, liberation pneumatology sees the Holy Spirit’s main purpose as liberating the poor and oppressed, ecological pneumatology sees the Spirit as the key to preserving the earth, feminist pneumatology sees the Spirit as the key to realizing feminist concerns, African pneumatology seems to see the Spirit as a key to prosperity and empowerment.


This chapter is the most shocking for me. It would take space and time that I do not have to properly prove, but I believe that each one of these views could be classified as un-biblical, seriously flawed, and certainly not in-line with the ancient creeds. I will give just a couple examples. According to ecological pneumatology, since the Spirit is enfleshed in the earth, he is vulnerable to serious loss and trauma commensurate with the earth being abused and spoiled.[3] In ecofeminist thought the exploitation of the earth is linked to the marginalization of women, which is due to the forgetting of the “Creator Spirit.”[4] In relation to African pneumatology, Kärkkäinen writes that Pentecostals and Charismatics do not accept mainline theology because they believe it is unable to provide prosperity and health.[5]

My question is how far off the mark, or how far unbiblical, does a certain theology have to be before it is declared wrong and not given a voice. I am surprised that Kärkkäinen can call the pneumatologies in this chapter fresh, rich, or complementary to Western theology, and I fail to see why the future of pneumatology lies in these approaches.
______________________________


[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 147.

[2] Ibid., 174.

[3] Ibid., 164.

[4] Ibid., 169

[5] Ibid., 173.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 4 - Kärkkäinen - Chapter 5

This post will continue commenting on chapter 5 of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

A common thread running through the pneumatology of the theologians surveyed in this chapter (John Zizioulas, Karl Rahner, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann, Michael Welker, Clark Pinnock) is that they believe that the traditional treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, particularly as treated in the Western church, is unbalanced, and has consequently lead to much error and significant problems.

According to Zizioulas, when ecclesiology and Christology are not seen as being ontologically constituted by the Holy Spirit the inevitable outcome is a hierarchical organization in which the local church ceases to be the primary entity and the laity is distanced from the work of the church.[1] Rahner and Pannenberg likewise believe that if ecclesiology is approached only from a Christological point of view then church structure becomes the dominant focus.[2] Finding fault with things like the Filioque, and the use of Aristotelian metaphysics and Western philosophy in pneumatology, Moltmann, Welker, and Pinnock believe that the result of these errors have been an impoverishment and emptying of churches, subjugation of the environment and people, and a lack of spiritual experience in the Christian life.[3]

I cannot help but find myself skeptical of the solutions posited by these theologians, as well as with some of the things that they have identified as problems. For example, I find it hard to accept that not focusing on the Holy Spirit enough has been the cause of the subjugation of the environment and people. Is there not plenty of teaching in the Holy Scriptures against such acts? Regarding a rich spiritual life and the emptying of churches, would God not richly work in his church through the Holy Spirit regardless of whether or not we understand exactly how the Holy Spirit works? I also find it hard to believe that “hierarchy” is a culprit. Edith Humphrey, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, does a great job at showing the importance of hierarchy, order, male language, as well as mutuality within the Holy Trinity. She writes that:


“A single-minded quest for the mind of Christ, to understand God as he has revealed himself, will convince us of a mystery that we can barely imagine: the Father’s hierarchy, holy headship or monarchy does not drive out, but is the condition for mutual honor [sic], responsive love and fruitfulness beyond measure!”[4]


I question the criticism that the Western church has overemphasized Christ, and I wonder if some of the theologians in this chapter are not placing to great an emphasis and spotlight on the Holy Spirit.


Overall,  at least for now, I think I will stick to more traditional treatments of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 110 – 111.

[2] Ibid., 113-115, 124.

[3] Ibid., 128, 138,145.

[4] Edith M. Humphrey, “The Gift of the Father: Looking at Salvation History Upside Down,” in Trinitarian Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel J. Treier and David Lauber (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 101.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 3 - Kärkkäinen - Chapter 5

The following post is a reading reflection on chapter 5 of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

In chapter five of the above mentioned book, Kärkkäinen surveys the pneumatology of individual theologians. His goal is to survey theologians whose pneumatology is formed by the greater Christian traditions surveyed in chapter four, but whose theology progresses beyond the bounds of those systems. He believes that each of these theologians illustrates “the richness and variety of perspectives” in contemporary pneumatology, and that both their perspectives, as well as that of the major Christian traditions from which they come are helpful.[1] John Zizioulas represents the Eastern Orthodox, Karl Rhaner the Roman Catholic, Wolfhart Pannenberg the Lutheran, Jürgen Moltmann and Michael Welker the Reformed, and Clark Pinnock the charismatic Baptist/evangelical.

In an interesting First Things article critiquing the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Michael Root, professor of theology at the Catholic University of America, offers a critique of what he calls “the virtuoso theologian.” He writes:

“A curse of recent theology has been the cult of the virtuoso theologian, the creative mind who recasts the field, the Schleiermachers and Barths of the discipline, Promethean figures who blaze the path others are to follow. Much academic work in modern theology seems less the study of God or of the Christian message about God, and more the study of the creativity of great theologians.”[2]

Whether the so called “virtuoso theologian” is truly a curse, and whether this only a recent phenomenon unique to Protestantism is debatable; however, Kärkkäinen does note that the pneumatology of the theologians that he surveys could never be understood apart from the rest of their own unique theological systems.[3] For Root this is not necessarily a positive thing. Quoting a friend, he notes:

“What Pannenberg will not do is outline the tradition on a theological topic and then simply conclude that the tradition got it right and move on. The subject needs to be reshaped by the unique perspective of the system, like the pianist who insists that somehow, somewhere, her own unique interpretation must shine through.”[4]

Although brief, Kärkkäinen’s surveys of Zizioulas, Rhaner, Pannenberg, Moltmann, Welker, and Pinnock do appear to fit this criticism. They all seem discontent with the traditional dogmatic treatment of the Holy Spirit, especially as expressed in the Western church, and seek to make major changes that have wide spread implications. They all seem to have their own unique focuses and concerns that appear to characterize their broader treatment of theology.

Now, it is not that there is no place for individual theologians to re-evaluate past accepted doctrines of the church and attempt to correct them where necessary. In fact, the early 20th century confessional Lutheran theologian A.G. Voigt wrote that this is precisely part of the job of the individual theologian. He wrote that,

 

"Confessionalism does not mean that it is the office of dogmatics simply to reproduce and defend the accepted doctrines of the Church," but that "it is the function of theology to develop further the known doctrines . . . . Christians must ever search the Scriptures to obtain fuller, purer and better views of the truth."[5]

Although I am certain that  all of the theologians surveyed by Kärkkäinen have at heart to do exactly what Voigt says, I am uncomfortable with the degree to which some of these theologians recast ecclesiology and theology through their proposed pneumatological focuses. To this I will turn in my next post.

______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 105.

[2] Michael Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” First Things, accessed 12 June 2016, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/03/the-achievement-of-wolfhart-pannenberg.

[3] Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 106.
 

[4] Root, “The Achievement of Wolfhart Pannenberg.”

[5] A.G. Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics, American Lutheran Classics Volume 3, ed. Jordan Cooper (Fairfield, IA: Just and Sinner Publications, 2013), 21-22.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 2 - Kärkkäinen - Chapter 4

This post will continue commenting on chapter 4 of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective.

 

As mentioned in my previous post, in chapter four of the above mentioned book Kärkkäinen surveys the theology of the Holy Spirit in prominent Christian traditions. When it comes to the section on “the Lutheran tradition” I was surprised that Kärkkäinen examines only Luther, rather than starting with the Lutheran Confessions. Granted, Kärkkäinen does write that “the term ‘Lutheran’ . . . can denote either Martin Luther’s theology as it is expressed in his own writings, or the theology/theologies of Lutheran confessions and subsequent Lutheran formulations.”[1] Additionally, Kärkkäinen comes from Finland where the greater Lutheran Confessions as found in the Book of Concord were not formally adopted. Perhaps this is why he does not focus on the Confessional documents.[2]

 

I think it is fair to say that for most Lutherans the Reformation-era documents that make up the Book of Concord are, at the very least, foundational for understanding the theology of the Lutheran Church. In the case of confessional Lutherans, the Book of Concord is accepted in its entirety as a correct exposition of the Holy Scriptures and as the doctrinal norm for the Church of the Augustana. It is the Confessions that define Lutheran belief, not any one individual theologian, not even the greater corpus of the writings of Dr. Luther.

 

In a chapter whose purpose it was to survey the theology of different church traditions, it would have been most appropriate to have surveyed the confessional documents of each tradition, where such documents exist. Kärkkäinen does this with Roman Catholicism, citing the documents of Vatican II, but not with Lutheranism. It would have been nice if Kärkkäinen had at the very least started his survey of Lutheran pneumatology with an examination of the Book of Concord.

 

______________________________

 

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 85.

[2] In all fairness, in the examination of Luther's theology Kärkkäinen does quote from the Small and Large Catechisms (81, 84), both of which are included in the Book of Concord, and references "later confessional writings under the leadership of Philipp Melanchthon" (85); however, the Confessions are not the focus or primary source of Kärkkäinen's study.

Theo 351 - Reading Reflection 1 - Kärkkäinen - Chapter 4

The following post is a reflection on chapter four of the book Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen.

The purpose of chapter four of this book is to present a survey of how major Christian traditions approach pneumatology. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Pentecostal traditions are surveyed, followed by a look at the World Council of Churches. Kärkkäinen seeks to show that the various emphases placed on the work of the Holy Spirit by each tradition arise out of the needs and theology peculiar to each tradition. He goes on to explore the idea that church unity could be fostered through agreement on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

For Kärkkäinen all of these different traditions form “a rich treasure of spiritual experiences” from which to draw.[1] It should be noted that Kärkkäinen is a Finnish Pentecostal theologian who is involved in the World Council of Churches. Seeing as both Orthodox and Lutheran churches are recognized as state churches in Finland [2], it is not surprising that Kärkkäinen would have knowledge of both Orthodox and Lutheran theology. As well, being involved in the World Council of Churches is also reflective of Kärkkäinen’s ecumenical focus.

Overall, I believe Kärkkäinen meets his objective. To the best of my knowledge he has given a fairly accurate presentation of each tradition’s views on the Holy Spirit, and why each tradition emphasizes what it does. Nevertheless, at least at this point in my study, I question the validity of the Pentecostal / Charismatic claims on the workings of the Holy Spirit.

As Kärkkäinen explains the impact that the Charismatic movement has had on the various Christian traditions, he optimistically talks of the perceived renewal wrought by this new focus on the Holy Spirit throughout the church during the 20^th century. However, was and is this true renewal? I cannot help but wonder if the Pentecostal and Charismatic phenomenon of the last century are truly from the Holy Spirit. Was the tongues experience of Charles F. Parham’s students in 1901 a true gift from the Holy Spirit and a true revival? Was this experience of glossolalia the same gift that is spoken of in the New Testament? If not, would this not call into question the 20^th century Pentecostal, as well as Charismatic, experience? Are the Pentecostal / Charismatic teachings on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit accurate or helpful? 

For those who disagree with the validity of the Pentecostal and Charismatic claims, these traditions do not present “a rich treasure of spiritual experiences” from which to draw.[3] It is difficult to see how those who object to these claims will be able to reconcile differences in this area.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see where Kärkkäinen takes this discussion in the ensuing chapters of this book.

______________________________

[1] Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 67.

[2] "Church of Finland," Wikipedia, accessed 9 June 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Finland.

[3] Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 67.