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.