Read Chapter 3 in Flame of Love A Theology of the Holy Spirit by Clark H. Pinnock and write a 300 word Chapter Summary!
1
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Epigraph
Dedication
Introduction
ONE – SPIRIT& TRINITY
Why Begin Here?
God as Spirit
God Also Has Spirit
God Is Love
Both-And
A Struggle to Understand
Identifying the Spirit
Spirit and Communion
Not Just a Bond
God’s Fair Beauty
TWO – SPIRIT IN CREATION
Spirit and Creation
Trinitarian Creation
The Two Hands of God
Creation by the Spirit
Useful Implications
Science and Theology
Spirit and Origins
The Anthropic Principle
The Human Spirit
The Risk of Freedom
THREE – SPIRIT & CHRISTOLOGY
2
Universal Preparation
Preparation in Israel
Jesus and the Spirit
Recovering Spirit Christology
Salvation by Recapitulation
Saved by His Life
Salvation by the Cross
Is God Satisfied?
Theological Reconstruction
FOUR – SPIRIT & CHURCH
Power and Presence
Baptism and Eucharist
Charismatic Presence
The New Dimension
Openness to the Spirit
Office and Charism
Transforming Mission
Empowered Mission
FIVE – SPIRIT & UNION
Union with God
Justification and Theosis
Awakening to Love
Depravity and Responsibility
Event of the Spirit
Receiving and Actualizing
The Significance of Glossolalia
From Image to Likeness
A Dynamic Process
The Direction
The Spiritual Journey
From Corruption to Incorruption
3
SIX – SPIRIT & UNIVERSALITY
Two Errors to Avoid
Universality and Particularity
“And the Son”
The Larger Framework
Spirit in Other Religions?
The Criterion
Spirit and Universality
SEVEN – SPIRIT & TRUTH
Growing as Hearers
What Is Revelation?
Inspiration and Illumination
A Theory of Development
Criteria of Development
Applying the Criteria
Discerning Valid Developments
Conclusion
Notes
Names Index
Subject Index
Scripture Index
4
5
InterVarsity Press
P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515
World Wide Web.www.ivpress.com
E-mail: mail@ivpress.com
©1996 by Clark H. Pinnock
All rlghts reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written
permission from InterVarsity Press.
InterVarsity Press® is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship/USA® a student movement active on campus at hundreds of universities,
colleges and schools of nursing in the United States of America, and a member movement
of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For information about local and
regional activities, write Public Relations Dept., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, 6400
Schroeder Rd., P.O. Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707-7895.
Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New Revised Standard Version
of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of
the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Cover illustration: Roberta Polfus
ISBN 0-8308-1590-2
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pinnock, Clark H., 1937-
Flame of love: a theology of the Holy spirit/by Clark Pinnock. p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8308-1590-2 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Holy Spirit. I. Title.
BT121.2.P55 1996
231’.3—dc20 96-19407
CIP
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02
http://web.www.ivpress.com/
6
“Holy Spirit, renew your wonders in our day as by a new Pentecost. ”
—POPE JOHN XXIII
7
I dedicate this book to Richard Foster, Charles Nienkirchen, Jim
Houston and my beloved wife Dorothy, who along with others
challenge me to catch the fire and dwell in the presence of God.
8
Introduction
The Spirit is elusive but profound and worthy of adoration. If Father
points to ultimate reality and Son supplies the clue to the divine
mystery, Spirit epitomizes the nearness of the power and presence
of God. St. John of the Cross (b. 1542) aptly calls the Spirit a living
flame of love and celebrates the nimble, responsive, playful,
personal gift of God.
As we begin, let us say: Welcome, Holy Spirit, come and set us
free! Let each one catch the living flame and be ravished by your
love! Let our souls glow with your fire. Help us overcome our
forgetfulness of Spirit.1
On January 23, 1959, Pope John XXIII, announcing plans for the
Second Vatican Council, prayed that the windows of the church be
opened to God’s breath, which he hoped would sweep away
deadness and unleash refreshing renewal. Nearly thirty years later,
in 1986, Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical called On the Holy
Spirit in the Life of the Church and the World, in which he urged
Christians to be attentive to the Spirit as they prepare to enter the
third Christian millennium. He wrote: “The church’s mind and heart
turn to the Holy Spirit as this twentieth century draws to a close and
the third millennium since the coming of Jesus Christ into the world
approaches and as we look towards the great jubilee with which the
church will celebrate the event.” Here we join our voices with his
voice and turn our hearts and minds to the third mysterious Person.2
At the end of his life, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth felt the need
of a more satisfactory theology of the Spirit (sometimes called
“theology of the third article” because of the Spirit’s position in the
creed). Barth’s own theology would have been stronger, and it might
even have permitted him to have issued a kinder judgment on liberal
theologians and their appreciation of the role of experience. In
Jürgen Moltmann’s book The Spirit of Life it is obvious that he is
distancing himself from Barth’s polemic against religious experience
and striving to recover a more experiential basis for the doctrine of
Spirit.3 Though this doctrine is less neglected now, work remains to
be done on the subject—there are truths to recover and possibilities
9
to explore. Far from being an incidental or isolated topic in theology,
Spirit is a major theme, supplying a standpoint, in fact, for surveying
the whole vista of Christian truth.4
How could so rich a subject have suffered neglect? On other
topics there is enough in the tradition to make one feel overwhelmed,
but not here. On this one the offerings are relatively sparse. Neglect
may be less of a problem in Orthodoxy than in Western traditions,
but in both Catholic and Protestant theology the place of the Spirit
has surely been diminished.5 Reflection on the Spirit has lagged
behind thinking on other topics. Even in the creeds common to East
and West, references to the Spirit are brief and occasional, at times
sounding even perfunctory. In liturgy one will find many lines praising
Father and Son, followed by a phrase “with the Holy Spirit” as a kind
of afterthought.
Our language is often revealing—the Spirit is a third person in a
third place. At times the Spirit can even sound like an appendage to
the doctrine of God and a shadowy, ghostly, poor relation of the
Trinity. In the church year the celebration of Pentecost hardly
compares to the observance of Christmas and Easter. Even worse, it
may be completely forgotten, eclipsed by Mother’s Day or some
other cultural holiday. It is time for us to heed the East’s complaint
that Western Christianity has confined the Spirit to the margins of the
church and subordinated it to the mission of the Son.
To some extent the lack may reflect not neglect but a paucity of
biblical instruction. The role of Spirit in creation, for example, is
crucial theologically but not often or much discussed in the
Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is important to draw out the truth, even if
lightly attested. The Bible may be like the fish that, when asked to
describe its environment, neglected to say much about water.
Spirit in Western traditions tends to be confined to the institutional
church and to be seen as the power of salvation, not of creation also.
We have placed emphasis on the sermon and the clergy at the
expense of the Spirit. We have prized our versions of decency and
order so highly that outpourings of the Spirit pose a threat. Many
appear afraid of the Spirit, lest their worlds be shaken and they be
swept up into God’s sabbath play. So often we set up barriers to the
Spirit and stifle the voices that speak to us of openness and
10
celebration. “Forgetfulness” may be too kind a way to refer to the
problem. We cannot even rule out the possibility of suppression at
times.
Forgetfulness is not easily overcome, but perhaps if some
reflections are set forth, a discussion will ensue, leading to reform.
This book’s chapters reveal the themes: the identity of the Spirit
within the Trinity (chapter one), the power of the Spirit in continuing
creation (chapter two), the joint mission of Son and Spirit in
atonement (chapter three), God’s presence in the sacramental,
charismatic and diaconal dimensions of church life (chapter four),
salvation as a Spirit-empowered path to union with God (chapter
five), the universal prevenience of Spirit which graces everyone
everywhere (chapter six) and the Spirit’s guidance of the church in
the development of doctrine and mission (chapter seven).
The Spirit challenges theology at numerous points—this may
partly explain our neglect. But let the challenges stimulate growth in
us as hearers of the Word of God. Let us ask what light is shed on
our central Christian doctrines when they are considered from the
standpoint of the Spirit.6
This book is a theology of the Spirit and attends to the grand
picture, not to every topic of passing interest. Such an exploration of
necessity touches other central themes in theology, because it acts
like a magnet that causes a convergence of other doctrines.
Though this is not a testimony book, I hope the reader will sense
how in love with God I am and how much practical usefulness there
is in improved theology. Poor theology can hurt us, for we will miss
certain stirrings of the Spirit where we are not expecting them and
are not open to them owing to an inadequate doctrinal map. If, on
the other hand, places and situations are identified where we ought
to be expecting the Spirit to be at work, our eyes may be opened to
new possibilities. A person who does not expect the Spirit to be at
work in the natural order, for example, will not be attentive to such
activities in nature and will be impoverished as a result. Similarly, a
person unaware of the full range of spiritual gifts that are available
will not be open to receive them or may not value certain gifts. This
book, then, though not testimonial, can help people overcome a
11
confinement of spirit by identifying certain places and ways of the
Spirit’s working where they have not been looking for it.
Religious experience needs good theology the way a traveler
needs a reliable map. A traveler with lots of enthusiasm but no map
for the journey is a dangerous person to travel with. Together you
can get hopelessly lost.7
12
Mind and Heart
In theology, mind and heart—study and prayer—are both important.
With the mind we analyze data, while in the heart we wait for
illumination on it. We place the truths discovered in God’s Word into
the sanctuary of the soul for pondering. The mind attends to
analysis; the heart dreams and listens to God. One blessing of the
coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was to give us the ability to dream
and see visions (Acts 2:17-18). The Spirit makes us open to new
horizons and new possibilities. We are empowered with hope to
transcend situations and limitations. Therefore it is important to
experience the Spirit and reflect on our experience.
In the new covenant, people have God’s law written on their hearts
and need no one to teach them because of the knowledge of God
they have instinctively (Jer 31:33-34). In the words of Isaiah, “When
you turn to the right or when you turn to the left, your ears shall hear
a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way; walk in it’ ” (30:21).
In writing and reading, let us combine analysis and contemplation.
Let us imitate Mary, mother of our Lord, who treasured what she
heard and pondered it in her heart (Lk 2:19, 51). The heart does not
supply us with new information but leads us to a deeper
acquaintance with the divine mysteries and a finer sensitivity to their
timeliness. We need to listen to the Spirit if we hope to grasp the
significance of what we believe. Let theologians observe times of
silence in God’s presence as the elders and the angels do in
heaven, pondering everything they hear (Rev 8:1).8
On one level the Scriptures do inform the mind and offer
comprehensible teaching in the interests of a better understanding.
The Spirit is elusive but comprehensible too. The Scriptures give us
most definite clues for understanding, and it is our responsibility to
grasp what can be known by the mind. Therefore we will be dipping
into the testimony of Scripture and into insights from the ecumenical
church, catholic in both space and time, and will engage many
13
challenging and worthwhile discussions. The subject may be
mysterious, but it is not obscure or beyond accounting.9
On the other hand, we cannot master the subject rationally. The
Spirit cannot be imprisoned in concepts. Spirit is known by prayer as
well as by study. The Bible contains few abstract statements about
the Spirit, but many symbols such as water, wind and fire. Such
images, while they can be studied, need to be appropriated by the
heart. The path of meditation has to be followed alongside a
scholarly approach.
To know the Spirit we must become persons of prayer who are
willing to yield in complete openness to God. Waiting in silence and
patient receptivity will cultivate a heart-knowledge of our Life-giver.
Theology must always be more than rational, especially in this case.
For we are speaking of a reality that is active in our lives and that
cannot be captured altogether in cognitive ways. There are depths of
the mystery that cannot be accessed by reason alone. As well as
studying the Scriptures on the Spirit, we must be prayerful and open,
longing to fall in love with the One who frees and surprises, delights
and searches, energizes and purifies us. We have to be sensitive to
things that are only spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:14).
Let us learn to operate on two levels simultaneously. Even as we
are thinking, deep within we can be at prayer and be receptive to the
divine breath.10
14
Speaking of the Spirit
The heart dimension comes into play immediately. For of all
theological topics, Spirit is one of the most elusive. Knowing the
Spirit is experiential, and the topic is oriented toward transformation
more than information.
So how do we grasp the breath of God? How do we speak of the
power that gives understanding or convey in words the uncreated
energies of God? How do we define Spirit? It is hard to speak of any
of the divine Persons worthily, since they transcend the world and
tax the powers of reason. Yet it is easier to speak of Father and Son,
if only because of the familiar family imagery employed in these
designations. The Spirit, however, presents a unique challenge to
speech. How does one render that reality that is wind, fire, breath,
life—tangible yet intangible, invisible yet powerful, inexpressible yet
intimate, powerful yet gentle, reliable yet unpredictable, personal yet
impersonal, transcendent yet immanent?11
Certain things are clear. The fundamental idea of Spirit in Hebrew
and Greek is breath, air, wind, storm—the intensity depending on the
context. It may be a gentle breath (Jn 20:22), a gale-force wind (Ex
15:8), a cooling breeze (Gen 3:8). Most essentially Spirit is
transcendent and divine, not mere flesh; it is the energy of life itself
and is present in nature and in history. Most wonderfully, the Spirit is
God’s face turned toward us and God’s presence abiding with us,
the agency by which God reaches out and draws near, the power
that creates and heals.
Though we speak of the Spirit as a third Person, from the
standpoint of experience Spirit is first, because it is the Spirit that
enables us to experience God’s flying by and drawing near. Through
the Spirit we feel the warmth of God’s love and the fire that kindles
our heart. By the Spirit we drink from fountains of living water and
receive the grace that is poured out. We may not be able to know
15
God with our limited sensibilities, but we certainly can love God and
desire him and his will.12
Spirit is the ecstasy of the divine life, the bond of love in the Trinity
and the overflowing abundance of God outwardly. Spirit sustains
loving relationships within the (immanent) Trinity and also
implements the grace of the (economic) Trinity in creation and
history. Moltmann offers this captivating definition: “Spirit is the
loving, self-communicating, out-fanning and out-pouring presence of
the eternal divine life of the triune God.” By the Spirit, God draws
near to the creature and mediates a knowledge of divinity in a
hundred thousand ways.13
16
He, She or It?
Many people are concerned with gender and theology and therefore
with the issue of which pronoun to use for Spirit. Spirit is not gender-
specific quite the way Father and Son are. The Hebrew term (rûah)
is (usually but not always) grammatically feminine; yet this may not
be regarded as very significant, for personhood is relatively
undeveloped in relation to Spirit in the Old Testament. Had Hebrew
been the language used by the New Testament, where the Spirit’s
personhood becomes apparent, it might have been different—the
feminine pronoun might have been used. But as it is, Spirit in the
New Testament (pneuma) is grammatically neuter in the Greek, and
the pronoun it predominates. Spirit is also neuter in English, which
allows us to use it as well. The use of he for the Spirit is rare in the
Bible, except where John uses it because the title Paraclete is
masculine (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14).
The Scriptures do not settle the question of pronouns but leave the
matter open. It would be permissible to use any one—he, she or it.
English speakers have the custom of referring to the Spirit as he not
because the Bible does so but because of tradition. Spirit in Latin is
masculine, and that has affected us. Using he feels right to us, but
we have no necessary biblical grounds for it.14
What is the prudent course to take then? Avoiding pronouns
altogether would force us to use ponderous expressions of
circumlocution. Using it is grammatically right, based as it is on the
Greek term, but it may detract from the personhood of the Spirit. In
the book of Acts, for example, the Spirit is presented as a character
or agent in the narrative. The Spirit doesn’t sound like an “it.” The
disciples were led by a Someone, not a Something. Is it good
enough to call the Spirit who speaks and can be grieved it?15
One could fall back on the masculine pronoun, which, though
biblically rare, is used by John, is consonant with Latin and is
common in the Western tradition. The disadvantage as I see it,
17
however, is that in this case all three Persons of the Trinity are
denoted by masculine pronouns. This is no problem in the sense that
God is beyond gender, but it does result in the Trinity’s being
depicted in exclusively male language, which revelation does not
require and modern sensibility does not find easy.16
What about using the pronoun she? It would not be the first time.
Aphrahat wrote in his Demonstration 6:14, “By baptism we receive
the Spirit of Christ, and at that moment when the priests invoke the
Spirit, she opens the heavens and descends and hovers over the
waters, and those who are baptized put her on.” The word Spirit in
Syriac (as in Hebrew) was grammatically feminine. Perhaps it is time
to follow Aphrahat’s example. It would introduce feminine pronouns
into God-talk in an orthodox way.17
Using a feminine pronoun would pick up the grammatical feminine
of the Hebrew and honor femalelike functions of the Spirit, such as
birthing, nurturing, grieving and sheltering. It would also recognize
Spirit as associated with such feminine images as wisdom and the
shekinah presence. Spirit fosters receptivity in our hearts vis à vis
the Father and is often femininelike in experience—coming as gentle
dove, mother eagle and poured-out love. Mystics like St. Teresa and
John of the Cross feel free to use imagery such as the soul’s nursing
on the breasts of God, receiving nourishment from his spiritual milk.
It might seems reasonable, then, to use the feminine pronoun for the
Spirit: “The Spirit comforts, encourages, yearns and brings to birth.
Most of her activities are best expressed in feminine terminology.”18
But there are valid objections. Aside from the fact that we are not
used to hearing the Spirit referred to this way, using the feminine
pronoun would not always be best. For example, using it often works
well, and he is the Johannine choice. We would not want to refer to
the Spirit only in a feminine way, as if no masculine or neutral
nuances were possible. Doing so might cause one to ignore the
feminine dimensions of Father and Son. One does not want to pose
the femininity of Spirit against the nonfeminitity of Father and Son.
We human beings are male and female in the image of the triune
God, Father, Son and Spirit. Using she could project a feminine
persona onto Spirit or be stereotypical with regard to so-called
feminine traits.19 It gets mixed up when Spirit causes the conception
18
of Jesus in Mary and when the church is so often the feminine
counterpart to God. Are we to imagine Spirit as playing the
peacemaker in a community of males? No, using the feminine
pronoun exclusively could create more problems than it solves.
I admit that something in me wants to use the feminine pronoun. It
seems to capture the gracefulness of Spirit and is an orthodox way
of using feminine language in reference to God. Politically, it also
says to feminists in the church that we are concerned about this
problem and agree that steps must be taken. The problem is, which
steps?
This is clearly an issue that requires further discussion and
thought. Our dilemma may be due in part to the elusiveness of Spirit,
which will not be pinned down. But symbols are not static, and Spirit
can be spoken of in different ways depending on the context.20 This
study, then, will generally use the masculine pronoun for the Spirit,
but I hope it will be read in the light of the concerns I have outlined.
19
Looking Ahead
Mark Noll has noted the absence of an evangelical mind when it
comes to science and politics, but he exempts theology from his
indictment. He needed not do so. If the doctrine of the Spirit is any
indication, evangelical theology too has tended to be shallow and
uncreative. In relation to this subject at least, we have overlooked a
great deal.21
This book is not really a biblical study but moves beyond exegesis
to historical and theological reflection. It is important, after examining
the text, to step back and assess what has been found. Exegesis
alone cannot provide the full perspective required by the church.
There has to be a wider sweep of investigation that takes into
account other dimensions—historical, theological, philosophical,
cultural and mystical.
This is a systematic theology of the Spirit that examines the
Christian vision from the vantage point of the Spirit. It is a doctrinal
exploration rather than a testimony book or a program for
congregational renewal. Theology on any topic is supposed to be a
faithful and creative response to the scriptural canon. My desire here
is not to repeat what has been said by others but to discover fresh
applications and insights from the Lord for our time.22
The book is catholic in the sense that it respects the beliefs and
practices of the historic churches. Truths about the Spirit are
scattered throughout segments of a divided church and ought to be
gathered from anywhere and everywhere. We are bound in the Spirit
to believers of every continent and every century. Therefore I have
dipped into the treasures of Catholic and Orthodox traditions in ways
that I had not done before and have found affinities that surprised
and delighted me.23
The book is evangelical too in the sense that I find value in the
witness of the Reformation and in the experience of modern
evangelicalism, where I found faith. At the same time the book
20
continues my struggle with aspects of evangelicalism and continues
my search for nondeterministic theology. Furthermore, it is
charismatic in celebrating Pentecostalism as a mighty twentieth-
century outpouring of the Spirit. I think of this as the most important
event in modern Christianity.24
There is a growing interest in spirituality and religious experience
in modern culture, owing no doubt to the extreme dryness of
secularism. People cannot go for long without raising questions
about meaning and transcendence. Church statistics go up and
down, but interest in ultimate questions does not. It stays high.
If Christians are to be effective in mission, they must offer a faith
that is vibrant and alive. People want to meet God and will not be
satisfied with religion that only preaches and moralizes. Knowing
about God is not the same as knowing God. Christianity was born on
the day of Pentecost because a question was asked about a
transforming experience: “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:12).
Speaking about God is meaningful only if there is an encounter with
God back of it. Only by attending to the Spirit are we going to be able
to move beyond sterile, rationalistic, powerless religion and recover
the intimacy with God our generation longs for.
May the Spirit kindle a fire in us all and put within us a longing for
the power of love to be poured out into our hearts. With the prophet
we cry out: “O that you would tear open the heavens and come
down!” (Is 64:1).25
21
ONE
SPIRIT& TRINITY
IN PRESENTING A VISION of the Spirit, let us begin with the
doctrine of God and focus on the liveliness of the Trinity and the
identity of the Spirit within a loving relationality. Let us consider the
Spirit as One who bonds the loving fellowship that God is and
creates access to the Father through the Son (Eph 2:18). The Spirit
reaches out to creatures, catches them up and brings them home to
the love of God.
Almost everything else I will have occasion to say will spring from
this ontology. Spirit is essentially the serendipitous power of
creativity, which flings out a world in ecstasy and simulates within it
an echo of the inner divine relationships, ever seeking to move
God’s plans forward. The Spirit is bringing God’s plans to completion
in the direction of new creation and union with God through the
participatory journey of Jesus Christ. Spirit also makes Christ’s work
of redemption universally accessible and fosters unity amidst
diversity in the midst of the segmented body of Christ.
We begin with the identity of the Spirit as a divine Person in a
social Trinity and with the sheer liveliness of God. According to the
gospel the nature of God is a communion of loving Persons, the
overflowing shared life that creates and upholds the universe. Early
theologians spoke of the divine nature as a dance, a circling round of
threefold life, as a coming and going among the Persons and
graciously in relation to creation. We start with the identity of the
triune God and with the face of the Spirit within this community as
the ecstasy of its life.1
22
Why Begin Here?
This is not an easy topic; one might ask why I would begin with it. I
do so because God’s triune identity and the Spirit as the bond of love
within it underlie so much else that I want to say. It is also a practical
truth, for clarity concerning Being (ontology) helps us understand not
only who God is but who we are and what kind of world we inhabit.
The Christian understanding of God as pure relationality is such a
stunning contribution to human understanding about ultimate matters
that it must come first.2
Theology must break certain habits surrounding this theme. Often,
having defended the doctrine of the Trinity against its various
denials, theologians become complacent and fail to go further and
make the belief intelligible. Theologians stare, as it were, at a
priceless treasure, an expression of the relational essence of God,
yet do not perceive its immense value in terms of proclamation. To
miss it is to overlook a major aspect of the fair beauty of the Lord.3
Because the matter has often been left enigmatic, we need to
reflect theologically on the meaning of the Trinity. I hope to counter
the impression that while the Trinity is an important belief that must
be embraced by anyone who would be orthodox, it is not a belief one
should expect to understand. There is an aphorism along these
lines: “Try to explain the Trinity and you’ll lose your mind; try to deny
it and you’ll lose your soul.” This sends a bleak message regarding
the intelligibility of faith and invites the criticism that the Trinity is a
piece of outdated mythology. Effective communication requires that
doctrine not be left unintelligible if light can be shed on it. I think
some light can be shed on it, though the mystery remains great.
Revelation of the triune God is both significant and limited.4
Nevertheless, the truth of the doctrine is meaningful and quite
marvelous. From the Trinity we learn that the Creator is not static or
standoffish but a loving relationality and sheer liveliness. It informs
us that creation is grounded in God’s love and that grace underlies
23
the gift of life itself. If God is a loving relationality, grace is primary,
because it is rooted in the loving divine communion. Creation as well
as redemption flows from the Trinity as pure gift. God did not invent
grace when sin entered the world. What happened then was that
grace abounded all the more (Rom 5:20). The goal of redemption as
union with God was not thought up later on but is the outworking of
God’s original purpose.5
As loving communion, God calls into being a world that has the
potential of realizing loving relationality within itself. God projected a
created order in which he delights and to which the Spirit gives life
(see chapter two). When things went wrong through the misuse of
freedom, God sent forth the Spirit on a mission of restoration through
incarnation, so that injury and brokenness might be healed from
within our nature by God’s power (chapter three). Healing continues
to happen through the power of the Spirit, who indwells the body of
Christ, and that power is present and real both sacramentally and
charismatically, so that justice and salvation may be brought to all
the nations (chapter four).
Relationality features also in the understanding of salvation as
union with God. Spirit is moving humanity toward personal
communion and participation in the divine nature, which was God’s
everlasting purpose (chapter five). And just as the work of the
Creator is the source of all that exists, so the scope of reconciliation
has a universal tendency. God has the whole human race in view in
his desire to save, and the Spirit everywhere draws sinners from the
far country to the Father’s love (chapter six). And, because the
church is so important to God as his dwelling place, anointed servant
and beloved bride, Spirit ceaselessly strives within the community
through time and space to bring us deeper into unity and truth
(chapter seven).
24
God as Spirit
Spirit is a subtle word and is used in different ways in Scripture. The
diversity of usage makes it natural for readers to ask whether the
term refers only to God’s presence or to the third Person of the Holy
Trinity. Here I hope first to show that both usages in fact obtain and
then turn to the question of the face of the Spirit. How does Spirit fit
the triune figuration? What is the Spirit’s identity?
As to whether God is spirit or has a Spirit, it is not an either-or but
a both-and. There are texts that say God is spirit and that God has
Spirit. The term can refer to God in a general way and also to the
third Person of the Trinity. This double pattern is reminiscent of the
way the term wisdom is used in the Bible also, both in a general way
to refer to the wisdom of God and in a specific way to refer to the
Son, who is God’s wisdom in person. Wisdom both symbolizes
God’s power to order the world (Prov 1:20) and is identified with the
Word made flesh (1 Cor 1:30).
Similarly, spirit refers both to God’s presence in a general sense
and to the third Person. As to the general meaning of Spirit, Jesus
states it plainly: “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24). Obviously the term can be
used to define the divine essence. However, this kind of usage is
rare. Scripture does not usually speak abstractly. It prefers to put
emphasis on God as an agent and avoids giving the impression that
God is any kind of impersonal absolute. Hegel liked to call God
absolute Spirit, which for him came close to an impersonal force.
The Bible prefers to take the risk of anthropomorphic speech. This
may be why it rarely says “God is spirit” or similar things, lest the
impression be left that God is ethereal and not a dynamic, personal
agent.
So what does Jesus mean? He does not mean that God is
immaterial. His point is that God is like a powerful wind, not like a
frail creature that is easily pushed around. To say God is Spirit is to
say God is mighty wind, power of creation, reservoir of inexhaustible
25
life. What Jesus is saying is like what Isaiah had said: “The
Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not
spirit” (Is 31:3). When Jesus says that God is spirit, he is saying not
that God is ghostly but that God is the power of creation, the
incalculable energy that can give life to the dead and call things that
do not exist into being (Rom 4:17).
It is easy for us to be misled about the meaning of spirit, since in
Western languages and philosophies we think of it standing in
antithesis to matter. So when we hear that God is spirit, we think in
terms of Platonic ideas of incorporeality. But spirit in the Bible has to
do less with immateriality than with power and life—the invisible,
mysterious power of a gale-force wind that we cannot begin to track
(Jn 3:8). Spirit is the Bible’s way of speaking of what we would call
the transcendent power of creation. 6
In saying that God is spirit, the mighty power of creation, I am
referring to what Wolfhart Pannenberg calls the field of deity. Spirit
here refers to the power of Godhead and to the divine field in which
persons of the Trinity exist in the fellowship of Father, Son and Spirit.
In this use of the term all the Persons are spirit, and it refers to the
deity common to them. All three persons exist in the field that Jesus
calls spirit and constitute eternal forms of that field.7
Spirit may sometimes refer then to the presence of God in the
world, not to a third Person distinct from Father and Son. Spirit in this
sense denotes the power that creates and renews the world. This is
the sense of many passages, especially in the Old Testament, where
trinitarian reflection has not yet arisen, since the incarnation has not
yet taken place. In such texts spirit (wind) is an image like power,
fire, light, water—an image about God that bypasses the issue of
Trinity. Spirit does often refer to God’s presence in a quite general
sense.
Nontrinitarians are right to say God is spirit and that when we
encounter spirit we encounter God himself. Spirit can refer to divine
immanence, as opposed to a reference to a distinct Person in the
Godhead. Liberalism was right to associate spirit with the general
presence of God in the world, because it often refers to precisely that
and to our experience of communion with God. As spirit, God
inspires, motivates and empowers people everywhere.
26
God Also Has Spirit
It would be a mistake, however, to deny other texts that use Spirit in
a trinitarian way.8 For in addition to evidence that God is spirit, there
is evidence to support the claim that God has Spirit in a trinitarian
sense. It is a little confusing for one term to refer to two related
realities, but it is so. Perhaps there is a reason for this rooted in the
Spirit’s chosen identity in the history of salvation. Perhaps Spirit
wishes no other name than the generic ascription for God. The
others are called “Father” and “Son,” but Spirit takes no special
name and chooses to remain anonymous. Deferentially he turns
away from himself and graciously points to the others.
The idea of the Trinity lies at the core of and indwells the
narratives concerning Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The
Gospels give insight into the trinitarian structure of the divine nature.
This witness forces us to go beyond an understanding of spirit as
God’s presence to the truth of Spirit also in fellowship with Father
and Son. The triadic pattern first becomes visible in the story of
Jesus, which we take to be God’s self-communication and the
source of trinitarian developments in theology. To see God as
relational Trinity is not human speculation but an insight arising from
the narrative of salvation, which is God’s self-revelation.
The economy of salvation history affords insight into the being of
God, that God is the Father, revealed by the Son, through the Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the product of reflection on God’s
activity in history and is the explanation of what happened. Leonard
Hodgson remarks, “The doctrine of the trinity is an inference to the
nature of God, drawn from what we believe to be the empirical
evidence given by God in his revelation of himself in the history of
the world.”9
God does not reveal himself mostly in an abstract way, through
propositions. God causes revelation to happen in human history,
particularly in the events surrounding Jesus Christ, where we
27
glimpse the threefoldness that characterizes the nature of God.
Jesus is conscious of being the Son of God and proclaims the
nearness of the kingdom of his Father in the power of the Holy Spirit.
The story of Jesus does not yield the dogmatic formula of the Trinity
as such, but it yields the foundations of trinitarian thought. The
insight arises from observing Jesus’ relationship with God.
At his baptism in the Jordan, Jesus was conscious of his sonship
as the Father’s beloved and experienced the power of the Spirit for
mission. At this time Jesus experienced sonship (filiation) in an
intimate relationship with the God whom he called “abba.” The voice
from heaven says, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well
pleased” (Mk 1:11). From experiencing God as his father, Jesus
knew he was sent to proclaim God’s kingdom as the Father’s Son.
His prayer life reveals this relationship as he cries, “Abba, Father”
(Mk 14:36). This language was remembered by his followers, and
Paul even preserves the Aramaic term (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).
Jesus says, “All things have been handed over to me by my
Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one
knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son
chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). The saying captures the
relationship out of which Jesus understood his mission. From this
filial consciousness came the more developed Christology of the
epistles and of later tradition.
Alongside the experience of filiation, Jesus experienced the
baptism of the Spirit and became the unique bearer of the Spirit. At
his baptism the heavens were opened and the Spirit descended
upon him like a dove. This was basic for his life and ministry. People
experienced Jesus as Spirit-filled, as prophet and healer, not as
professional clergy. The Spirit was upon him to preach good news to
the poor and enabled him to speak with authority, to heal the sick
and to cast out demons (Mt 12:28). Jesus was aware of being God’s
Son in a unique sense and at the same time being the unique bearer
of the Spirit.
Later trinitarian doctrine is rooted in this foundational experience. It
comes from the life of Jesus as itself a trinitarian event. Jesus knew
God as his loving Father, he knew himself as the Father’s beloved
Son, and he knew the Spirit as God’s power at work in him. In this
28
relationship Jesus distinguished himself from the Father but also
submitted himself obediently to the Father with respect to the
mission he had been given. The Spirit in turn was experienced as
distinct from Father but as dedicated to implementing the work of the
Father through the Son. Even Jesus’ death—especially his death—
was a trinitarian event in which the Son yielded up his life and the
Father suffered with his beloved, while the Spirit both supported
Jesus in his self-sacrifice and vindicated him by raising him up.10
Building on this narrative, the New Testament supplies key
elements for the trinitarian development of doctrine.11 First, writers
identify Jesus as a divine Person, as the eternal Son who is distinct
from the Father. The evidence is abundant and can be seen, for
example, in the titles ascribed to Jesus, such as Lord and even God.
More evidence appears in the way in which Old Testament texts that
refer originally to God are applied to Jesus and in the divine
functions Jesus performs, such as creating and judging. Jesus is
spoken of as preexistent and the One whom it is appropriate to
worship. There are many direct and remarkable claims for him (for
example, Phil 2:6; Col 1:19; 2:9; Heb 1:3).
Clearly, then, the New Testament requires us to recognize at least
two subjects or Persons in the Godhead. The change in Jewish
monotheism has been made. Now the question is, Having posited
two Persons, should we posit a third?
The New Testament does in fact posit a third Person distinct from
Father and Son. Though it can speak of the Spirit impersonally as
the Old Testament does, as God’s gift and power, it also presents
Spirit in richly personal ways as One who speaks, intercedes,
teaches, grieves and the like. In such texts Spirit is being understood
as a person, taking initiative and doing things. In short, Spirit is being
regarded as a Person like the Father and the Son. Plainly the move
is on toward fully trinitarian speech. There are not only one or two
but three distinct and associated subjects in the Godhead. The
Nicene Creed properly names the Spirit as the Lord and giver of life
—titles proper to the divine being—and properly exhorts us to
worship the Spirit together with Father and Son.12
The Gospel of John completes the picture by presenting God as
actually experiencing intradivine personal relationships and
29
differences within the unity. It points to mutual indwelling and to
personal interactions among the three. It assumes personal
distinctions in the unity of Father, Son and Spirit. We read that God
sends the Spirit in the name of Jesus to teach us (Jn 14:26). The
three Persons are involved in mutual relations: “When the Advocate
comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, … he will testify on
my behalf” (Jn 15:26). “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you,
may they also be in us” (Jn 17:21).
30
God Is Love
The picture is of a transcendent society or community of three
personal entities. Father, Son and Spirit are the members of a divine
community, unified by common divinity and singleness of purpose.
The Trinity portrays God as a community of love and mutuality. While
it is true that the New Testament does not address all the issues
regarding substance, person and equality that would surface later, it
lays the foundations firmly for trinitarian doctrine. It is aware of a
threefoldness in the life of God and supplies rich material from which
to construct the doctrine. Though the inner life of God remains
mysterious, there is a threeness in it which was disclosed when God
saved humanity through incarnation. God is not an isolated individual
but a loving, interpersonal communion, to which we owe our very
existence.
Believing this is not a leap into the dark. It is historically grounded
in the history of Jesus. At the cross the truth of the Trinity was in
doubt, but not for long. After three days Jesus was “declared to be
Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by
resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4 mg). God manifested his triune
nature by raising Jesus from the dead by the Spirit. By that event,
even more than Jesus’ baptism, the truth of the Trinity was
established. This is not theological subjectivism or a venture of faith
without justification. The truth of the Trinity is grounded in the bodily
resurrection of the Son through the Spirit.13
Belief in the Trinity is even rational to a degree. Unity is a relatively
simple notion in mathematics, but not simple elsewhere. For
example, it is not simple in “single” organisms, which are highly
complex. The higher the entity, the more complex unity seems to be.
Think of the unity of a work of art.
Unity is not a simple idea. Unity can admit of great complexity.
Why expect divine unity to lack complexity? Trinity is a mystery, but it
31
is not an irrationality. It epitomizes the complexity in unity that we find
everywhere in experience.14
Earlier we encountered the short statement “God is spirit.” Now we
turn to another: “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). This one also describes the
nature of God and complements the other. The God who is spirit is
also love. God’s essence is spirit—God’s character is love.
Now on one level this refers to God’s benevolent disposition to
save sinners. Jesus exalted God as a merciful Father with a loving
heart. On another level, however, the phrase “God is love” refers to
the inner life of God. God loves sinners in history because, prior to
that, God loves the Son and the Spirit, and loves us in relation to
them.
John is saying that the love God has for sinners flows from the
love that circulates everlastingly within the Trinity. As Jesus says, “As
the Father has loved me, so I have loved you” (Jn 15:9). God’s love
for sinners is not just the love of a single, unitarian Subject. John is
making reference to a triune love that flows among the persons of
the Godhead. Not only concretions of the divine field of deity, these
persons make up a relational Being, a community of love and mutual
indwelling.15
The trinity was revealed when the Father, seeking to show his love
for lost humanity, communicated with us through Word and Spirit.
From this divine saving activity we are given insight into the inner life
of God and glimpse a reciprocal community of love between Father,
Son and Spirit, three Persons relating in distinctive patterns.16
God’s nature is that of a communion of three Persons who exist in
mutual relations with one another. Each is distinct from the others,
but each is what it is in relation to the others. God exists in a
dynamic of love, an economy of giving and receiving.
Note that this yields a different understanding of “person” than is
common in Western culture, where person is equated with the
individual. For Descartes a person is a thinking individual, and in his
view social relationship does not enter the picture. The human is
defined as an individual substance of rational nature, not as a person
related to other persons essentially. But person when seen in the
context of the Trinity signifies relationality. The divine Persons exist
32
in relationship with others and are constituted by those relations.
They are individuals in a social matrix.
This is also true, by way of analogy, of us. We are persons who
depend on one another in order to be ourselves. We are distinct from
other persons but realize ourselves in and through them. Persons
are individuals in relationship and communion, not in isolation.17
The Trinity is a divine reality constituting three Persons in
relationship. God is Father in the relation to the Son, and God is Son
in relation to the Father. Father and Son are what they are because
of the other one. The Father is the father in relation to the generation
and sending of the Son. The Son is the son in his obedience to the
Father. The Spirit is the spirit as he glorifies the Father in the Son
and the Son in the Father.
Gregory of Nanzianzus captured the mystery of triune life using
the image of the dance (perichoresis), translated by Latin writers as
“circumincession.” The metaphor suggests moving around, making
room, relating to one another without losing identity. The divine unity
lies in the relationality of Persons, and the relationality is the nature
of the unity. At the heart of this ontology is the mutuality and
reciprocity among the Persons. Trinity means that shared life is basic
to the nature of God. God is perfect sociality, mutuality, reciprocity
and peace. As a circle of loving relationships, God is dynamically
alive. There is only one God, but this one God is not solitary but a
loving communion that is distinguished by overflowing life.18
Classical theism considers God apart from Trinity, as though there
were a divine nature to discuss apart from there being three Persons
in it. We can indeed consider the divine nature in a general way, but
an effect of doing so is that we can lose sight of relationality and its
importance to God’s identity. Considering the divine nature in
isolation from Trinity might even lead to error, because it would
encourage us to suppose that we know a fair amount about the
divine nature from our own speculations, apart from revelation. Out
of confidence in our own metaphysical acumen, we might even
question whether there can be real relations within God or between
God and the world. Aquinas came to that conclusion, owing to his
prejudice against allowing change in God. Assumptions about what it
33
is “proper” for the divine nature to be like can make it difficult for us
to take seriously what God’s nature is like as revealed in the gospel.
The problem in Greek thinking is that God suffers, as it were, from
his own completeness. God is so perfect in that way of thinking that
people are inclined to deny any degree of dynamic in God, whereas
in the gospel the divine nature is essentially a dynamic communion
of love and a transcendence capable of immanence by virtue of it.19
34
Both-And
Spirit both names the essence of God and refers to the third Person
of the Trinity. Spirit is the nature common to all the Persons and, at
the same time, a distinct Person alongside Father and Son. Spirit is
the life common to all and a Person with his own face and the center
of distinctive actions.
It might have been easier for us if the Bible had reserved the term
for the deity as a whole and employed a different term (like
Paraclete) when referring to the third Person. This would have kept
the two categories separate and simplified the task of interpreters.
As it stands, one has to determine which category spirit refers to in
any given passage.20
Trinitarian insight into the life of God derives from revelation in
history, not from philosophy. God differentiates himself in the
incarnation in a triune way. Accepting Jesus as the revelation of
God, we take it that God as he is revealed in the economy of
salvation corresponds to God as he is in his inner being. We assume
that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity. The immanent
Trinity (God in himself) is revealed by the economic Trinity (God in
history), from which we learn that God is Father, Son and Spirit.21
What can we say about the inner life of God? On the one hand,
the economic Trinity does not exhaust the immanent Trinity, since
the divine mystery overflows revelation and is unattainable by the
creature. On the other hand, revelation does establish the Trinity and
three Persons in God. We are in the situation of having been given a
true, though partial, knowledge of God in the economy of salvation.
What has been revealed about the relationship of Father, Son and
Spirit reveals something about the divine relationships.
What we see happening in the Gospel narrative between the
Persons we understand also to take place in the life of God. Thus
the self-giving love that we see in the Gospels has roots in what
transpires within God the Trinity. We joyfully name God Father, Son
35
and Spirit, even while remaining well aware that our knowledge in
these matters is very limited.22
36
A Struggle to Understand
Theology has not found it easy to take plurality in God seriously.
There are several reasons for this. Given the background of Old
Testament thinking, it was a significant development of monotheism
to posit three Persons in God. From the Greek side, plurality did not
fit easily into Hellenistic thinking, because it introduced complexity
into God’s nature, challenging the assumption of simplicity. The
effect of such impediments has made trinitarian thinking often quite
disappointing.
There were some good beginnings in early theology, such as in
the social trinitarianism of the Cappadocian fathers. Gregory of
Nyssa allowed for real personhood in his concept of Father, Son and
Spirit. He did not see them as modes of existence only but as
subjects of the divine life enjoying personal relations. But it has not
been easy to maintain this insight. An exception was Richard of St.
Victor, who focused on love as most characteristic of the divine
nature and came to the realization that if God is love everlastingly,
this implies a circulation of love in the social context of the Trinity and
the understanding of God as loving society.23
Augustine made a bad move for trinitarian reflection when he
proposed a psychological analogy of Trinity which could not handle
relationality in God. He thought of God as a single mind and the
Persons as aspects of it. The analogy sounds modalistic and even
unitarian, though Augustine did not intend it so. His problem was the
idea of the simplicity of God derived from philosophical sources. This
notion stood in the way of articulating the social Trinity. An
assumption about the unity of God stemming from extrabiblical
speculation led him into difficulty.
Theology always gets into trouble when its practitioners think they
know what God is like apart from what revelation says God is like. In
this case Augustine needed to allow his concept of divine simplicity
to be corrected by revelation, rather than determining the meaning of
37
revelation. Failing to give primacy to revelation causes one to lose
sight of the distinctions between Persons of the Trinity as the gospel
reveals them.24
Reluctance to espouse the social model of Trinity has dogged
theology’s path over the centuries. Even Karl Barth, despite the fact
that he made the Trinity central in his theology, elevates unity over
diversity when he insists on speaking of three modes, not three
Persons, in God. He gives the appearance of thinking of God as a
single Person existing in three unidentified modes. Such agnosticism
regarding the immanent Trinity has led some of his disciples into
unitarianism.25 Similarly, Karl Rahner, the other truly great modern
theologian, refuses to go beyond speaking of three “ways of existing”
in God. Though it seems ironic, one can only call these two
“neomodalist” in their doctrine of God.26
Hans Küng, another truly able theologian who wants to be faithful
to Scripture and can be brilliant in the timeliness of his applications,
is also plainly modalistic. He takes the Persons of the Trinity as
aspects of a single subject. He takes Father to refer to God above
us, Son to refer to the representative human through whom God is
revealed, and Spirit to refer to God’s power within us. It appears
Küng is saying that Father is God, while Son and Spirit refer to God’s
activity in history. That is, Son and Spirit refer to roles of one divine
Person in the events of revelation and redemption.
In Küng’s case, apologetic considerations play a role. He wants to
make it easier for Jews and Muslims to understand Christianity in the
context of monotheism—but he pays a price for it. Ironically, what he
does is to deny such fellow monotheists access to the revolutionary
insight concerning God’s nature represented by the social analogy of
the Trinity.27
The problem is much worse in liberal theology, where unitarian
thinking is most influential and spirit is understood as God’s
presence, not as a third Person. Geoffrey Lampe, for example,
equates spirit with divine immanence and the consequent nature of
God, as in process theism. In effect, Spirit is conscripted to meet the
requirements of a philosophy in which it is not a Person but a symbol
of creative love.28
38
Fortunately the situation is now changing. Theologians are taking
the social Trinity more seriously as involving real community in God.
Heribert Muhlen follows Richard of St. Victor in this, and many others
such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann, Colin Gunton, Ted
Peters, Cornelius Plantinga, Walter Kasper, Joseph Bracken and
William Hill are social trinitarians today. That is, they recognize the
personal distinctions of Father, Son and Spirit in God. They take the
plurality in God to be real and hold that the Persons relate to each
other in love and reciprocity.
“Social Trinity” means that there are three Persons who are
subjects of the divine experiences. Spirit in one sense is the nature
of God possessed by all the subjects, but Spirit also refers to the
third Person in the divine fellowship. God’s life is thus personal in the
fullest sense—it is a life of personal communion. God is constituted
by three subjects, each of whom is distinct from the others and is the
subject of its own experiences in the unity of one divine life. This
means among other things that God does not have to be related to a
created order in order to be personal and loving. In the eternal being
of God there exist the elements necessary for a fully personal life.
This means that God, when he creates, creates freely, not out of
necessity.29
Moltmann writes, “In order to comprehend the New Testament’s
testimony to the history of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the church
had to develop the trinitarian concept of God. The history of Jesus
the Son cannot be grasped except as part of the history of the
Father, the Son and the Spirit.”30 In the New Testament we are
confronted with three Persons and only then go on to ask about
unity.
In order to avoid tritheism, we say that the Trinity is a society of
persons united by a common divinity. There is one God, eternal,
uncreated, incomprehensible, and there is no other. But God’s
nature is internally complex and consists of a fellowship of three. It is
the essence of God’s nature to be relational. This is primordial in
God and defines who God is. God is a triadic community, not a
single, undifferentiated unity. Though beyond our understanding,
God is a communion of Persons, and creation is a natural
expression of God’s life, because finite creatures find their fulfillment
39
in relation to God. “At the deepest core of reality is a mystery of
personal connectedness that constitutes the very livingness of
God.”31
40
Identifying the Spirit
The Spirit is more than God’s presence: the Spirit is a Person in
fellowship with, but distinct from, Father and Son. Called the
Paraclete in John’s Gospel, the Spirit is personal agent, teacher and
friend.
Father and Son have a face. We can picture them, thanks to the
narrative of salvation. Does the Spirit have a profile too? Human
persons have an identity, thanks to the gift of God. Is this also true of
the Spirit?32
Before addressing this question, let something more be said about
the meaning of “person,” a category that has changed over the
centuries and requires clarification. In the modern context person
often indicates an autonomous, independent self. This approach to
person may lie behind the hesitation to speak of three Persons in
God which I noted in both Barth and Rahner. It would not be true to
say that God has three Persons in that sense of person. Person
should rather be defined as that which enters into relationships and
does not exist apart from them. The key to its meaning is
intersubjectivity along with mutuality and reciprocity.
With this in mind, we might say that each of the Persons of the
Trinity is aware of its identity while relating with the others and
sharing the divine consciousness. Each Person is conscious of itself
as divine and distinct from the other Persons in reciprocal
relationships.33
How might we think of the identity of the Spirit in this
configuration? Spirit is not as clearly defined for us as Father and
Son, because the Son became visible and renders the Father visible,
while the Spirit remains invisible and not as easily known. It is easier
to assign a face to the Son than to Spirit, because of the historical
concreteness of incarnation. By comparison, the Spirit is less well
defined. Images like dove, water and fire (for example) are evocative
41
but do not reveal the face of a Person; the Spirit remains somewhat
anonymous.
Often one gains the impression that the Spirit likes to be viewed as
the influence of the risen Lord and not in its own right. We respect
that. It is possible that the Spirit wishes to remain mysterious, a wind
that cannot be traced, and values the freedom not to be limited by
too many images. He may feel it is enough to be the power of
creation and new creation. Revelation drops only hints about the
Spirit’s identity, and what can be said is limited. Nevertheless, the
economy of salvation does allow a glimpse into the divine life. The
mystery of God transcends definition, and there are limits to its
uncovering. Yet given that Father, Son and Spirit are revealed in the
economy of salvation, there is still room to think about their
relationships and differences.34
42
Spirit and Communion
One theme is apparent in both the Gospels and the letters. The
impression is given that the Spirit is the love that bonds the Father
and Son, mediating the relationship and evoking its ecstasy.
Consider this passage: “At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy
Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
because you have hidden these things from the wise and the
intelligent and have revealed them to infants’ ” (Lk 10:21). We are
often led to associate the joy of communion and loving with the
Spirit. Paul speaks of the communion of the Spirit who brings
persons together in fellowship (2 Cor 13:13). He names the primary
fruit of the Spirit as love, the love that binds everything together in
harmony (Gal 5:22; Col 3:14).
The Spirit confirmed the sonship of Jesus and enriched his
relationship with the Father. Similarly, the Spirit testifies to our own
adoption as God’s sons and daughters (Rom 8:16; Gal 4:6-7). What
was true for the experience of Jesus is being communicated in our
own. The Spirit’s goal is love and fellowship, unity and peace (1 Cor
1:10; 3:3; Eph 4:2). Spirit draws us into the fellowship between
Father and Son (1 Jn 1:3-4). A dove descended on Jesus at his
baptism, and the beloved in the Song of Solomon is called a dove
(2:14; 6:9). We cry, “Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my
perfect one” (5:2). 35
Joy is associated with activities of the Spirit, along with love. Paul
writes, “The kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). The Spirit filled
the disciples with joy (Acts 13:52), gives us wine to drink and raises
new songs in us (Acts 2:11; Eph 5:18-19), inspires joy along with
love (Gal 5:22; 1 Thess 1:6). Spirit is the joy giver who fills our hearts
with singing. The Spirit’s inspiration makes us to want to dance and
celebrate. It is the Spirit who creates glad and generous hearts in
people (Acts 2:46). The Spirit caused Mary to rejoice greatly in God
43
her Savior (Lk 1:47). I hear the Spirit saying: let the party begin, let
the banquet be set, let us enter into the play of new creation! The
Spirit choreographs the dance of God and also directs the steps of
creatures entering God’s dance.36
One may find the identity of the Spirit in the delight of God’s social
being, especially in the love that flows between the Father and the
Son. Spirit completes the trinitarian circle and opens it up to the
world outside God.
I like the term ecstasy for the Spirit. It means “standing outside
oneself,” which suggests that Spirit is the ecstasy that makes the
triune life an open circle and a source of pure abundance. Spirit
embodies and triggers the overflow of God’s pure benevolence,
fosters its ecstatic character and opens it up to history.37
Tradition since Augustine has noted this and linked the Spirit to
the relationship of Father and Son, even naming the Spirit “the bond
of love” (vinculum amoris).38 It is fruitful to see the Spirit in this way,
as the bond of the divine relationship and as the principle of the
divine unity. The identity of the Spirit is best located in the
communion of Father and Son, as the mutual and reciprocal love
that flows between them. Spirit can be seen as the love that they
share and even to constitute the condilectus, the channel, of their
loving. Augustine saw the Spirit not only as the gift of love to us but
as the divine love itself, making possible a communion of God with
creatures. Spirit opens God up to what is nondivine, as the divine
ecstasy directed toward the creature.39
In a mysterious manner Spirit may be said to unite the Father and
Son in love and to proceed as the love between them. Some seek an
analogy in the human family, in the relation of parent and child. One
might think of Spirit as child of the Father and Son and the fruit of
their love. God is a fuller community than just I-Thou. As husband
and wife fashion a more perfect community by the birth of a child, so
Father and Son perfect their love by sharing it with the Spirit. What
could remain the eros of only two is transformed into the agape of
three, just as marriage transcends the two who first compacted it. In
some sense the Spirit, in creating fellowship between two, can be
thought of as the “we” of the I-Thou, as the child born out of the love
of the other two.
44
Love unites persons who cherish one another, and in God’s case
love reaches fullness in the third Person, who is loved by Father and
Son. The presence of the third lifts love out of preoccupation with
each other into a fuller expression of self-giving. The perfection of
love in turn overflows outward in movements of expansiveness and
creativity.40
Spirit within the social Trinity fosters community and reveals
sensitivity in that area. Spirit brings persons together in heaven and
on earth, being both the medium of the communion of Jesus with the
Father and the medium of our communion with brothers and sisters.
Spirit mediates the Father-Son relation on two different levels. The
Son has access to the Father by the Spirit by nature, and we also
have access as a gift (Eph 2:18). In the Son, the Father has chosen
humanity to be his sons and daughters; in his self-surrender, the Son
lavishes grace on us through his representative journey, while the
Spirit seals us as those belonging to God, fostering both love and
community. Though at work within us in a hidden way and having no
proper name of his own, the Spirit forms and fosters community. As
the oneness of the love of Father and Son, Spirit is the source of the
oneness of believers in the fellowship of love, creating relationships
and bringing about a common life. Even our love for God is the
Spirit’s gift to us.
The third Person, having no special name like “Father” or “Son,” is
content with God’s generic name of “spirit.” It is enough to be known
as “bond of love.” This does not mean the Spirit does not have a
more specific profile, but only that we have not been told about it.
Spirit is content to be thought of as the medium and fellowship of
love. He delights in the loving relationships of the divine dance and
exults in the self-emptying love that binds Father and Son. He
delights to introduce creatures to union with God, the dance of the
Trinity and the sabbath play of new creation.
Spirit is also associated with hope. The Spirit brooded over the
waters of creation to bring life and order out of chaos. Spirit makes
dry bones live and raises Christ up as firstfruits of those who sleep in
death. Spirit belongs to the future and creates hope in people, being
the power by which this present world will be transformed into the
kingdom of God. Spirit opens up the future by realizing God’s goals
45
for history and pressing toward fulfillment. Therefore Paul writes,
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so
that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom
15:13).
Spirit does not wish to be focused upon but to remain anonymous,
a servant of the economy of salvation. Consumed with its future, he
hides his own face. The Spirit of love effaces himself in order to
bless others. The flame of love is humble and self-effacing in the
presence of the beloved. Like a mother in the service of life, the
Spirit is disinterested and does not look to personal advantage. He is
humble and dwells in the hearts of the poor in spirit.
Mediating love on earth must be very different from mediating it in
heaven. Within the Godhead it must be sheer delight, but on this
fallen earth it involves difficult remedial activities, such as exposing
lack of love and promoting just relationships. The passion for love
has to translate into passion for right relationships as well, which in
turn leads to weeping and anguish. Therefore the Spirit does not
mediate complacent love but chooses to be present in the midst of
brokenness and distress.41
46
Not Just a Bond
Our thoughts are frail indeed when it comes to the immanent Trinity.
Even this image, “bond of love,” falls short of attributing personality
to Spirit, leaving the possible impression of a binity—Father and Son
plus a bond—rather than a trinity. It could reduce Spirit to the
fostering environment of love. Spirit is more than that, however,
being a distinct Person who, besides bonding others in love, shares
and participates in it. Spirit bonds the Trinity by being the witness to
the love of Father and Son, by entering into it and fostering it, and by
communicating its warmth to creatures. Though we delight in the
image of bond of love, we do not want to fail to do justice to real
reciprocity in the Trinity or leave the impression of an impersonal
bond that would obscure the personhood of the Spirit. Augustine had
difficulty, as I have noted, with distinctions in the being of God, and
perhaps this explains his attraction to this image. He had difficulty
accepting that the being of God is a truly interpersonal communion.42
Plurality in God is real plurality, and relationality belongs to his
essence. The dimension of intersubjectivity is basic—Father, Son
and Spirit are three subjects in communion. They constitute a
community of persons in reciprocity as subjects of one divine life.
They joyously share life together. The social Trinity is the only
understanding of God that accounts for the narrative of salvation.
The Father sends the Son into the world, and his suffering for us in
union with the Father in turn releases the Spirit. The story reveals
God as a fellowship of Persons who are open to the joy and pain of
the world. Trinity bespeaks a livingness in God, both beyond and
within our world.
This speaks eloquently to our human experience at many points.
Community is central to our earthly life. We were created for it in the
image of the Trinity. We know that the dynamic interaction of persons
forms corporate realities far greater than individuals. Similarly, God is
an interpersonal process, a community of Persons who love one
47
another and enjoy unanimity. God is the ideal community to which
humans aspire but do not attain. The three Persons of God, while
distinct and each possessing consciousness, form together a shared
life that is the perfect ideal. Human community was created in the
first place to reflect God’s own perfection, and its destiny is to
participate in the very life of God.43
The history of salvation discloses a unique relationship between
Son and Father, showing how the Father loves the Son and how the
Son returns love by embracing lost humanity. It also exposes a
relationship of both with the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father
and descends on the Son, pouring out the power of God’s love on
him.
It may be that we should seek the face of the Spirit in the face of
the community, God’s dwelling and the place where love is being
perfected (1 Jn 4:12). As the Son reveals the Father’s face and the
Spirit reveals the Son’s face, perhaps the place where Spirit’s is
seen is the faces of believers (Rev 22:4). As they grow in grace and
holiness, it will become increasingly possible to recognize the Spirit
in their faces. Perhaps the church is the face of the Spirit, who
shines from the faces of all the saints.
Paul asks, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that
God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16). We might ask, Do you not
know that the Spirit wishes to find his face made visible among those
who believe?44 We may find the Spirit’s face also on those outside
the church who give a cup of cold water to thirsty ones.
Such talk is metaphorical—do wind and breath have face? We
bow to God’s unfathomability. Let me add a word of clarification. The
Trinity is not a picture of the inner life of God in a literal way. True, it
speaks to us of a communion marked by overflowing love. But it
remains mysterious and analogical, not univocal. It may help us to
think about God in terms of human interactions such as between
parent and child, husband and wife, friend and friend. But the divine
reality is always greater than, always surpasses, any analogy. It is,
let us remember, a symbolic picture of the shared life that is at the
heart of the universe.
48
God’s Fair Beauty
The social Trinity depicts God as beautiful and supremely lovable.
God is not a featureless monad, isolated and motionless, but a
dynamic event of loving actions and personal relationality. What
loveliness and sheer liveliness God is! We praise the Father, who is
primordial light and unoriginated being, absolute mystery, without
beginning or end. We praise our Lord Jesus Christ, everlasting Son
of the Father, who lives in fellowship with the Father, ever
responding to his love. We praise the Spirit, the Lord and giver of
life, who is breathed out everlastingly—living, ecstatic, flaming. Each
person of the Trinity exists eternally with the others, each has its
gaze fixed on the others, each casts a glance away from itself in love
to the others, the eye of each lover ever fixed on the beloved other.
Atheism is partly the result of bad theology, an unpaid bill resulting
from failures in depicting God. How often have people been given
the impression of God as a being exalting himself at our expense!
One might be afraid of such a God, but no one would be attracted to
love him. So often lacking has been the vision of the triune God as
an event of open, dynamic, loving relations. It is not surprising that
many have rejected God when there has been so little to attract
them to him. Perhaps they would not reject as readily the God
disclosed in Jesus Christ, who is an event of loving relationality and
relates readily to the temporal world.45
The God of revelation is not distant from the world and untouched
by its suffering. God cares for the world; it matters much to him.
Prayer is a wonderful indicator of how God relates to the world. In
asking us to pray and request things to happen, God invites us to
join in shaping the future. Prayer reveals God as flexible in his
planning and open in regard to what will happen. It indicates that the
relationship between God and humanity is truly personal and that
both are, in their own way, agents who make a difference to
outcomes in a nondeterministic world.46
49
Theology ought to be beautiful, because its subject is so beautiful.
Augustine exclaimed, “Too late did I love thee, O Fairness, so
ancient yet so new” (Confessions 10.27). Barth comments, “Sulky
faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of thinking are intolerable in
this science.”47 Theology can be beautiful as it focuses on the
beauty of God and the treasures of this relational ontology.
Hindrances to faith in God seldom have to do with a lack of proofs.
Most people believe God exists because of the sense of divinity in
them. Hindrances to faith have more to do with the quality of our
theism. Theology has to do not with whether God is, but with who
God is. Theology gains credibility when we have a doctrine of God
that one can fall in love with.
Faith in the social Trinity affects how we understand the attributes
of God. Trinitarian doctrine leads one to look at the divine perfections
afresh. God’s self-revelation discloses not only his inner nature but
also God’s attributes. Often in the past philosophy has influenced the
doctrine of God, so that theology has started with a general
understanding of God rather than the truth of revelation.48 For
example, divine power may be misconstrued as total control
because such a notion is thought “fitting” for God. Or righteousness
may be conceived of as exactness because that is thought most
fitting, despite what revelation says.
Yet God’s self-revelation as the Triune One overturns foreign
assumptions about divine perfections. In the Gospel narrative God’s
power is revealed in the weakness of the cross, and God’s
righteousness is revealed as delivering us from sin, not giving us
what we deserve.
God is wonderfully different from what our natural thinking tells us,
for this God delights in social existence, ecstatic dance, creativity
and spontaneity. This is why we humans love to play in the midst of
the seriousness of ordinary life—play bespeaks eternity. Play is a
gesture of hope. It takes us momentarily out of the realm of suffering
and lets us glimpse deathless joy. It is a gesture of hope in the face
of ugliness and destruction.49
God is not an absolute Ego, unchangeable and all-determining.
God is not a single self, isolated and solitary. God is a beautiful and
alluring relational and dynamic community of love who does not
50
alienate but fulfills us. God’s glory does not lie in self-
aggrandizement but in self-giving. God glories not in domination but
in loving. What we see most centrally in God is the shining radiance
of love.50
According to self-revelation, God is not an Unmoved Mover but the
God of Jesus Christ, who goes out of himself and acts in history, who
becomes involved in the affairs of his people and enters into
conversation with them. God is closer and more intimate to us than
we allow ourselves to believe. God is not preoccupied with himself,
not unable to give himself away. It is the essence of God that he go
out from himself and overflow for the sake of the other. In his very
being as triune, God moves outward toward creation and
incarnation. Giving us life and taking us to his own bosom are not
afterthoughts but accord with God’s nature and purpose.51
It is natural for God to make a world that would reflect relationality
back to him. It is natural for God as social Trinity to create beings
capable of hearing and responding to his word and capable of
relating to each other also. It is natural for God to create a world not
wholly determined but one peopled with creatures with whom God
can freely share his life. It is natural for God to humble himself in the
making of such a world, willing the existence of beings with an
independent status alongside himself, and to accept limitations on
his sovereignty voluntarily, not by external imposition. It is natural for
God not to have to be all-determining but to be Ruler over a world of
finite agents. Such a world is more difficult to manage but offers God
items of much higher value.
The Trinity underlines the fact that the world exists by grace. It was
not strictly necessary. It did not have to exist. God did not need it,
since he exists in trinitarian fullness. The world exists not necessarily
but freely, because God takes pleasure in it. God is like an artist who
makes the world because he delights in self-expression. We see this
in God’s rest on the seventh day of creation—a rest not of fatigue but
of satisfaction. God took pleasure in the world and delighted in what
was made. We delight in it too, because it exists by grace, as a gift.
We extol God’s name and celebrate before him on account of it.
When we dance and make melody to the Lord, we begin to
51
experience on earth the joy of triune life in heaven, in anticipation of
participating in union with God.52
Though complete in trinitarian fullness, God does not choose to be
alone. Barth says, “God wills and posits the creature, neither out of
caprice nor necessity, but because he loved it from eternity, because
he wills to demonstrate his love for it, and because he wills, not to
limit his glory by its existence and being, but to reveal and manifest it
in his own co-existence with it.”53 God is bound together with us by
choice. This is why he acts in history and relates to creatures. He
loves to exist in dynamic relationship with the world. God has
pledged himself to this situation so full of promise and of risk.54
The love of God grounds creation. His purpose for it has always
been union and communion. God loved the world before it fell into
sin. His initial relationship with it was not a legal but a loving one.
In federal theology it was said that after creating us God placed us
in a covenant of works, demanding obedience and showing no
grace. Federal theologians spoke as if the world was not the creation
of a gracious God. But love is not secondary among God’s purposes.
The purpose of creation was to open a sphere for a covenant with
humanity. It has always been the Father’s purpose to create a
people corresponding to the Son and together-bound with him. As
Barth says, creation is the external basis of the covenant, and
covenant is the internal basis of creation. Creation made the
covenant possible through the formation of creatures who could
echo triune life. God elected humanity from eternity to share his glory
and is so intent on doing this that he even willingly took on himself
rejection. God created the world and acts in history to advance the
purpose of fostering a community of personal relationships, modeled
on the social Trinity, where the gifts of each person are celebrated
and nurtured.55
The Trinity may even be thought of as providing the place for
creation to occupy. Some posit that the distance, as it were, between
Father and Son creates room for the world to exist. Hans Urs von
Balthasar, for example, thinks of this as the space in which the world
exists. God did not need the world to realize himself, since the
Persons are already fulfilled in one another. At the same time the
Trinity does not hoard its love. Its love is ecstatic and open to the
52
world. Humanity is chosen in the context of the Father’s love for the
Son. We are loved in the Son. One could say that the plurality of the
Trinity makes possible the existence of the world and the incarnation
of the Son. Creation and redemption spring from the gracious
dynamics of divine life, from the giving and receiving, the loving and
surrendering, the interactions of love.56
Our desire for God did not originate with us. We did not initiate the
possibility of this relationship. The Trinity made it possible and
kindled the desire within us. We do not initiate this relationship. It is
God who invites us to join the trinitarian conversation already
occurring. The triune God invites us to share in intimacy with God
and summons us to enter the communion of self-giving love. The
dynamism of mutuality and self-giving goes on everlastingly in the
being of God, and we are being drawn in. Prayer is joining an
already occurring conversation. The Spirit calls us to participate in
the relationship of intimacy between Father and Son and to be
caught up in the dance already begun. In prayer on this earth we join
the dance and begin to experience the movement and interplay of
the trinitarian Persons.57
We tend to be biased in the direction of reason as the way to know
reality, even in the postmodern situation. But music also speaks to
us of the richness and depths of reality. Think of the unity, the
harmony, the patterns, the delicacy, the surprises, the delight in
music. Even Jesus piped a tune for people to dance to. Was Handel
not right to say in his “Ode for St. Cecilia’s Day” that harmony was
the source of the world and its goal? The text says that nature’s
heap of atoms hear the voice on high summon them to arise, and
they leap to their stations. And in the end they will hear the last
trumpet sound, and music will fill the whole universe. It should not
surprise us that music thrills us so much, because it draws us to the
celestial sounds of the Spirit within us.58
By the Spirit we access the presence of the Father through Jesus
Christ. Baptized into the triune name, we are adopted into the
relationship everlastingly enjoyed by the Son with the Father through
the Spirit. We are swept into a divine world of mutual love and begin
to experience the very goal of our nature as spiritual and social
beings. Designed for mutuality, we are destined for the dance,
53
destined to be married to Christ and share in the triune life. The
fellowship experienced on earth is destined to be raised a notch to
the level of the Trinity.
Being a Christian is knowing Father and Son and walking along
the pathway of cross and resurrection through the power of the
Spirit. The loving communion between the Persons of the Trinity is
diffusive—it tends by nature to radiate out from the center. Its
diffusiveness manifests itself in our existence as loving and lovable
creatures and alerts us to our destiny, which is to participate in God’s
love.
Here, then, I have laid the foundation for the next chapter. In the
act of creation God is wanting to effect an echo of trinitarian life on
the finite level and to produce beings that will share in the life of the
Father with the Son by the Spirit. The other chapters follow from this.
To deal with sin, stemming from the human refusal of love, God
assumed our nature in the incarnation and incorporates all who
believe into the body of Christ and new humanity by the Spirit
(chapter three). From cross and resurrection comes the community
that prolongs the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit and anticipates the
new humanity. The church is a foretaste of the new race, the colony
of heaven, the embodiment of the koinonia that God is and that the
world will become. God does not will to be alone, so his love
overflows in creation and redemption, and he seeks a community
into which to pour the Spirit (chapter four). By the Spirit humankind is
now being drawn in the direction of the wedding banquet and into
union with God (chapter five). By the Spirit too, the invitation
becomes genuinely universal (chapter six), and the church is healed
of its brokenness as it is led into the truth (chapter seven).
Loving mutuality and relationship belong to the essence of God. In
recognizing this, theology makes explicit what the heart has always
known. Let God not be defined so much by holiness and sovereignty
in which loving relatedness is incidental, but by the dance of
trinitarian life. And let us see Spirit as effecting relationships,
connecting Son to Father, and us to God. Spirit is the ecstasy of
divine life, the overabundance of joy, that gives birth to the universe
and ever works to bring about a fullness of unity.
54
When we render God in this way, not only atheists might come to
love him, but even Christians, for we ourselves often lack a sense of
God’s beauty and adorableness. God is the ever-expanding circle of
loving, and the Spirit is the dynamic at the heart of the circle.
Through him we all have access in one Spirit to the Father, on behalf
of whom Spirit and Bride say, “Come!” Let us all join in the dance.
55
TWO
SPIRIT IN CREATION
THERE IS A COSMIC range to the operations of the Spirit, the Lord
and giver of life. Pope John Paul II speaks of “the breath of life which
causes all creation, all history, to flow together to its ultimate end, in
the infinite ocean of God.”1 Yet theology has often diminished the
Spirit’s activities to much smaller proportions, in effect marginalizing
the Spirit to the realm of church and piety. H. I. Lederle remarks,
For too long the Spirit and his work has been conceived of
in too limited a sense. There was a capitulation at the
beginning of the modern era in which faith became
restricted to the private devotional life and the latter was
then described as “spiritual.” The Spirit should not be
limited to spiritual experiences and charisms—even though
it needs to be recognized that this element still awaits
acknowledgment in much of Christianity. We need,
however, to set our sights much higher. Not only the realm
discovered by pentecostalism needs to be reclaimed but
also the cosmic dimensions of the Spirit’s work. The Spirit is
at work in the world and should not be degraded to an
ornament of piety.2
After its inception, the creation unfolded under the presidency of the
Holy Spirit, who brooded over the primeval waters and turned chaos
into cosmos (Gen 1:2). The deep ocean stirred, and diverse
creatures began to emerge. Most fundamentally the Spirit is
associated with the gift of life and with every new beginning. God
breathed into Adam’s nostrils, and the mud sprang to life (Gen 2:7).
There would be no life at all if matter had not been breathed upon by
the Spirit of life.
Spirit is truly the life-giver, as Jesus said: “It is the spirit that gives
life” (Jn 6:63). The breath blows on everything, bringing life from
56
death, beauty from ugliness and peace from confusion. The Spirit
infuses the world with love and flies on the air (Job 12:10; 33:4).
“The Spirit brooded over the still earth as a bird broods over its nest,
warming the dormant life within, wakening it, releasing it, so that the
tiny creatures can come to birth.” We encounter Spirit in the life of
creation itself, in the vitality, the joy, the radiance, the music, the
honey, the flowers, the embrace.3
Spirit is the ecstasy that implements God’s abundance and
triggers the overflow of divine self-giving. Power of creation, the
Spirit is aptly named “Lord and giver of life” in the Nicene Creed.
This phrase calls on us to think of Spirit as active in the world and
history, especially in its development and consummation. The
universe in its entirety is the field of its operations, which are so
fundamental for Christology, ecclesiology, salvation and more. This is
the power that caused Christ’s birth, empowered him for ministry and
raised him from the dead. None of these things are possible for the
flesh. And the Spirit is present everywhere, directing the universe
toward its goal, bringing to completion first the creational and then
the redemptive purposes of God. Spirit is involved in implementing
both creation and new creation. There could not be redemptive
actions unless first there had been creative actions. The creative
acts underlie the salvific acts. The Spirit who brings salvation first
brooded over the deep to bring order out of chaos.4
Granted, the Bible says less about creative functions of the Spirit
than it does about redemptive functions surrounding the new
creation. But the creative functions are presupposed in what is said
about the redemptive functions. Emphasis on the Spirit’s work in
salvation should not be read as a denial of the creative work on
which it is based.
For example, Jesus could assume that his listeners knew the
Father was the Creator; he did not have to repeat it or dwell on it.
There was no doubt in Hebrew thinking that the world and all
creatures are dependent on God for life and strength. Hope for the
future, for the coming of the kingdom, for the resurrection of the dead
—such hope is plausible only because the God who promised them
is the Creator of the world. There cannot be new creation without
creation first. Paul says, “The creation waits with eager longing for
57
the revealing of the children of God” (Rom 8:19). The promise of
cosmic liberation would be unintelligible apart from the original gift of
life. The God who saves us is none other than the God who created
all things (Eph 3:9). His deeds of creation (power in the skies) are
matched by his deeds of salvation (majesty over Israel) in history (Ps
68:34).
Let us explore in this chapter the link between Spirit and creation.
Let us reaffirm its importance and overcome its neglect. The Spirit as
life-giver and universal divine presence, while not an oft-repeated
theme, is nonetheless a weighty concept in the Bible. God is not just
before creation as its initiator but also with creation in its
development as its director. Spirit is the ground of the world’s
becoming and brings God into an intimate relationship with the
world. Spirit introduces love into the world, sustains life and gives
meaning. The Spirit is with humanity on its journey through time and
with the creation in its groaning and longing for deliverance. We are
surrounded by the mystery of God, “in [whom] we live and move and
have our being” (Acts 17:28).5
Theology would not think of denying the omnipresence of God but
may overlook the omnipresence of the Spirit. “Where can I go from
your spirit?” (Ps 139:7). We may not completely forget it, perhaps,
but we tend to forget that the Spirit is present, not as a vague power
sustaining the world but as the Spirit of the triune God. In failing to
recognize the Spirit’s presence, theology may fail to reflect also on
the positive implications that flow from it. The power of love is at
work everywhere in the world, not just in the churches. The
redeeming God is the Creator God. There is a unity to God’s work in
nature and history, not a dualism. It is not as if creation before the
Fall was graceless. Spirit is moving the entire process toward
participation in the love of God, and the whole creation is caught up
in it.6
58
Spirit and Creation
A number of texts connect Spirit and creation. Elihu says, “The spirit
of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life”
(Job 33:4). He adds,
If he should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to
himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and all
mortals return to dust. (34:14-15)
His language reminds one of God’s breathing life into Adam’s
nostrils, making him a living soul (Gen 2:7). The implication is that
Spirit is the source of life in both body and soul.
On a broader scale, the psalmist states, “When you send forth
your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground”
(Ps 104:30). In another place David declares, “By the word of the
LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath
[spirit] of his mouth” (Ps 33:6). At Athens Paul affirmed, “[God] gives
to all mortals life and breath and all things” (Acts 17:25). Such texts
tell us that Spirit gives life to creation at the most fundamental level
and that our very life is a gift, not ours by right.7
The relative scarcity of such texts does not make the truth
unimportant. Creation as a doctrine generally tends to be taken for
granted and is treated infrequently and cursorily in biblical study.
Even the “creation out of nothing” that theologians consider
important goes unmentioned in the Bible. It is deduced from other
verses. But the importance of a truth cannot be measured by
counting verses. The fact is that the doctrine of creation and the
Spirit’s role in it is supported both by scriptural texts and by
theological reflection on them. Scripture makes it clear enough that
God created all things and that the Spirit is present everywhere in
the world. The point does not have to be repeated often to hold true.
59
The Spirit is present and active in creation—in its inception,
continuation and perfection.
The paucity of texts may be due not only to an emphasis on new
creation but also to the fact that the truth is treated in other ways,
with other language. The book of Proverbs, for example, extols the
creative role of wisdom. We read, Wisdom is described as God’s
agent in creation, much the way Spirit could be described. Like
Spirit, playful wisdom is sent into the world to bring God’s plans into
effect.
When [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I
was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his
delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his
inhabited world and delighting in the human race. (Prov
8:29-31)
The link between Spirit and wisdom continues in the
intertestamental period. In the Wisdom of Solomon wisdom is
described as the fashioner of things and is linked to the Spirit as
being universally present throughout the world (7:21-30). The writer
says, “The Spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which contains
all things has the knowledge of his voice” (1:4-8). The Spirit, together
with wisdom, is portrayed as the agent of divine creativity.
This gives us an exalted perspective on God’s relationship to the
created order and inspires in us wonder and gratitude for the gift of
creation. It lets us think of God as present in everything, in the
ordinary and the extraordinary, and it lays the foundation for
observing inspiration both in the craftsmanship of a Bezalel and in
the prophecies of a Jeremiah. It allows us a broad sympathy for
detecting the presence of God everywhere we look and fighting off
dark thoughts about God’s absence.
Even the doctrine of providence does duty for the cosmic work of
the Spirit. Under this category too we reflect on God at work within
history and the world. Providence refers to God’s sustaining and
governing all things and therefore indirectly to Spirit’s moving in
continuing creation.8
60
When the New Testament speaks of resurrection and new
creation, it assumes the creative power of the Spirit. Only the Spirit
who brought life to the world in the first place can bring new life to it.
Redemption does not leave the world behind but lifts creation to a
higher level. The Spirit has been implementing God’s purposes for
creation from day one and is committed to seeing to it that they issue
in restoration. Creator Spirit inspires hope for a world beyond the
reach of humanity, in which God’s power raises the dead and makes
everything new. The prophet asks, “Can these bones live?” and God
tells him to say, “I will cause breath [my Spirit] to enter you, and you
shall live” (Ezek 37:1-6). Another prophet says that creation will be
desolate “until a spirit from on high is poured out on us, and the
wilderness becomes a fruitful field” (Is 32:15). They can speak of the
Spirit in this way only because he is the power of creation.
It is unfortunate when Christians forget the cosmic and creational
role of the Spirit. W. H. Griffith Thomas, for example, denies the
cosmic functions and associates the Spirit solely with redemption.
He opposes contemplating the Spirit’s work on such a universal
scale. As an evangelical, he fears theological revision were he to do
so. What if people thought they detected stirrings of the Spirit in the
heathen world? What if the uniqueness of Jesus Christ were
diminished as too much thought was given to the Spirit’s global
presence? Thomas prefers to bypass the cosmic activities of the
Spirit rather than deal with the challenges it would pose to traditional
theology. But the effect of neglecting these activities is to break
creation and redemption into separate spheres and to draw a line
between them. The unity of God’s action is thus broken, and creation
is downgraded to an event preparatory to redemption.9
Not all theologians neglect the Spirit’s cosmic functions, however.
Calvin, reflecting on Genesis, attributes the beauty and form of the
universe to the Holy Spirit and sees them as proof of the Spirit’s
divinity. He gladly acknowledges the Spirit as breathing life into all
things (Institutes 1.13.14). Abraham Kuyper, following Calvin, lifts up
the cosmic dimensions of the Spirit even more. He conceives of the
Spirit as exercising a steady influence on creation from the beginning
and to be leading the world to its destiny. He even notes that the
Spirit bestows gifts and talents on human beings, thus gracing the
61
whole world. A theology of the Spirit needs to include this dimension,
and a fear of abuse must not prevent its proper use.10
62
Trinitarian Creation
Why is there a creation at all? God does not need it, yet
paradoxically it exists. Perhaps we can answer this question with
another: Why do paintings and symphonies exist? We do not need
them either—not the way we need food and drink. Such things exist
because of a creative impulse. Works of art flow freely and overflow
out of a rich inner life. They arise from celebration and sheer delight
in existence. In a similar way, the creation exists as a work of art in
which God takes pleasure and through which he gives pleasure. God
is like the artist who loves to create and who delights in what is
made. Creatures in turn share God’s delight when they are struck by
the giftedness of their own existence. It makes them want to dance
and play.
Something of the why of creation is revealed by the nature of God.
He creates in a way that is consistent with his loving nature as a
relational being. Not narcissistic or self-enclosed, God is inwardly
and outwardly self-communicating, a gracious being. Creation arises
from loving relationships in the divine nature. God creates out of his
own abundant interpersonal love—it is the expression of his
generosity. No outside force compels it; no need drove the decision.
God graciously gave life to the creature and allowed the creaturely
other to exist alongside himself. He made room for the creature
because of a disposition for abundant communication. God’s nature
is overflowing, and creation is a fruit of it. God loves relationships,
not solitariness. He is not at all like Aristotle’s god, thinking only
about thinking. God is pure ecstasy—each Person exists in loving
relationship with the other Persons, and the joyous fellowship spills
over into giving life to the creature. God does not hoard his
interpersonal life but gives it away, and his Spirit fosters communion
both with God and between creatures. The Spirit’s presence in the
world also enables it to be sacramental of the divine presence.11
63
Expressed in the act of creation is a will for community. God’s
being as shared love favors the coming into being of created
communities. Daniel J. Migliore says, “God is eternally disposed to
create, to give and share life with others. The welcome to others that
is rooted in the triune life of God spills over, so to speak, in the act of
creation.”12 We should associate God’s self-emptying not only with
incarnation but also with creation, where we also see God’s
disposition to make room for others to live. Creation is an act of self-
limitation too, the willingness for a relatively independent world to
exist alongside God. God creates for his own pleasure, and his
pleasure as a triune lover is to admit new partners to the dance. For
this reason God embarks on the risky adventure of creating a
nondivine, significant created order and even pledges to be involved
in it.13
The triune nature helps us think about the relative autonomy of the
world and its relatedness to God. The world is created in distinction
from the Father, to be able to relate and respond freely to God. It is a
distinct though dependent reality, made for relationship, and a world
in which the Son can become incarnate, both as the fulfillment of
God’s desire to disclose himself and as redemptive sacrifice (if
required). God’s nature is an order of loving relations in which,
though there is no need to create, there is the possibility of creating
a world to which God would relate through Son and Spirit.
History is not the playing out of a timelessly fixed decree but a
theater where the divine purposes are being worked out by the
resourcefulness of God in dealing with the surprises of a significant
creation. History is neither random nor predetermined. The Spirit is
active in everything but in ways that are respectful of the dignity of
creation. One might think of Spirit as choreographing the dance of
creation by analogy to what he does in the fellowship of the sublime
Trinity.
God creates out of his relational fullness, out of a love that is not
closed but rather open to embrace the universe. Ecstatic, God’s love
overflows itself and makes room for a creation. Being love, God ever
seeks to share being and communicate presence with it. As bond of
love, as One who fosters fellowship, the Spirit opens up the
relationship between God and world. God is not against us but for
64
us, ever seeking to share his life. God creates freely, not by way of
necessity or emanation. God creates by the Word—by a free and
conscious act. God, who loves the Son from eternity, loves creatures
in the Son and perfects the world through the breath of his Spirit.
Spirit makes possible a fellowship among creatures corresponding to
God’s triune love. By bringing into being ever more complex entities,
the Spirit is moving reality toward a manifestation of God’s likeness
in history and toward the participation of creatures in God’s love
beyond history.14
God rested on the seventh day not because of exhaustion but in
order to take pleasure in the creation (Gen 2:3). Creation is a piece
of divine self-expression which brings delight. God’s self-expression
is free and playful. Ontologically distinct, God enters into the world
and receives pleasure and derives value from it. The joy comes
especially from the fact that the love of the trinitarian community can
now be echoed in a world capable of interpersonal love. God’s
purpose from the beginning was to have creatures in his image with
whom he could be united in love. In emphasizing redemption, then,
we should not forget that it has always been God’s purpose to be “for
us” and “with us,” even before sin entered.15
Creation has value for both God and humanity in a dialectical way.
For God there is the joy of self-expression and interpersonal
communication. God is delighted by the way that nature can mirror
the divine and exhibit its traces. The heavens declare God’s glory,
and the world reflects his power. Creation itself intimates an ultimate
power that fosters openness and spontaneity among creatures. It is
also a realm where reciprocal relationships can be enacted on a
finite level and where the Trinity can be reflected in the communion
of social creatures. These image-bearers can mirror God’s image in
the sphere of nondivine reality and reproduce the filial relationship
that the Son enjoys with the Father. From this world the Father longs
to hear the very yes from the creature that he hears eternally from
his beloved Son.
For the creature too, the world has obvious value. It is a benefit
just to be graced with existence. Creation also makes possible a
covenant between God and humanity, holding out the promise of
union with God. It means that the love that flows between the
65
Persons of the Trinity can flow among all those who allow
themselves to be touched by God. So God’s joy in creation is
certainly not achieved at our expense. God may want a creature who
can respond to his love, but we are the recipients of the gift, and we
are the ones who are destined to attain the unimaginable fulfillment
of our being in God. Community as the goal of creation benefits both
God and ourselves.16
Creation is not finished yet. Spirit has it on the track of new
creation. Paul says, “If there is a physical body, there is also a
spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). In one sense creation is complete, in
that God has called it forth and it exists. But its goal has not been
reached, and it is in that sense incomplete and unfinished. Only at
the end of history will it be clear what the creation was meant to be,
because it will have reached the goal. At present we see much
brokenness and provisionality, but at the consummation we will see
the complete picture. Until then our knowledge remains partial, and
not every question has an answer.17
66
The Two Hands of God
Creation was made to echo the relationality so central to the being of
God and is intended to issue in fulfillment for the creature. The way
God brings this to pass is through the Son and Spirit. Let us consider
now the double mission of Son and Spirit in relation to creation, the
two hands with which God creates and perfects (Irenaeus Against
Heresies 4.20.1).18
We should associate God’s love for the creature with God’s love
for the Son as the sense in which God creates through him. God
predestines us to be his sons and daughters alongside the Son, that
he might be the firstborn among many (Rom 8:29; Heb 2:10-13).
Human destiny is to be united to Christ and share God’s life with
him. God turns to the creature through the Son. They become
objects of love as love for the Son is manifested in them. The origin
of everything that differs from the Father lies in the Son’s self-
differentiation from the Father, who loves the creature in the context
of love for the Son, its primary object.19
Oriented toward the Son, the creation might be pictured as
standing alongside the Son. In loving the creature, God is at the
same time loving the Son. The Father and Son relationship creates
room, as it were, for creation to exist. Creation exists on another
level of being from God but is not in every sense outside God. The
Father desires union with the creature as he desires union with the
Son. As Christ is a perfect expression of the Father, the creature is
called to share his likeness. In the Son we see what the creature is
meant to be, and in the Son we are invited to become God’s sons
and daughters alongside him.
Creation is related to the reality of the Son, and by incarnation the
Son became part of creation. What the creation is meant to be is
seen in the loving response of the Son to the Father. The Son does
not live for himself—he does not consider equality with God as
something to be exploited; instead he gives glory and thanks to God.
67
The Son gives focus and direction to the creative process. He shows
that humans are destined for community, mutuality and relationship.
Since God is a community of Persons, his image is vested not in
isolated individuals but in persons as community. The image of God
is really seen in Christ together with his brothers and sisters.
The creation exists in the space between Father and Son. The
otherness we call the Son makes possible the otherness of the
world. The Son is the archetype of creation, and the world exists in
the space between Father and Son, between the Persons who share
in divine life. Augustine prayed, “Thee, O Lord, I imagined on every
part environing and penetrating [the world], though every way
infinite, as if there were a sea, everywhere and on every side”
(Confessions 7.7).
Creation exists in relation to the Son because the Son models the
other as distinct but in relationship with the Father. The self-
differentiation of the Son from the Father is the basis of creation. The
Son mediates creation as the ground of its existence, as
differentiated from but in relationship to the Father. The Son is the
exemplar of creation, independent from but in relationship with God.
God is other than the world and transcendent, but the world also
fulfills its destiny in relation to God. What was created through the
Son finds its destiny in its being returned to the Father by the Spirit.
When we worship in the Eucharist, we offer creation and ourselves
back to God.
The Trinity is a fellowship of giving and receiving, and creation is
intended to echo mutuality. Even though humanity in Adam refused
to live in the pattern of giving and receiving, God did not cease to
give but instead rendered a perfect offering of praise and obedience
in the Son. Christ redeemed the world by restoring its capacity to
praise God and restored its otherness in relationship with God. Now
through the Spirit, the creation is being enabled through the sacrifice
of Christ to offer the praise and thanks that are due.
God freely wills creation and expresses himself in the Son, his
Word and image, and also in the creation. We might view creation as
a continuation of a movement that transpires between Father and
Son. Within God the movement of self-expression is necessary,
while in creation it is voluntary. But God’s expressing himself in
68
creation is also a movement in God’s experience. The fact is that the
triune God has made room for the otherness of the creature.
Choosing to share their love by creating, the Persons have inserted
creatures into the open spaces of the divine life. The immanent
Trinity is the economic Trinity—the God who is for us is indeed the
triune God.20
69
Creation by the Spirit
Creation is related to the dynamics of trinitarian life in relation to the
Spirit also. Spirit is the ecstasy by which God, without leaving
himself, can enter the world and be present. The world, created by
God through the Son, is also a result of the breathing of the Spirit.
Spirit mediates the presence of God in creation and enables the
creature to participate in God. The creature, distinct from the Father
in the Son, is united to God by the Spirit.21
The Trinity may be pictured as a spiral action, spinning and
releasing the power of its momentum outward, producing circular
motions outside itself. Spirit produces within the world the dynamic
movement within God. As the Spirit mediates the relationship
between Father and Son, he also mediates the relationship between
creatures and God. The goal is that we may enjoy the responsive
relationship that the Son enjoys with the Father. The Spirit seeks to
reproduce in the world the interior mystery of God, ever spiraling it
back toward God. Bringing creation to its goal is the main task of the
Spirit. The Son is the Logos of creation, the origin and epitome of its
order, while the Spirit is the artisan who by skillful ingenuity sees to it
that creaturely forms arise and move toward fulfillment.22
I see Spirit as the power that brings God’s plans into effect, as a
gentle but powerful presence, communicating divine energies in the
world and aiming at increasing levels of participating in the fellowship
of love. The universe came into being through the Spirit’s power,
when he hovered over the deep like a mother bird (Gen 1:2 NIV).
The Spirit continues to energize and sustain the world through the
sweep of history. Like a true artist, he expresses himself in the
universe in ways that respect the integrity of its forms and materials.
The Spirit aims to bring about the sabbath rest of new creation and
the joys of the kingdom of God.
Spirit is perfecter, then, of the creation of which Jesus is the
highest expression. Spirit is at work in history, first bringing
70
humankind into existence and then moving it toward the goal of
union. Spirit is the power released to bring the divine plans to
completion. He is Spirit of creation and new creation, concerned with
creating community and bringing about the kingdom. Spirit is the
power by which this present age will be transformed into the
kingdom and which ever works to bring about ultimate fulfillment. As
the power of creation, the Spirit does not call us to escape from the
world or from history but keeps creation open to the future.23
The scope is breathtaking. God’s breath is on the whole creation—
we live and move and have our being in an ocean of love.
Athanasius says, Spirit challenges everyone to relate to God by
means of his self-disclosure to every nation in the course of history.
God is revealed in the beauty and order of the natural world and is
the prevenient grace that benefits every person (Jn 1:9). God is not a
Being who dwells at a distance from the world, nor is God a tyrant
exercising all-controlling power. Of course God is not the world and
the world is not God, yet God is in the world and the world is in him.
Because he is at the heart of things, it is possible to encounter God
in, with and beneath life’s experiences. By the Spirit, power of
creation, God is closer to us than we are to ourselves.
71
Useful Implications
What are some of the implications and applications of this doctrine of
the Spirit? First, appreciating the Creator Spirit lets us see that God
is involved in creation down to the last detail. Everything that exists,
from spiders to galaxies, manifests the power of the Spirit. The world
is not empty of meaning but is actually full of mystery. Anyone who
has wondered at the beauty of the sunset has experienced the
Spirit’s creativity. The Spirit is not nowhere (as secularists tell us) but
everywhere, and our lives can be immeasurably enriched by taking
account of this. The Spirit is present in all human experience and
beyond it. There is no special sacred realm, no sacred-secular split
—practically anything in the created order can be sacramental of
God’s presence.
God is present to us in the creation, and the world is a natural
sacrament. We meet Spirit in moments of joy and sadness, hope
and yearning, suffering and struggle. Spirit is at work in the world
and not “an ornament of piety.” Our experience has the potential to
mediate his presence. Spirit is “the mobile, pure, people-loving Spirit
who pervades every wretched corner, wailing at the waste, releasing
power that enables fresh starts. Her energy quickens the earth to
life, her beauty shines in the stars, her strength breaks forth in every
fragment of shalom and renewal that transpires in arenas of violence
and meaningless.”24
The phrase “in arenas of violence and meaninglessness” is
important. Spirit is not only everywhere present but everywhere up
against the human negation of God. The world does not know or
receive the Spirit (Jn 14:17). There are powers of resistance with
whom the Spirit is locked in mortal combat. Spirit is present in the
struggle to make creatures whole, giving hope to the hopeless and
working at reconciliation to bring about newness. Spirit renews the
face of the ground and works to restore brokenness. For when sin
abounds, the Spirit’s grace does much more abound.25
72
Second, Creator Spirit keeps the link between creation and
redemption open and alive. Theology has the unfortunate habit of
drawing a line between creation and redemption, distinguishing them
too sharply. This loses sight of the truth that redemption is a
restoration of creation, not its denial. The cosmic functions keep
before us the unity of God’s work in creation and redemption. Spirit
is the power of redemption only because he is first the power of
creation. Only the Spirit of creation is strong enough to be the Spirit
of resurrection. The role in creation is primary and undergirds the
other work. The whole creation is a field of the Spirit’s operations
and thus sacramental of God’s presence.
Let us stop demoting the Spirit, relegating him to spheres of
church and piety. His role in the creation is foundational to these
other activities. The whole creation is home to the Spirit’s operations,
and the cosmic fruits issue in new creation. The Spirit is the perfecter
of the works of God in creation.26
Neglecting Creator Spirit gives us a narrow perspective on God’s
operations in the world. While recognizing revelation beyond the
Bible and providential activity outside the church, theology often has
little inclination to associate grace with them or see any beneficial,
preparatory role in them. I suppose this reluctance is motivated by
the desire to protect the uniqueness of salvation through Christ, as
though admitting a preparatory work would overshadow its fulfillment
in Christ. By acknowledging the work of the Spirit in creation, we are
actually allowed a more universal perspective where Spirit can be
seen as seeking what the Logos intends and where one can believe
and hope that no one is beyond the reach of grace. A foundation is
laid for universality if indeed the Spirit pervades the world and if no
region is closed to his influences.27
Spirit prepares the way for Christ by gracing humanity everywhere.
In such global activities Spirit supplies the prevenient grace that
draws sinners to God and puts them on the path toward
reconciliation. What one encounters in Jesus is the fulfillment of
previous invitations of the Spirit. God’s love is the ever-present
ground and goal of created things. We know this from Jesus Christ,
but this truth has always been so, always a possibility. One does not
properly defend the uniqueness of Jesus Christ by denying the
73
Spirit’s preparatory work that preceded his coming. Let us try to see
continuity, not contradiction, in the relation of creation and
redemption.28
Third, if the whole world is the field of Spirit activity, recognizing
Creator Spirit gives us the opportunity to relate theology to origins
and environment in fresh ways. Spirit is the field of power that lifts
the material world above and beyond itself. Spirit is the reason that
nature produces more than one would expect from a natural order.
The Spirit’s work allows us to speak more intelligibly about creation
and even helps us with ecological responsibilities and our
stewardship of the earth.29
74
Science and Theology
Before relating Spirit to human origins, let us consider the underlying
issue of the relation of theology to science. It seems to me most
natural to regard them as two forms of human response to reality.
We investigate the world, God’s creation, and we study the Bible,
God’s Word. The two activities interact, each investigating things in
its own way and surveying reality from its own perspective. Ideally
one hopes that they will prove to be complementary activities and
not antithetical, partners rather than enemies.
No doubt science has important things to say to theology, and
theology to science. The information each gleans in its own manner
merits our respect and requires some integration. What God tells us
in the book of nature should interact with what God tells us in the
book of scripture. Ideally theologians would read the book of nature
and scientists would read the Bible, each in the light of the other,
because both deal with and describe God’s world. The dialogue of
theology with science is important if we aim to make sense of
Christian truth claims. As Einstein said, religion without science is
blind—science without religion is lame.30
Some recent interaction has not been helpful. Certain advocates
of creationism and certain advocates of evolutionism have been
twisting science to make it serve their purpose. Carl Sagan, for
example, deceives when he states at the beginning of his television
special that “the universe is all there is, was, and ever will be.” This
is unsubstantiated dogmatism, since science does not and cannot
tell us such a thing.31 Creationists, on the other hand, do something
of the same when they twist the facts of nature to fit literalistic
interpretations of the Bible. Both sides sometimes hold science
hostage to dogma. Evolutionists are blind to design in nature even
when it is apparent, while creationists ignore the age of the earth and
the developments in nature since creation and are also insensitive to
75
the teleology at work in the natural processes. Recognition of the
Creator Spirit might help this discussion.32
Theology should capitalize on opportunities now afforded by
modern science by recovering the truth of Creator Spirit that allows
us to place the discussion in a positive light. It allows us to consider
science in the framework of theism and notice God at work in nature,
bringing about the future of the world. To oppose naturalistic
evolution, we need not deny the evolutionary continuity of forms in
nature. A theory of progressive creation can make sense of what we
know about nature’s history. God not only created the world in the
beginning but also works within and through everything to bring
about his goals. God is at work in the ordinary ways that science
tracks and also in extraordinary ways that anticipate the kingdom.33
The theory of evolution is a working hypothesis in science. It
cannot answer every question and is not immune to criticism. But it
is a well-researched and thoughtful proposal based on a wealth of
observation which theology should seek to integrate properly.34
Theology and science should be partners in search of truth.
Science helps theology understand the physical world, and theology
helps science detect the meaning and mystery of what is. Theology
is fruitful for science because it raises issues that go beyond
science; science is important for theology because it helps us
connect the biblical text with created reality.
Theologians and scientists both exegete God’s world, which we
have been given to study and appreciate. Contemplating this world
fills us with wonder and gratitude. Science, based in the freedom of
the knower, can along with theology contribute to our understanding.
The Spirit itself has formed within us the creative capacity not only to
understand the world but also to give it voice and offer it back to God
with thankful praise.35
Creation is an ongoing process as well as a past event. The world
was brought into being and is now being sustained by God’s creative
breath. The Spirit is the field of creativity shaping the process. He is
active in natural processes as well as in domains of piety and
miraculous events like Jesus’ resurrection. Acknowledging the
Spirit’s continuous activity throughout the universe adds great
meaning to our awareness of God’s care for the human and
76
nonhuman world. The Spirit is the One to whom all creatures owe
their life, movement and aspiration. Recognizing this can lead us into
a spirituality of the present and the ordinary, a celebration of God
here with us and our dwelling in God. It helps us develop a heart of
thanksgiving for creation and every part of it.
The Spirit of God indwells creation and works on the inside of it by
means of subtle operations. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin helped us to
see that things have an outside that can be measured and an inside
that cannot. Theology tells us of a power of love within the world that
is pushing things forward. It tells us of the Spirit who strives to create
a greater awareness of God and a greater Christlikeness in the
creature. By the Spirit, through a series of leaps and breakthroughs,
the invisible becomes visible. Theology can illumine what science
discovers by naming the bias toward order within the world. It
identifies Spirit as working within nature, unfolding God’s purposes
by immanent operations. It can point to grace at work within the
structures of the world, facilitating the self-transcendence of the
creature and bringing a groaning creation to birth.
77
Spirit and Origins
Integrating scientific learning with theological insight is an important
challenge for serious theology. The contemporary scientific picture of
the world calls out for theological reflection. Let us consider how
theology may shed light on nature as God’s continuing creation and
how the Spirit may be understood as working in this context.36
Science has made this task easier by correcting some of its own
presuppositions about nature as a determinate mechanism, static in
character. It is now offering a more holistic and dynamic concept of
nature as an expanding process. Matter is being viewed more as
imbued with life, restless and insurgent, and inclined toward ever
greater organization. This may make it possible to make the divine-
world relationship more intelligible. Recent views in science support
an understanding of the universe as an entity whose processes are
imbued with mystery and make the time propitious for
rapprochement between science and theology. The time is right for
perspectives informed by what is known scientifically and also
sensitive to the religious dimensions of reality.37
Belief in the Creator Spirit gives a perspective that is consonant
with the biblical witness and new understandings of the universe.
The doctrine of the Spirit may provide a conceptual way for
understanding the continuing creation. Spirit is the power that
transcends and operates within nature, guiding it to its destiny.
Theology, informed by scientific insight, has a framework for dealing
with questions of origins.38 Theology and science can be better
integrated with the help of Spirit. The dynamic order that we are
glimpsing in science calls out for understanding in terms of the
wisdom and creativity of God. On the horizon is a reinvigorated
natural theology based on the life-giving work of the Spirit.39
A certain correspondence exists between belief in creation and the
scientific picture. Both posit a creation event, an incredible
singularity, that issued in the dynamic process we call nature. It is
78
not easy to account for the existence of the world on naturalistic
grounds nowadays. The big bang calls for a nonnatural explanation.
Why the world even exists is a mystery. How could the universe
have come into being apart from creation? Thus science today
points us to a Creator. Spirit has the power of creation and the
energy for the creation event. The Spirit is the temporal first cause of
the world, which had its beginning in time.40
Beyond that, the orderliness of the world is amazing—especially
the capacity of nature to produce living, conscious, personal beings.
This is not a question only of complex phenomena such as the eye
or the brain, but of a world order that produces intelligent life. A
power of creativity is at work in the universe, which can be viewed as
a creaturely perichoresis of dynamic systems echoing the trinitarian
mystery. Apart from divine intelligence, it is very hard to account for
it.41
The term creation is firmly and mistakenly fixed in people’s minds
as referring to the initial creative event, not to subsequent history
and developments. People too often have the impression that God
created the world and then let it run more or less on its own, as
though God was active in the world’s beginning but not
subsequently. As a result the action of the Spirit in natural history is
eclipsed.
The world has a history and a destiny as well as a beginning. It
has a beginning, a middle and an end. If we were aware of this, a
door would open for relating the Spirit to the natural processes
studied by science. Neglecting this truth, on the other hand, prevents
us from interpreting the processes of development in a meaningful
way religiously. It is possible to transcend the fruitless debates
between creationism and evolutionism by linking the Spirit with
continuing creation and natural history.42
The link of Spirit with nature is most convincing in relation to the
serendipitous creativity that seems to be at work in nature.
Serendipity refers to the tendency of natural processes to produce
more than would be expected from development based on chance
and to be moving in the direction of increasingly complex forms. This
is especially true in the appearance of the human race and in the
trajectories toward humanization within nature. There appears to be
79
much fine-tuning of detail in the natural process which favors the rise
of humanity. Nature seems to be biased toward our existence, and
humanity in turn may be the clue to what is happening in nature.43
Darwinism has much to say about how natural selection preserves
and refines organisms, once they have appeared, but it sheds less
light on how and why positive new features originate. The origin of
species is the problem, and theology can help with it. It helps by
identifying the power of the Spirit as that which brings order out of
chaos and summons forth ever higher forms of life. The Spirit is the
perfecting source of the dynamism evident in the cosmos. Natural
processes reveal the orderliness of the physical world and show
many signs of divine intelligence. The work of the Spirit is almost
visible in the dynamics of natural occurrence and in the sequence of
forms.
Although scientists are methodologically loath to acknowledge that
nature is dependent on something higher than itself, for so complex
a world to have uncaused existence and undirected history would be
nearly unintelligible. The idea of the creative Spirit at work in nature
has much plausibility, because it can account for the teleology that
has been creating the preconditions of a life-filled world. At every
stage the Spirit creates conditions for cooperation and community.44
Moltmann summarizes: “The Spirit is the principle of creativity on
all levels of matter and life. She creates new possibilities and in
these anticipates new designs and blueprints for material and living
organisms. In this sense the Spirit is the principle of evolution.”45
As a theologian untrained in science, I must listen to scientists
who name the conditions necessary for the emergence of life and for
its continuance. They speak of the initial heat of the big bang, the
distribution of gases, the weight of neutrinos, the total mass of the
universe, the value of certain constants, the force of gravity, the
strong nuclear force, the temperature of the interior of stars, the
constancy of climate, the salinity of oceans, the depth of the
ionosphere, the rate of expansion, the formation of elements, the
particle-antiparticle ratio, and so forth. They say that a small change
in physical conditions would have resulted in an uninhabitable world.
From this I conclude that the world seems to be fine-tuned for life
and to have known (in a manner of speaking) that we were coming
80
and were supposed to be coming. The world itself bears witness to a
Creator who is interested in human beings and to a power capable of
producing them.
The concept of Spirit active in creation makes sense as a power at
work, supervising and fine-tuning the world. It seems unlikely that life
could have come about by chance. A few of the preconditions might
have come about by chance, but not so many of them. There seems
to be a power at work in the immensities of time and space which
values human persons. This is not just any world—it is a world right
for life and a world designed for us.46 The world is just too complex
to be explained as a product of mindless forces. The signs of
intelligence are too strong for that. Biological life, for example,
requires too much information for physical causes to have generated
it. The naturalistic outlook stumbles over many such realities.47
The argument from design has taken on new life in our day. It has
always been a popular argument, because few have been able to
accept that the universe is the product of chance. Recent science
has only strengthened this conviction. It has become even more
difficult to accept on purely naturalistic grounds such realities as
human freedom, openness, creativity, rationality and sensitivity to
aesthetic, moral and religious values. Something in nature is moving
things from simple to complex, from nonliving to living, from
unconscious to conscious life, from animal to human. It is difficult to
account for this without reference to the Spirit.
The scientific outlook presents a dynamic picture of a world of
entities involved in change. And it is natural to view God the Spirit as
continually creating, ceaselessly active in processes of the natural
world, directing and fine-tuning. This understanding sheds light on
the delight God takes in the world and its abundant variety. What a
splendid open-endedness, what a remarkable ecology of free
creatures! Humans become for God a responsive partner to whom
he can in turn respond.
Spirit can be viewed as a ballet dancer who leaps into the air and
lands in perfect balance in relation to a partner. In God we live and
move and have our being. He is like an ocean containing the world,
like a boundless sea environing it on every side. Our time is within
God’s time, our space within his space. God has access to the world
81
from every point that is open and subject to the Spirit that pervades
it. The whole world process is like the unfolding music of a divine
composer.48
The Spirit animates and interpenetrates the world, which is not a
mechanistic order. Spirit broods over the waters and sustains the
world. Divine creativity is everywhere active, forming new
possibilities and patterns. It fosters interaction and presides over the
systems of life.
The universe is not closed but open to God and to the future.
Creation is not finished until it has reached its goal. God transcends
the world as its Creator but is also immanent in the world as its
perfecter through long developments. Theology can understand the
natural order in a new context: Spirit is the creative ground of all new
possibilities. It is God that gives the world a future and the Spirit that
brings it to pass.49
82
The Anthropic Principle
On the sixth day God made humans in his image and likeness. Here
is a creature capable of having a relationship with God and able to
mirror the love of the Trinity in social relationships. Not only the Bible
but also our own observations place humans in a special position.
The universe is finely tuned to bring forth human life, and the system
is oriented to its emergence. There is a contrivance at work that not
only favors life but indeed favors personal, moral, spiritual life.
The process has gone much further than would reasonably be
expected on a naturalistic basis. It could have stopped with animals,
which in order to survive and flourish would need to know aspects of
the workings of the environment, but not what we know. Nature did
not stop with animals but proceeded to come up with creatures with
the capacity for religion and philosophy, art and music, literature and
morality. What a rich surplus to produce a creature who searches for
meaning, for beauty, for intelligibility! The existence of such a
creature is remarkable—a rational and personal, moral and spiritual,
free and aesthetic creature. Theology declares that humanity is the
goal of creation; science must agree. For both, humanity is the glory
and goal of the process.50
It is extraordinary that sentient, conscious, thinking, moral and
spiritual beings should exist. Imagine a creature who can speak, use
symbols, employ language, make sentences, reason—so different
from other animals qualitatively as well as quantitatively. It is hardly
what one would expect from a purely material process. We seem to
be the work of something different from mere natural causation. The
likelihood of our happening is small in terms of natural or random
process.51 What does make sense of it is the Spirit, who wants such
a creature to come into existence. The psalmist sensed this:
It was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me
together in my mother’s womb.
83
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. (Ps
139:13-14)
The universe has produced a creature able to understand the
process that created it. It is a marvel to think that the world can be
comprehended at all, but even more marvelous that we can grasp its
purpose. The process has produced a creature who is able to look
into the intelligibility of the process itself. Though children of the
system, we are semitranscendent to it and able to reflect on it.
The gift of intelligence is a fact of great significance. How can it be
an accident? Paul Davies comments, “Through conscious beings,
the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial
detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are
truly meant to be here.” It makes good sense to interpret the world
and humanity in a religious way. We are not simply intelligent
animals but the goal toward which the process has been aiming all
along.52
A good deal of suffering has been involved in creating after this
fashion. Life depends on regularities of nature. Minor variations in
them could bring the human species to an end. The water that
makes life possible can also drown us. There are rules in place that
hurt us if they are violated. Our lives occur in an environment that
can turn against us. The created order is an expression of God’s
love but entails suffering too. There is waste, there are dead ends.
Higher levels emerge amidst pain and death.
We feel the created order is a good order, an order in which high
values can be realized. We assume they could not have been
realized in less costly ways. We fall back on our faith that God is at
work in the situation to bring about his purposes. Jesus said, “My
Father is still working, and I also am working” (Jn 5:17). The process
of nature involves sacrifices. Nature is unfinished and groans in the
pangs of childbirth. A cross is woven into its creation.
For some these ideas may involve a new way of thinking of things.
Such a framework posits a slower divine strategy for forming human
persons than we have previously imagined and envisages a process
where death was operative long before human sin (at least) entered
84
the world. It requires us to think of death in different senses: death
as the termination of life, which is part of the created order, and
death as the ending of human life in fear and guilt, which is not. It
suggests that Adam, had he not sinned, would still have reached the
end of life and entered God’s presence; however, he would not have
died the way sinners die, with a troubled conscience.53
85
The Human Spirit
Having made the earth habitable, Spirit called forth living creatures.
God breathed into man’s nostrils and gave him life (Gen 2:7). God
made human beings living images of God, with the capacity to relate
to him and hear his word. He made creatures who could live in
relationship with God. He brought into being a human “I” capable of
responding to a divine “Thou.” Spirit, who facilitates God’s
relationship with the world, called forth a creature capable of loving
God, a personal subject whose nature is to engage the world and its
Maker.
As spirit, as persons, we are creatures of God’s Spirit. The Spirit
has brought forth a human spirit and created the possibility of a
dialogue with itself: the Spirit “bears witness” with our spirit (see Rom
8:16; 1 Cor 2:11). Humankind has spirit by nature, not only through
redemption. Spirit is fundamental to human identity. This is what
makes a relationship with God possible: the created human spirit can
encounter the uncreated divine Spirit. The Spirit of God graces us
with a capacity to know and respond to God’s initiative.54
Though everywhere present, God is nowhere more present than in
human beings. Because of our intelligence, our deeper and richer
experiences, our freedom and openness to God, we stand at the
pinnacle of creation and serve as a fuller dwelling place for God than
other forms of life do. Created in God’s image, we bear a
resemblance to the divine Subject and are able to be more
conscious of the divine presence. Though we reverence God’s
presence in all creation, we do so especially in human beings. They
are of more value than many sparrows because they have spirit that
can reach out to Spirit and experience God in creaturely life. We are
by our creation naturally religious. We are constructed so as to be
able to see God’s hand at work and interpret events religiously. As
spirit, we are made for encountering God and responding to his love.
86
The greatest issue is whether when the Spirit approaches human
spirits, he receives a welcome or not.55
One encounters the Spirit not only in religion but in experiences of
every kind. God is in the love we feel for one another. God is present
in the give-and-take of relationships. God comes in the compassion
we feel in the midst of brokenness. The Spirit is not restricted to
religious spaces; he is the giver of life itself and present in all
aspects of it.
The breadth and depth of experience that may mediate holy
mystery is genuinely inclusive. It embraces not only, and in
many instances not even primarily, events associated with
explicitly religious meaning such as church, word,
sacraments, and prayer, although these are obviously
intended as mediations of the divine. Since the mystery of
God undergirds the whole world, the wide range of what is
considered secular or just plain ordinary human life can be
grist for the mill of experience of Spirit-Sophia, drawing near
and passing by.56
The direction of Christian existence is to become Christlike, to enter
with him into union with God and to become more aware of the
liberty of the children of God. Having been born of the flesh, we need
to be born of the Spirit (Jn 3:5). Now with a psychic body, we are
destined to receive a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44). Spirit is leading
the natural world to a higher condition. Creation is destined to obtain
the glorious freedom of the children of God (Rom 8:22). Matter is
becoming spirit. It is not going to regress into entropy but is on the
march toward resurrection. The purpose of cosmogenesis is
Christogenesis; the goal of creation is new creation in Christ.
87
The Risk of Freedom
Suffering and struggle are involved in the creaturely process.
Anxiety, loneliness, limitation, temptation are all part of it. We are not
protected from challenges and trials. This is not a struggle-free world
order. God wills good for the creature, but also a creature who
corresponds with God in terms of love. Only a free creature can fulfill
such a destiny. It cannot be preprogrammed. Alongside the freedom
to love is the freedom not to love. Alongside the freedom to be
responsible is a freedom to be slothful and disobedient.
God took risks in creating this sort of a world. Evil is not even only
of human making. Genesis shows us that even in the act of creation
God confronted formlessness and darkness and had to establish a
life-sustaining order against it. There is a vulnerability and fragility to
the creation, and part of our calling as human beings is to join with
God in preserving it in the face of dark possibilities.57
Humans are unique among creatures in their openness to new
possibilities. They are free to move beyond present situations and
experience the world in ever new ways. Much less limited by
inherited factors than animals, more malleable and adaptable than
they, we are spirit.
Though we are already human, there is a sense in which we are
still becoming human. As Orthodoxy says, though we are created in
the image of God, we have still to attain the likeness of God. We are
always on the move and never wholly satisfied. The finite world
cannot satisfy us completely, because we are spirit and directed
toward a goal that lies beyond the world. As God’s kindred spirits, we
find our hearts restless until they rest in him. Our goal is to
participate in the filial relationship between Father and Son.
God’s promises are affirmative in Christ, but he longs to hear the
“amen” from our lips (2 Cor 1:20). God is a lover wanting to be loved.
He awaits a response to the love that gave us being. Having said, “I
love you,” God asks, “Do you love me?”—and gives us countless
88
chances to say yes. God delights in hearing the yes that Mary, the
mother of Jesus, gave him long ago: Yes, I love you, Lord; I put my
life in your hands.58
Such beings are both a wonderful and a risky experiment. The
freedom that makes yes possible also makes no possible. To the
invitation of love, one may respond gladly or refuse. Forced love is a
contradiction in terms, and God does not force his love on us. God
took risks in the decision to make significantly free creatures.
Though he does not abandon creatures to their own choices when
they fall, God also does not stop them from deviating from his
purposes and the consequences. There was a risk in granting
independence to the creature, but it was a risk required for the
fulfillment of God’s plan.59
Human beings are placed in a position in which it is possible to be
aware of God or not be aware, to respond to God or not to respond.
We have been placed at the right epistemic distance from God to
make it a real decision. From this point we can move toward God or
turn away.
The evidence for God’s reality is sufficient but not excessive. We
can move into God’s presence or choose to go the other way. We
may decide to immerse ourselves in the material world and live apart
from God. We may try to secure our life as a response to the anxiety
we feel in the face of our mortality.
Indeed, this possibility has become the common choice. Rather
than anchoring our lives in God’s love and finding our security there,
we have moved in the opposite direction, resisting God’s call and
refusing to go forward with him. We have placed our trust in the
creature more than in God and have embarked on a path to self-
destruction. The defiant no of humanity has had terrible
consequences, and thus our movement from divine image to divine
likeness has been made much more difficult.60
The Spirit grieves and suffers with creation, not only with those
sufferings involved in natural processes but also in the new ways
brought about by sin. Because of it creation groans in travail, but
Spirit keeps hope alive in humanity even in the midst of suffering.
Such sufferings are the birth pangs of a new creation, when we
along with creation are united with the life of God. Despite
89
everything, Spirit persists toward the goal of freeing us along with the
universe (Rom 8:23).
The origin of evil is a great mystery, but it will be resolved—not
altogether now, but in the future by the action of God. The world is
incomplete and unredeemed at present, and we can find no
adequate answer to evil in its totality. This will require the fulfillment
glimpsed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, where God takes
responsibility for the world and offers humanity hope.
In the meantime, providence often has a scandalous appearance.
Babies are massacred in Bethlehem with no one to rescue them.
God’s Son cries out in agony in Gethsemane and from the cross—
and hears silence. God’s heart is broken, but he does not act in the
hoped-for way. There is something posing a threat to God’s rule, to a
certain extent limiting what God can do as ruler of the world.
Therefore God does not now eliminate suffering but redeems by
means of it.61
Human destructiveness wreaks havoc on the world of nature also.
As shaper of the environment, Spirit is ecologist par excellence,
forming and sustaining all habitable space. The Spirit makes the
earth rejoice and cares about the natural world as well as human
history. Spirit vivifies the cosmos and gives the universe its order and
beauty. The world is filled with its energy. There is no split between
nature and history, because creation itself (nature and history) is
destined to share the glory of God.
This is why it is practically blasphemous to do violence to that
which has been made habitable. The universe is not divine but is
filled with God’s presence. The destruction of nature is hurtful to the
God who formed it and loves it. The Spirit suffers along with nature
and struggles against powers that despoil. God delights in creation
and grieves over its despoliation.
This does not mean that the Spirit will rescue us by unilateral
action from what we have done. Spirit-shaped ecology does not take
away the freedom of those who are threatening it. Though sharing
the pain, Spirit does not rescue us from the consequences of our
actions. Ecological damage is our doing, and we will suffer the
consequences. We are trustees of the earth and fellow creatures
with its inhabitants. Spirit calls us to ecological consciousness. We
90
are dependent on nature and belong to the natural order. It is not
simply an object for domination and exploitation, but the Spirit’s
project, to be redeemed along with us. Nature is our home, blessed
by God who took flesh, and it is destined for renewal.62
Spirit is a beloved guest in our hearts, but not only there. He was
at work in the beginning, presiding over the world, turning chaos into
cosmos, bringing life out of death and beauty out of ugliness. Spirit is
at work now in the far reaches of the cosmos. Let us not forget that
the power that brought the universe into being is the power at work
in our lives, the power that can change ugliness into something
beautiful for God.63
91
THREE
SPIRIT & CHRISTOLOGY
ANOINTING BY THE SPIRIT is central for understanding the person
and work of Jesus—more central than theology has normally made
it. Christology must not lack for pneumatology. The Gospel
narratives portray the Spirit as working actively in every phase of
Jesus’ life and mission. The title “Christ” itself signifies anointing—in
this case by the Spirit. Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One, and
therefore he said when inaugurating his mission in Nazareth, “The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring
good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18). Jesus was a man of the Spirit.
Peter sums it up: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Spirit and with power; … he went about doing good and healing all
who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts
10:38). The theme is caught by John: God “gives the Spirit without
measure” to Jesus (Jn 3:34). It may be that if this truth is given its
due, we will gain insight into the person and work of Christ. To hint at
the result, it offers a “last Adam Christology” in which Jesus is
empowered by the Spirit to recapitulate the human journey and bring
about humanity’s fulfillment.1
In the past theology has preferred to think in terms of Logos
Christology. By that I mean it has chosen to interpret the event of
Jesus Christ in terms of the divine Logos becoming flesh, in
preference to other ways. Logos Christology towers over the other
interpretive possibilities. It should not do so. The term Logos is used
only in the Fourth Gospel, and Logos Christology became central
because this was a category prevalent in the context of the church’s
early development. It served theology well in the Greek world. But it
eclipsed other possibilities, including Spirit Christology.
Just as there has been neglect of the Spirit as Creator, there has
been neglect concerning the work of the Spirit in relation to Christ.
The effect of such neglect has been to exalt Christ above Spirit and
92
direct attention away from certain aspects of Christ’s work as the last
Adam, representative of the human race.
I have a suggestion. Let us see what results from viewing Christ
as an aspect of the Spirit’s mission, instead of (as is more usual)
viewing Spirit as a function of Christ’s. It lies within the freedom of
theology to experiment with ideas.2
I am not suggesting a rejection of Logos Christology, only
contesting its dominance over other models. It is understandable
historically why theology would prefer Logos over Spirit Christology.
There was the fear of adoptionism (the heresy that saw Christ as
only a Spirit-filled man), and there was the apologetic attraction of
Logos in the context of Hellenism. But we are not driven by these
factors now, and we must not emphasize one biblical idea to
diminish another, especially when the result is one-sidedness in our
thinking.3
It is simply not right to emphasize the descent of the Logos and
ignore the work of the Spirit in the Son. Yet it is striking how
systematic theologies, in explicating the divine-human person of
Christ, forget altogether about the Spirit. It was anointing by the Spirit
that made Jesus “Christ,” not the hypostatic union, and it was the
anointing that made him effective in history as the absolute Savior.
Jesus was ontologically Son of God from the moment of conception,
but he became Christ by the power of the Spirit. When Satan
tempted him to misuse his powers, the Son refused, choosing the
path of dependence on the Spirit.4
The Almighty has inserted himself into history and humanity in
Jesus—as weak, powerless and dependent on the Spirit—in order to
become what we were meant to be, the communion of God and
humanity. By the Spirit he has also become through resurrection the
firstfruits of a new humanity. As a result of his assuming our human
nature as last Adam, Jesus has created a new human situation
(“there is a new creation,” 2 Cor 5:17). As a result, we all in union
with Christ by the power of the Spirit are enabled to participate in
divine life. By faith and baptism we enter the new human situation by
virtue of solidarity with the One by whom it was accomplished by
God. The last Adam has fulfilled the destiny of humanity by
93
recapitulation and will bring it to its destined position in the life of
God.5
By taking on our nature and becoming human, Jesus raised
humanity to the level of the Son in relation to the Father. God has
made us alive together with Christ and seated us with him in
heavenly places (Eph 2:4-7). As the Athanasian Creed says, in
Jesus Christ humanity has been assumed into God (par. 35). A door
has been opened for humanity to enter God’s presence, transformed
and glorified. God, having united himself to humanity, invites us into
unity with God, which is the destiny of creation. In Christ the last
Adam, first of all, the goal is realized—the divine is joined to human
nature. And through the Spirit, second, the divinization of the world is
beginning to be realized. In Christ, humanity is elevated to the life of
God. What was intended in creation is accomplished by incarnation.
By sharing flesh and blood, he has become the inauguration of a
new humanity. Our healing has been accomplished by God’s
becoming human and restoring our brokenness from within his
incarnate human life. All this is made efficacious by the Spirit,
because the power that raised Christ is now at work in us.6
The point to stress here is that the Spirit is more central to the
story of Jesus than theology has usually acknowledged. It was by
the Spirit that Jesus was conceived, anointed, empowered,
commissioned, directed and raised up. We emphasize God’s
sending the Son and must not lose the balance of a double sending.
God sends both Son and Spirit. Irenaeus spoke of them as God’s
two hands, implying a joint mission (Against Heresies 4.20.1). The
relationship is dialectical. The Son is sent in the power of the Spirit,
and the Spirit is poured out by the risen Lord. The missions are
intertwined and equal; one is not major and the other minor. It is not
right to be Christocentric if being Christocentric means subordinating
the Spirit to the Son. The two are partners in the work of
redemption.7
94
Universal Preparation
This chapter falls into two major parts: Spirit Christology and its
relevance for the work of Christ. We begin by placing Christology in
the context of the Spirit’s global operations, of which incarnation is
the culmination. In a nutshell: “the true light, which enlightens
everyone, was coming into the world” (Jn 1:9). Luke gives us a hint
of this in his birth narrative. He describes the Spirit as hovering over
Mary in a manner that reminds us of the Spirit that brooded over the
waters of creation in the beginning (Lk 1:35). Luke is telling us that
the Spirit who brought about the birth of Jesus has always been
present and working in the world. Spirit is thus the source of creation
and redemption. Active in creation, Spirit is active also in steering the
world toward the goal of union with God.
Spirit has always longed to make human beings the friends of
God, sons and daughters alongside the Son by adoption. Spirit longs
to fill every heart with love and always has in mind participation in
God. What is being offered by Jesus’ birth is the same grace that
has always been there since the foundation of the world and now is
being decisively manifested. In this baby we glimpse not just
creation, but new creation.
The Old Testament stories of Melchizedek and Job show that
grace was prevenient and faith was possible even for them as
pagans living outside Israel and before Christianity. Long before
Moses, long before Christ, the heavens were proclaiming the glory of
God. Hope did not begin to be a human possibility with Abram, as if
during thousands of years before him sinners had been abandoned
to despair.
The event of incarnation is the definitive word of everlasting love
by way of fulfillment. There is continuity in the work of God the
Creator and God the Redeemer. God’s presence is everywhere, and
Spirit is preparing human hearts to know him. Spirit’s activity in
creation underlies his activity through Jesus Christ. The power of
95
creation presses toward new creation. God’s work in the continuing
creation is not the work of an alien, but the work of the Father of
Jesus. Redemption through Jesus is an action of the Spirit of life
actualizing the original creative purposes of God.8
The Spirit’s work in creation anticipates the work of redemption.
The Creator Spirit brought forth intelligent creatures for
communication and fellowship with God. The great musician who
composed the music of the spheres wanted creatures capable of
appreciating more dimensions of the sound. Therefore the world has
been populated with creatures capable of hearing God’s word and
responding. One can almost anticipate the incarnation from what
went before. One might expect God, if the world is his self-
expression, to make his purposes further known and communicate
with his creatures. Such a perspective leads us to expect a word that
would address the human condition.9
Paul states that God has never left himself without witness (Acts
14:17). He worked with Melchizedek as well as Abraham, with
Philistines as well as Israelites (Amos 9:7). As Irenaeus put it, “God
by various dispensations comes to the rescue of humankind”
(Against Heresies 3.12.13). The Spirit is ever working to orient
people, wherever they are, to the mystery of divine love.10 Nowhere
in history is grace completely absent. God has never failed to draw
sinners to himself from the beginning of time. There is one world,
and God has a claim on it. There is a history of grace that has now
reached its climax in Jesus Christ, the sacrament of salvation, the
revelation of God’s unambiguous love for the world.11
96
Preparation in Israel
God created a risky world when he made it his goal to hear a yes of
love from creatures. It meant that a no was also possible. So when
human beings turned from their lover, God had to let them go in
grief. Love lets children leave the Father’s house to seek fulfillment
where, ironically, it cannot be found. The father of the prodigal did
not force his son to stay home. In spite of the pain to them both, he
allowed his son to seek a life of his own. Love is not forced on the
beloved, who is allowed freedom to make his own choices, even if it
means siding with the darkness.12
The decision grieved the Father, but he did not give up. Instead he
bared his holy arm to save the lost (Is 59:16). God shouldered his
own responsibility for evil by making salvation available and creating
hope. Though human disobedience was a significant cause of evil,
God, having permitted evil, did not abandon the world but sent Son
and Spirit to redeem it. God did not leave us to perish but reissued
the invitation to participate in glory.
A history of the Spirit preceded Jesus. Ancient Israel first
experienced the Spirit as the shaper of a nation. The Old Testament
often refers to spiritual gifts that sustain community: gifts of courage
for leaders, wisdom for teachers, creativity for poets, inspiration for
prophets. In Israel’s early history, the nation experienced the power
of the Spirit again and again, delivering it from danger and distress.
The Spirit rescued Israel and held it together as a people.13
But as time went on, the hope grew for a greater outpouring of
Spirit in the future. The prophet Isaiah announced that the Spirit
would rest upon God’s servant and through him mercy and justice
would flow to all nations. Because of the Spirit, this servant would be
instrumental in the coming of God’s kingdom. Other prophets such
as Joel also spoke of the Spirit’s being poured out from heaven in an
unheard-of intensity (Joel 2:28). Through such prophets, hope was
born for an outpouring of the Spirit and an anointed servant of God.
97
The hope began to be articulated that the activity of the Spirit among
the people of Old Testament times would transfer to an anointed
servant who would implement God’s ultimate mission. Isaiah put it in
a nutshell: “The Spirit of the LORD shall rest on him” (Is 11:2; 42:1).
There would come a uniquely equipped charismatic leader and a
special anointing of the whole community. Israel’s messianic hope
included the expectation of Pentecost.14
According to Jewish belief during the period of the second temple,
the Spirit was withdrawn because of the sins of the people. There
was an “echo of his voice” (bat qôl) but not the Spirit. The birth
narrative in Luke is alive with manifestations of the Spirit in order to
signal a reversal. It signifies that the Spirit has returned and the time
of barrenness is over. The Spirit has begun a new activity, heralding
end-time salvation. God’s wisdom (the Son) is pitching a tent in
history, and God’s presence (the Spirit) has come to dwell in new
and unexpected ways.15
98
Jesus and the Spirit
A central claim and early attempt to understand Jesus makes
reference to the Spirit. Jesus saw his own ministry in these terms.
He had an anointing to preach good news to the poor and rescue
people from all sorts of bondage (Lk 4:18). He declared, “If it is by
the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God
has come to you” (Mt 12:28). Jesus was conscious of a joint
operation with the Spirit to bring God’s kingdom near. To do this he
was anointed with Spirit and power (Acts 10:38).16
This was the first impression many people had of Jesus. They
marveled at the way he taught with authority and healed the sick. It
made them think of him as a prophet. Some said, “A great prophet
has risen among us!” (Lk 7:16). Peter said what everyone knew, that
Jesus was “a man attested … by God with deeds of power, wonders,
and signs that God did through him” (Acts 2:22).17
The Gospels go out of the way to connect Jesus with the Spirit on
all kinds of occasions in his life—birth, baptism, temptation,
preaching, healing, exorcisms, death and resurrection. Overall they
reveal Jesus as a gift of the Spirit. He was the Son of God who
nevertheless emptied himself to live in solidarity with others, as
dependent on the Spirit as any of them.
The Gospels present Jesus as dependent on the Spirit. They
depict the Spirit as helping him trace out his human path. Spirit
prepared for his coming, was instrumental in his birth, guided him
through life and by his death and resurrection opened up the door to
salvation for everyone. The Son emptied himself, was dependent on
the Spirit and suffered out of his love for us. The Gospel writers want
their readers to identify with the Spirit-filled Jesus as a paradigm and
live out of this very baptism in the Spirit.18
Considering how central the Spirit was in his experience, Jesus
spoke about it rather seldom. In other ways, however, he bore
witness to it. He demonstrated the reality of the Spirit, if he did not
99
develop a doctrine. He did not minister in word only but with power.
Jesus preferred to act out of the power of the Spirit rather than to
speak about it. Even today, the way to teach about the Spirit is to live
in dependence on the Spirit.19
At the beginning of Luke’s Gospel, the angel says to Mary, “The
Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow you” (Lk 1:35). Reminiscent of Genesis 1:2, this
language indicates that the conception of Jesus is an act of creation,
the sign in fact of new creation. It tells us that God is powerfully at
work in Jesus’ birth. It is not a sexual reference—the angel is not
speaking of a begetting of a child by the gods. It is the picture of the
same Spirit, who was and is active in creation, as being active now
in new creation. The virginal conception speaks of the coming of
Christ as a gift of the Spirit. The Spirit’s earlier creative activity is
coming to a head in his birth. This child, more than a fulfillment of
human love, is the very embodiment of messianic expectations.
Jesus is already anointed by the Spirit as Christ in Mary’s womb.
The human vehicle for the Son of God is being readied. The event
will mean a fresh start for humanity. Humanity will be restored to
communion with God. Spirit is prominent in the birth because it
points forward to Pentecost and new creation. This explains why
prophecy and praise abound in response to Jesus’ birth.20
We know little about Jesus as a youth except that he grew in
grace and wisdom (Lk 2:40-52). On one occasion in the temple at
the age of twelve, he revealed great understanding. It is likely that
Jesus was becoming more aware of his special relationship with God
and his unique calling. He had to be about his Father’s business in
the temple—this awareness shows the Spirit was with him in the
formative years. Truly as the prophet had said, a Spirit of wisdom
and insight rested on him.21
The Spirit came upon Jesus in power at baptism. As he was about
to begin his ministry, the Baptist was calling people to repentance
and announcing the coming of One who would baptize with the Holy
Spirit. Jesus heard him preach and responded. He must have
viewed John’s baptism (as John did himself) as the inauguration of
something new by way of salvation, and so he allowed himself to be
baptized. On that occasion he received the Holy Spirit while he was
100
praying (Lk 3:21-22). This was his anointing as Messiah, not with oil
but with Spirit. Through the waters of baptism Jesus entered into a
solidarity with sinners and took their cause upon himself. In baptism
he experienced God as his Father and was conscious of his own
sonship. He was God’s Son in a special sense but would invite
others into that relationship by adoption.22
Being baptized in the Spirit meant he was endowed with power
and equipped for mission. In this account the Spirit is pictured as a
dove descending upon him. Why is this? Perhaps it is meant to
remind us of how after the flood of Noah, a dove returned with a
fresh olive branch in its beak. The dove symbolized the renewal of
creation after judgment. In this instance the dove speaks of
messianic time and new creation. It is important to note that baptism
in water and baptism in Spirit coincide. The spiritual and the physical
flow together. This became important for the Catholic tradition, which
wants to keep the connection and give baptism a sacramental
meaning. As physical birth takes place in water, new birth by the
Spirit also normally takes place in water. Here we see the beginning
of a sacramental principle.23
Following the baptism, Spirit took the initiative and drove Jesus
into the wilderness to be tested. As representative of the human
race, Jesus was going to have to experience what Adam suffered
and conquer it. The temptations were aimed at his vocation as the
anointed representative of humankind. Spirit knew that Jesus had to
endure trial and repudiate all paths contrary to the Father’s will.
Therefore Spirit gave him wisdom to rebut Satan’s deceitful
questions and strength to repudiate worldly power in favor of the
path of suffering and love. So it was that immediately after his
baptism, Jesus began to feel the opposition that would take him to
the cross. Spirit led him down the path of suffering and would not let
him avoid it. Spirit does not let us avoid it either.24
It is important to recognize that Jesus was dependent on the Spirit.
He had to rely on the Spirit’s resources to overcome temptation. He
was weak and human and did not know the life of undiminished
deity. He suffered real attack in the temptations and was not play-
acting. It was not through confidence in his own power that he put
himself at risk. Victory over temptation was not achieved in his own
101
strength. He overcame sin by the power of God and in so doing
modeled the lifestyle of faith for us all. Jesus surrendered himself in
trust and conquered the powers of evil by the Spirit, as we all must.25
According to Paul, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom
8:3). He did not protect himself but took on fallen human nature. As
mortal and corruptible, not immortal and incorruptible, he struggled
against sin. His sinlessness was really due to his relation with the
Spirit, not his own deity. It was a real, not pretend, victory that he
won over sin, flesh and devil. He conquered in the power of the
Spirit.26
In becoming dependent, the Son surrendered the independent use
of his divine attributes in incarnation. The Word became flesh and
exercised power through the Spirit, not on its own. The Son’s self-
emptying meant that Jesus was compelled to rely on the Spirit. In a
sense, self-emptying comes naturally to God. Creation was a kind of
self-emptying when God made room for creatures. Self-emptying is
characteristic of God, who is self-giving love itself. Spirit is important
for understanding the kenosis. Spirit enabled Jesus to live within the
limits of human nature during his life. The Son decided not to make
use of divine attributes independently but experience what it would
mean to be truly human. Therefore he depended on the Spirit for
power to live his life and pursue his mission.27
Empowered for messianic vocation, Jesus inaugurated his ministry
in Nazareth. It was evident that the power of the Spirit was on him for
the benefit of the world. Jesus came as the Anointed One, preaching
the gospel of the kingdom and performing signs of new creation. He
proclaimed good news to the poor, mercy to the sick, liberty to
captives, sight to the blind. By the power of the Spirit, Jesus
announced a God who wills human wholeness. Therefore he went
not to the righteous but to the sick and the outcast, to gather them
under God’s wings. By the Spirit he set people free from entrapment.
He brought them hope and liberated their relationships. Demonic
powers were driven out, and creaturely life was restored. All this
happened because the energies of the life-giving Spirit were at work
in Jesus.28
A text that many find difficult actually points to the importance of
Spirit for Christology. It is the verse where Jesus says that every sin
102
can be pardoned and words against him forgiven, but “whoever
speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age
or in the age to come” (Mt 12:32). What can this mean? Why would
speech against the Spirit be unforgivable but not speech against the
Son? The answer confirms the central role that the Spirit plays in
Christology.
Blasphemy against the Spirit is serious because it involves a
repudiation of the power that is making people whole in Jesus. Here
God is at work delivering people, and some people are actually
identifying that with Satan’s work. What they are doing is negating
God’s work of salvation, not only for themselves but for everyone. It
is unforgivable because even God’s forgiveness cannot reach
persons so blind.
This highlights the importance of Spirit at work in collaboration with
the Son. Because the mending of creation by Son and Spirit is such
a crucial move on God’s part, attempts to discredit it are judged
harshly. Speaking against the Spirit means refusing to celebrate the
healing and saving power of God. This is a sin beyond forgiveness
because it reveals a person standing deliberately outside the circle
of love.
We should ask ourselves if we are on the side of the Spirit. Do we
judge the tree not by its fruit but by its label and pedigree? The point
is that we grieve the Spirit whenever we side, even temporarily, with
powers that resist healing.29
The Spirit enabled Jesus to do his mighty works. Not that Jesus
was a wonderworker who sought to dazzle and impress. He did not
go in for easy victories based on sensations. He would not perform
signs merely to satisfy curiosity or even to overcome unbelief. The
purpose of his miracles was salvation in body and soul, and they
were performed with a view to the kingdom. Though they did accredit
his claim, the purpose of the miracles was to set people free and
demonstrate that the kingdom was entering the present. They show
that salvation is at work and the kingdom of God is inaugurated.
They are not evidence of Christ’s deity but evidence of the Spirit at
work in him.30
Jesus’ activities of liberation were good news to many but posed a
threat to the political and religious status quo. The leaders found him
103
an intolerable threat and conspired to get rid of him early on. Their
answer to the invitation to life was to seek his death. It became very
clear to Jesus that he would have take up a cross. “He set his face to
go to Jerusalem” (Lk 9:51). The power of the Spirit would have to
prepare him to give up his life. Martyrdom is a charism of the Spirit (1
Cor 13:3). Only such a gift can enable a person to serve rather than
be served (Mk 10:45). The book of Hebrews explains that Jesus
would be enabled to offer himself up to God through the Spirit (9:14).
Spirit would empower him to confront the powers of darkness and to
join the line of murdered prophets. Jesus knew it when he said,
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to it!” (Lk 13:34).
Jesus knew he would have to face death the same way he faced
temptation—in the power of the Spirit. Though the Gospels do not
say this exactly, Hebrews draws out the valid deduction. Spirit who
was with Jesus from birth would be with him at the culmination. Spirit
would help him to say yes to God at the moment of his greatest trial.
Spirit would give him words to speak before his adversaries and help
him pray the prayer of relinquishment and surrender to the will of
God. As human, Jesus cried out for the cup to pass from him, but as
Spirit-filled he prayed for God’s will to be done. In Gethsemane he
experienced a crucifixion of will before his execution. He said by the
Spirit, “I am yours, Lord; I have come to do your will” (see Heb
10:7).31
The Spirit is also the reason the story does not end there. Jesus
may have been dead, but the Spirit, power of creation, makes the
dead live (Ezek 37:13-14). Spirit was the agent by which God raised
Jesus up. Paul says he was “declared to be Son of God with power
according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead”
(Rom 1:4 mg). Resurrection constituted the public accreditation of
Jesus. The Spirit was instrumental in it, for Jesus as for us (Rom
8:11); Paul says, “God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his
power” (1 Cor 6:14).
Jesus’ resurrection marked the beginning of new creation and the
commencement of the age to come. Death will no longer have the
last word. There is hope for humankind. The cross happened
because of the Son’s fidelity to God’s call by the power of the Spirit.
104
In the Son, the Father participated in the sufferings of the world. The
Crucified One was not abandoned in death but was raised to life.
The victory was won by the power of love. Spirit, who led Jesus to
self-surrender, brought him back from death.
In Jesus the Spirit experienced an undistorted acceptance of
God’s love and found the ideal receptacle for God’s self-
communication as the Son. Thus all of the creating and redeeming
activities of the Spirit reached their goal in him. The kingdom was
inaugurated, the new order had begun, the power could be poured
out.32
105
Recovering Spirit Christology
Let us not diminish the importance of the Spirit for Christology. Logos
Christology is not the whole story; indeed, if we exaggerate it we
may eclipse the mission of the Spirit and effect its subordination to
that of the Son. Among other risks, we may strip the self-emptying of
the Son of its radicalness and even put his true humanity in jeopardy.
At least the early church had an excuse for favoring Logos
Christology. There was an apologetic advantage to Logos
Christology then, but not today. There is no reason for us to continue
to let Logos Christology dominate and marginalize other
dimensions.33
I am not recommending adoptionism. Against the likes of Geoffrey
Lampe and John Hick, I hold that Jesus was more than mere man
endowed with the Spirit. My point is that Spirit Christology and Logos
Christology are complementary, not antithetical. One complements
without replacing the other. Logos Christology is ontologically
focused, while a Spirit Christology is functionally focused, but the two
work together. Generally speaking, Logos addresses the Person of
Jesus while Spirit addresses his work. The deity of Christ is seen
only in his humanity as filled by the Spirit, and the incarnation is
viewed only on the redemptive-historical plane. Spirit Christology
draws us into the life of Jesus and helps us avoid abstract thinking.34
We need to make room for the Spirit in our Christology in order to
give both Son and Spirit their due. The mission of one is not
subordinated to the mission of the other—there is a mutual and
reciprocal relationship between them. Neither Son nor Spirit ought to
be subordinated to the other. Each can be viewed in terms of the
mission of the other. Since I have been stressing the role of Jesus in
the mission of the Spirit, perhaps I should add that the Spirit can also
be seen the other way around. Apart from the Son, Spirit can be
vague and . It is the Spirit of Jesus Christ that we are
talking about. If it is true that the Spirit empowers the Son, it is also
106
true that the Son is the criterion of manifestations of Spirit. The
relationship is reciprocal through and through.
I realize that “Spirit Christology” might not be the best term to use.
Spirit is used by liberals to refer to the divine element in Jesus, not to
the third Person of the Trinity dwelling in him. “Spirit Christology” as
used by them refers to an inspirational, not an incarnational,
Christology. 35 When I refer to Spirit Christology, I do so in an
orthodox way that preserves the trinitarian distinctions. Spirit
Christology enriches but does not replace Logos Christology. It
enriches Logos Christology by doing greater justice to the role of
Spirit in Christ. It gives better recognition to the missions of both the
Son and the Spirit. It neither exaggerates nor diminishes the role of
either Person. I am indebted to Eastern Orthodox theology, which
has always maintained that Western traditions have diminished the
role of the Spirit by giving the Son an ontic role and the Spirit only a
noetic one.36
God uses his two hands in the work of redemption. Neither is
subordinate to the other; neither supplants the other. My desire is to
emphasize that the Spirit is active in every aspect of the messianic
mission—not as a substitute for Christ nor as an instrument of Christ,
but as the third Person of the Trinity. As the bond of love that binds
Father and Son together in eternity, Spirit also sustains the
relationship between the earthly Jesus and his heavenly Father on
earth and actualizes it progressively throughout his walk with God.
The Spirit prepares, constitutes and communicates the mystery of
the incarnation. From birth through baptism and ministry, culminating
in death and resurrection, the Son lived in an intimate and reciprocal
relationship with the Spirit. His death and resurrection constitute the
event in which the Father saves humanity through Son and Spirit.
This is a trinitarian event in which the three Persons experience the
mutuality and reciprocity characteristic of the triune God. God is not
an immutable essence dwelling in metaphysical isolation from the
world. God is self-defined in this historical action.
107
Salvation by Recapitulation
But what does Spirit Christology signify? What light does it shed on
our understanding of Jesus’ mission? Let us explore now the
meaning of Jesus’ saying to the disciples that it would benefit them if
he went away, “for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to
you; but if I go, I will send him to you” (Jn 16:7). Why did the
outpouring of the Spirit have to wait until Jesus died and was
glorified? What was it about those events that made them a turning
point in the history of redemption? How did the mission of Jesus
trigger Pentecost?
Paul says that had the rulers of this age known what Jesus’ death
and resurrection would do, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory (1 Cor 2:6-8). What I am going to propose now is an
interpretation of the work of Christ stimulated by the reappropriation
of Spirit Christology. The heart of it is that the Spirit facilitated the
Christ event in order to save humanity by way of recapitulation. This
is what atonement looks like when Christology is placed within the
mission of the Spirit.37
Thomas F. Torrance attempts to name it:
Until he [Jesus] had sanctified himself and perfected in our
human nature his own offering for all men, until he had
made the once and for all sacrifice to take away sin, until he
had vanquished the powers of darkness and overcome the
sharpness of death, until he had ascended into heaven to
present himself in propitiation before the Father, the
kingdom could not be opened to believers, and the blessing
of the divine Spirit could not be poured out upon human
flesh or be received by sinful men.38
In other words, something happened through the total journey of
Jesus that literally changed the world and opened the door wide to
108
union with God.
The participatory journey of the Son by the Spirit was what was
necessary for God to get a grip on the world in order to redeem it.
End-time salvation could not come into play until this mission was
completed and this representation had taken place. There had to be
the great exchange in which, when one died all died, and the fallen
race is raised up to sit with Christ in heavenly places. God had to be
represented among human beings, and humanity had to be
represented before God. Only this would give momentum to world
redemption. It could be the turning point because it affected
humanity itself and introduced a new reality into history. Jesus
through the Spirit created the space for salvation to go forward, as
people are baptized into his death and resurrection and a new
community appears which prefigures the kingdom of God. With the
glorification of Jesus a process began which will end in the
divinization of the world.39
The model is participatory. E. P. Sanders remarks, “The prime
significance which the death of Christ has for Paul is not that it
provides atonement for past transgressions (although he holds the
common Christian view that it does so) but that, by sharing in
Christ’s death, one dies to the power of sin or to the old aeon, with
the result that one belongs to God. The transfer takes place by
participation in Christ’s death.” Later he adds, “One participates in
salvation by becoming one person with Christ, dying with him to sin
and sharing the promise of his resurrection.”40
The author of Hebrews tries to identify what it was about the Christ
event that triggered the end times: the Son had to partake of flesh
and blood, had to be tested as we are, had to experience weakness,
had to learn obedience, had to bear the sins of many, had to free us
from the power of death, so that he could become the source of
eternal salvation (Heb 2:14-18; 4:14-16; 5:7-10). Jesus is seen as a
forerunner who entered the sanctuary, the pioneer and perfecter of
faith (6:19-20; 12:2).
The point is that there had to be a representation before Pentecost
could happen. There had to be a participatory journey to realize
God’s purpose for creation and bring about reconciliation. This would
109
be the means of grace which the Spirit could then apply to sinners to
transform them.
This explains why the Spirit had to take Jesus on a representative
journey for the sake of wholeness. It encourages us to seek the
meaning of atonement not in a rationalistic theory but in the mighty
act of God in which sin and death are annihilated and the world
begins to be re-created.
This is the theme of Irenaeus and the first theory of atonement:
God sent his Son in the power of the Spirit to enact a recapitulation
of human history through the life, death and resurrection of Christ,
which would give the human race a new start (Against Heresies
5.14). This is the means by which God will sum up all things in Christ
(Eph 1:10). God would reestablish sovereignty over the world and
redeem lost humanity by reenacting the human condition in the
experience of Jesus, overcome the pitfalls and open up the future.
God would bring about atonement by making Jesus head of a new
humanity and in this way would restore unity with the creature. In
Paul’s language, God saves us by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ
(Gal 2:16, 20).41
The Catechism sums it up:
Christ’s whole life is a mystery of recapitulation. All Jesus
did, said, and suffered, had for its aim restoring man to his
original vocation. When Christ became incarnate and was
made man, he recapitulated in himself the long history of
mankind and procured for us a “short cut” to salvation, so
that what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image
and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus. For
this reason Christ experienced all the stages of life, thereby
giving communion with God to all men.42
Each stage of development and phase of history was lived through
by Christ in obedience to God and dependence on the Spirit, so that
the effect of Adam’s sin was reversed. Through this act of
representation, creation is restored. Key is Christ’s representation of
humanity and our incorporation into him through faith by the Spirit.
The idea is that what took place in Christ paradigmatically will be
110
applied to and realized in us. This act of atonement includes and
does not replace us; it is a representation that includes rather than
excludes.43
God effected the conversion of humanity in Jesus, who
represented the race and thereby altered the human situation. In his
death and resurrection, humanity de jure passed from death to life,
because God has included it in the event. Its destiny has been
objectively realized in Christ—what remains to be done is a human
response and salvation de facto. The possibility of newness must be
laid hold of by faith. Christ became what humans are, even in our
condition of alienation, so that we might share his justification and
victory. Paul says that when one died, all died (2 Cor 5:14). Because
Jesus is a representative, others can share in his death and
resurrection by the Spirit. A new situation now exists: we have only
to accept what has been done and allow the Spirit to conform our
lives to Christ.44
Much popular thinking about the atonement leaves the cross in the
past (relating it to pardon) and does not see it as a dimension of the
present. This misses the parallelism between Christ’s experience as
the last Adam and our salvation through him. Yet the interweaving of
these two is a major theme of Pauline thought. The apostle actually
says that in the event of death and resurrection in solidarity with us,
Jesus Christ was adopted, justified, sanctified and glorified in our
place. On the cross he died to sin (Rom 6:10). By the resurrection he
was saved from the power of death, which now has no dominion
(Acts 2:24; Rom 6:9), and was declared Son of God (Rom 1:4). He
was also justified by the Spirit (1 Tim 3:16) that we too might be
justified by it (Rom 4:25). In his death we die to sin (Rom 6:11). He
was glorified as the last Adam in advance of our resurrection (1 Cor
15:49). Paul sees redemption as first worked out in Christ our
representative, and only then in us. As a result of his vicarious
humanity, we are adopted, justified, sanctified and glorified in relation
to him. Christ became what we are in order that we might become
what he is. We are saved by his representative journey. The
redemption of Jesus Christ as the last Adam is ours by virtue of
solidarity with him, into which we are drawn by the Spirit.45
111
Christ’s representation is inclusive, not exclusive. It is not a
transaction that affects us only in a legal way. Christ died and rose
so that we might die and rise with him. What took place in him is
meant to be repeated in each of us, as in baptism we die and rise
with him. His dying and rising act as a magnet to draw us in. Old
Adam dies in the death of Christ in order to be changed into new
Adam (1 Cor 15:49). And it is the Spirit that works out this
reconciliation in life.46
Four Gospels tell about Jesus, to help us place ourselves in the
story of our representative. In the epistles the doctrine of
representation is explained by the category of solidarity: Jesus
represented humanity in such a way that what took place in him
could be repeated in us. This is not easy for us to grasp because of
our tendency toward individualist thinking. But it is not beyond us
altogether. People serve us by acting on our behalf all the time.
Leaders represent us in the corridors of power; doctors and
engineers do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Representation
is experienced in every social group.47
The Son, by whom, for whom and in whom the world was created,
made the decision (this is the “grace” of our Lord Jesus Christ) to
partake of humanity in order to implement in history his filial
relationship with the Father on our behalf. He lived a life of
obedience to God in the flesh vicariously for us, realizing in his
humanity what God longs for in our own, setting in motion a process
of salvation and healing. Karl Rahner writes, “The effect of the
hypostatic union for the humanity of the Logos consists precisely in
the thing which is ascribed to all men as their goal and fulfillment,
namely, the immediate vision of God which the created, human soul
of Christ enjoys.”48
God must have looked at our plight and decided on this solution.
The Son would become human and live a life of obedience in the
power of the Spirit, and would by resurrection enable humanity to
participate in new creation. Spirit Christology helps us to take
seriously the motif of the last Adam’s tracing of our human path and
directs our attention to a participatory model of atonement, in which
the central motif is union with Christ.
112
I take it that Jesus became the turning point of history because he
could represent the race. He could stand in our place and act for our
benefit. Because of this representation, those alienated from God
receive hope, and the Spirit can conform them to Christ’s image. The
fall into sin had propelled humanity into a vicious cycle of self-
destruction, but the last Adam has given the race a new beginning.
Because there was no one else able to enter the breach, the Son
became flesh and broke through death and alienation. Now it is
possible in the Spirit for us all to participate in the Son’s obedience to
God. Salvation is via union with him in his death and resurrection.49
Pentecost happened when it did—and could only have happened
then—because Jesus had by that time completed the journey of
atonement, worked out the recapitulation and become firstfruits of a
new humanity. The concentration of the Spirit on Jesus alone during
his earthly life would be followed by a movement to the nations. He
came first only to Israel but now goes on to the world in the Spirit.
The promised mission of God to gather the nations can begin, for the
Spirit makes ready to transform history. Hendrikus Berkhof states, “It
has to become evident that in his person and work he represented
us, and that from now on, in virtue of his work, a process toward the
renewal of the human race is under way. Therefore, the
concentration of the representation is now followed by the centrifugal
movement of the winning of people, of the spreading of the renewal
everywhere.”50
113
Saved by His Life
Through obedience to the Father and dependence on the Spirit, the
Son of God recapitulated humanity’s history. He reversed the human
no that had led to our fallenness and returned the yes that was the
divine purpose for humanity. He saved us not by death only, but by
death and resurrection. Paul says Jesus “was handed over to death
for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).
He adds, “If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been
reconciled, will we be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10). Paul also writes
that the Son has “abolished death and brought life and immortality to
light through the gospel” (2 Tim 1:10); we are thereby “raised with
him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead”
(Col 2:12). The point is that Jesus acted vicariously on our behalf not
only in dying but in living and in rising as well. We must speak not
only of the vicarious death of Christ but also comprehensively of the
vicarious humanity of Christ.
To make the point stick and be sure readers attend to it, let me
begin dealing with soteriology at the point of the resurrection rather
than the crucifixion. Among the advantages of such an approach are
opportunities to correct the neglect of the resurrection in theology
and to affect the way we would regard the cross itself. Once we
grasp the fact that we are saved by Christ’s life, we may be open to
fresh thinking about how we are saved by his death.
On that subject our thinking has gone astray. We have placed
such emphasis on the legal dimension of atonement that the
resurrection, which does not address that issue as framed, drops
away as a saving event. The error of this is plain from the New
Testament, which makes resurrection central and ties the cross to it.
We say that Christ’s work was “finished” on the cross, but it was not.
Had Christ not been raised, we would be still in our sins and subject
to death (1 Cor 15:17). It is incredible how in systematic theologies
114
dozens of pages are given to theories of atonement (meaning the
death of Christ) and hardly any to the soteriological significance of
resurrection. The fact is that in certain juridical models of the
atonement, resurrection has no significance for salvation. Its
significance is apologetic, not soteric. It is not a saving event, only
the vindication of Jesus’ pre-Easter claims, in which case we cannot
speak of being saved by his life.
The reason is not obscure. If guilt is the only issue, propitiation is
the answer and resurrection the add-on. If on the other hand, death
is the problem, then the resurrection is of central importance. Christ’s
resurrection is a saving event because death and the recapitulation
of humanity require it. Again, Paul shouts that Christ “abolished
death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2
Tim 1:10). The work of Christ was not primarily a legal transaction
but a power event. Eastern theology grasps this point. Both sin and
death are problems for humankind, because death entered the world
with sin (Rom 5:12). Death must be dealt with if we are to be saved;
therefore God saves us by the resurrection. Humanity is taken
through death into resurrection by the representative act of Jesus
Christ. The goal of creation, to share the glory of God, is now out in
plain view.51
When we speak of the resurrection as a saving event, we do not
see it as a bare symbol for the awakening of faith in the disciples. It
refers to something that happened to the body of Jesus. In the
resurrection Jesus was transformed to the life of the age to come by
the power of the Spirit. By the resurrection God reversed the verdict
of the cross, where Jesus’ claim to authority was denied by
humanity; thus God makes hope possible for the dead. The
resurrection is not just proof of Christ’s divinity or confirmation of his
sacrifice. It augurs the transformation of the world. By it Jesus
became the cause of salvation and transformation. Those who die
with him share life with him. The resurrection inaugurated—first for
Jesus, then for us—the new creation. The resurrection states that
the forces of evil will not prevail. It gives a glimpse of new creation
and signifies a glorified existence in human nature in a new
environment where what we were meant to be can be realized.52
115
Through resurrection, Paul says, Jesus “became a life-giving
spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). He seems to mean that Jesus now can make
possible the resurrection of the dead. With a view to atonement, the
Father gave the Spirit to the Son, that he might complete a
representative journey on our behalf. The Risen One now gives us
the Spirit, which had previously been given to him, in order to bring
us along with him on the journey that leads to God. All humanity has
the potential to be the children of God, because all were included in
his representation. What remains is for everyone to be reconciled to
God personally and subjectively.53
Humanity was transformed by Christ through the power of the
Spirit and can share in his representative journey through death to
life. God revealed the goal of creation in Christ and offers it as a gift
to us. His longing is for the divine likeness to be formed in us. Paul
speaks of his fellow believers as “my little children, for whom I am
again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19).
We were created in the image of God with a view to growing into the
likeness to God. Though lost in Adam, the likeness is restored in
Christ. Though still unfinished in us, the likeness is not unfinished in
him. The incarnation anticipates the fulfillment of God’s purposes for
us because the new humanity has appeared in Jesus. The
incarnation represents the true divine likeness, and the resurrection
signifies what humans are called to become.
The Son came in veiled glory, emptied of divine prerogatives,
dependent on the power of the Spirit. As the beloved Son, he
surrendered his life to the Father and returned the yes that God
longs to hear from the creature. Through Son and Spirit, God is
leading humanity to union with himself. He wants us to share the
Son’s filial relationship with himself.
In Christ, God gave himself a human heart, as it were. To Jesus he
said, “You are my beloved Son—I am well pleased with you” (see Mk
1:11). Jesus replied to God, “You are my Father; I have come to do
your will” (see Heb 10:9). We are summoned into this relationship, to
become sons and daughters in the Son. The Spirit is calling us to
this tender filial love.
By his resurrection, Christ preactualized the consummation of the
world. Its transformation is anticipated, and all things are sure to be
116
made new. The Risen One is the vanguard and embodiment of the
new order. Jesus prefigures what will be true for us also in the new
creation. It is the seminal event, the seed from which the new reality
grows.
The Lord’s human body was not discarded but shared in
resurrection, pointing to the salvation of the whole person. Humans
are open to the future. They make plans and strive to realize goals.
But we are mortal, and ultimately the future lies in God’s hands. The
incarnation is an event within history pointing to the goal and moving
humanity toward union with God. In Christ the world has entered its
final phase, and its redemption in that sense is near. In Karl
Rahner’s words, the incarnation and resurrection enacted “the
irreversible beginning of the coming of God as the absolute future of
the world.” As the firstfruits of the new humanity, Jesus says,
“Because I live, you also will live” (Jn 14:19).54
The work of the Spirit of creation converges on the incarnation of
the Son, in which creation finds fulfillment. Through the incarnation
we glimpse the destiny of our union with God, because it has
implemented the goal of creaturely existence. One could say that the
incarnation is the self-actualization of God in history. The event
disclosed the triune nature and reasserted the rule of God. The true
relationship of the creature to God has been realized in the
incarnation of the Son. Wolfhart Pannenberg states, “Only in the light
of the incarnation of the Son in our relation to God may it be said
theologically that creation comes to fulfillment in us and that the
whole universe was created with a view to us.”55
117
Salvation by the Cross
Displaying the goal of creation by preactualizing the resurrection of
the dead is not all that was accomplished through Christ. There is
also the cross as a saving event whereby our brokenness is healed
and our guilt canceled. There is a knowing of Christ not only in the
power of his resurrection but also in the fellowship of his sufferings
and our becoming like him in death (Phil 3:10).
Here we are still in the vicinity of representation and solidarity.
Through incarnation, God entered deeply into the human situation to
overcome all our alienation. The goal is that we be brought into unity
with God and be enabled to share the divine glory. Spirit Christology
invites us to view the cross differently, in the context of recapitulation
and participatory journey. It gives us the opportunity to celebrate the
centrality of resurrection, conceptualize the cross in terms of
recapitulation and give the Spirit back its role in the work of
atonement.
One common view of atonement considers the cross a propitiatory
sacrifice isolated from the resurrection and from human involvement.
This model results from viewing the atonement primarily in legal
terms, not in the context of the representative journey of Jesus into
which the Spirit is inviting us to participate. I want to challenge this
way of thinking and place more emphasis on death-with-Christ and
life-with-Christ, on our death to sin through the cross and our life with
God through resurrection and union. The popular view is distorted,
picturing the Father as judge and the Son as victim. It gives the
impression that God values his honor more than he values us, and it
threatens the unity of Father and Son in the work of atonement.
Before confronting the issue head-on, let me sketch an
understanding of the cross in the framework of representation. The
issue is delicate, and it would be good to have described an
alternative before addressing it. One can view Jesus Christ as the
true prodigal, who left the Father’s home not as a rebel but as an
118
obedient son. He identified with sinners in the far country,
surrendered everything he had and returned home by way of the
cross. Jesus became brother to the transgressors, engaging their
alienation and accepting their condemnation. He did this for us all,
that we might become like him and return home with him. Having
taken our flesh, he made the journey as our representative
empowered by the Spirit. He took humanity through the stages of
fallen existence and reconciled it. In Christ God took the lost cause
of a humanity that had rejected him and ruined itself. He made this
cause his own and carried it through to the goal. Instead of allowing
us to perish, he humbled himself and became a servant in order to
save us. In becoming flesh, God turned the human situation around
and started history over again. The atonement tells us that God
intends to be God for us, whatever it costs him. God registers his yes
decisively against the human no.56
Is there perhaps a representative and participatory model of
atonement more plausible and biblical than the popular view? It
would be a model in which God saves humanity by the
representative journey of Jesus Christ. In order to confront the world
with the rule of God, Jesus walked into the eye of the storm. His love
for humanity was so great and his desire to please the Father so
intense that he allowed himself to be rejected. The Spirit led him
along a path in which wrath, pain and evil become absorbed by the
heart of the suffering Servant King. The incarnate God, anointed by
the Spirit, defeated the enemy by an act of defenseless love and by
the same Spirit enabled us all to be involved in his dying and rising.
Thus the gospel calls us to enter into his journey, united in his death
and resurrection, and to grow into his likeness.
The cross loomed over Jesus’ life from the beginning. Early in his
ministry he met with a degree of success, but before long there was
resistance and a hardening of hearts. At a certain point Jesus
traveled to Jerusalem to bring matters to a head (Lk 9:51). He must
have known this would mean his death but was prepared to love to
the uttermost. He would be true to his mission, even if it meant his
rejection. He confronted the religious and political leaders and forced
them to choose in regard to the kingdom of God. He was prepared
even to drink the bitter cup of divine abandonment and suffer its
119
dread and anguish. Eventually he would die all alone, crying out to
his Father. He trusted God even unto death, not only a painful death
but a death that would have to signify to any onlooker that his
mission had been a failure.
The hard part to grasp (at least for me) is the fact that Jesus was
handed over to death not only by Roman soldiers and Jewish priests
but also by his Father. When Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac
in the Old Testament, at least God relented at the last minute. But in
this case God let the Son die and thus welcomed suffering into the
triune life. Paul says, God “did not withhold his own Son, but gave
him up for all of us” (Rom 8:32).
The sentence of death which the human authorities passed on
Jesus ought really to have been passed on them—he died in their
place. But what can this mean that the Father gave him up to die? It
means that the cross must be seen as an intratrinitarian drama. Here
the giving and receiving of love within the Trinity take a painful
redemptive form in history. The cross was the sign of the Father’s
love for a world created in and for the Son. He who had always said
yes to the Father stood in sinners’ place and suffered their fate. He
identified with them to the point of abandonment and transformed the
situation of humanity by suffering love. Through the Spirit, the Son
offered himself to the Father, and on the cross the Father’s forgiving
love and the Son’s suffering love were brought together by the Spirit,
bond of love.57
Jesus surrendered himself to the Father and said in his dying hour,
“Into your hands I commend my spirit” (Lk 23:46). He presented his
body as a living sacrifice to God. Sacrifice is best understood not
primarily as balancing the scales of justice. It is the surrender of a life
and not so much an appeasement. “The life of the flesh is in the
blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement” (Lev 17:11).
Christ’s death was an offering of obedience to God. As our
representative, he surrendered himself to God on our behalf. “By the
one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).
We are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Gal 2:20).
“Being found in human form, he humbled himself and became
obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (Phil 2:7-8).
The Spirit enabled Jesus to make a perfect offering for us and now
120
calls us to offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1). Here is
the sin offering that wipes away the sins of the world. Here God
grants forgiveness by condemning sin and assuming the
consequences himself. The God of love wants to be associated with
human beings and is willing to bear the pain in order to heal the
broken relationship. Because Christ died as our representative, our
status before God is changed and a new situation is created.58
The circle of love within God is not closed but has been opened by
the Spirit. The Son knew that by suffering he could absorb evil and
redeem humanity. Therefore he became sin’s embodiment and took
the sin of the race on himself, to defeat the powers of darkness. The
Son, in self-distinction from the Father, entered by incarnation into
the situation of the creature and brought it back to fellowship with
God. Thereupon the Spirit has been poured forth to implement the
reconciliation. By the Spirit we enter into union with Christ and begin
the journey toward transformation. The Spirit deals with the powers
of sin in us until we share the glory of the risen Lord.59
C. S. Lewis noted that while Christians agree that the cross puts
us right with God, they do not agree about how it does so. We know
it is an effective medicine but are not certain how it works. It is hard
to find a theory of atonement that can be intellectually mastered.
Lewis himself thought in terms of participation. He thought that Christ
became human in order to exist vicariously for us, that we might
share his life, death and resurrection. In this view we are saved by
identifying with him and by becoming like him. We are saved by
participating in the life communicated through him. Lewis spoke of
Christ as the carrier of a good infection. What we need to do is get
close enough to him to catch the virus of new life. Humanity has
been saved in principle, but we have to open ourselves to the last
Adam. “One of our race has the new life; if we get close to him we
shall catch it from him.” This is not a rational theory of atonement,
but it speaks dramatically of the work of God which saves.60
The important thing for me is that seeing atonement within the
framework of the representative journey keeps the Spirit in the
picture as a vital component. Few theories of the atonement manage
that. First, the Spirit led Jesus to death—“through the eternal Spirit
[he] offered himself without blemish to God” (Heb 9:14). Second,
121
through the Spirit he was raised from the dead (Rom 8:11). Third, in
the aftermath of resurrection, Spirit enables us to share in
reconciliation. As our representative, Jesus Christ lived our life as we
should but do not live it. He traveled a journey of obedience even
unto death. Now, because of the resurrection he has become life-
giving Spirit, being in the position to give life to those who follow him.
The Spirit’s task in atonement is to form Christ in us and change us
into his likeness. The task is to reverse the power of sin in us until
death itself is overcome and we can share in the glory of God.
122
Is God Satisfied?
Most of us are not accustomed to viewing atonement in the context
of Christ’s representative journey. We are used to thinking of it in a
legal framework in which God, the angry judge, requires retribution
and satisfaction. We are used to construing the death of Christ as
the propitiation of God that makes God willing to show mercy. God is
viewed in effect as humankind’s enemy, whose justice must be
satisfied before he is willing to receive them. The popular view of
atonement is that God poured out the fury of his wrath on Jesus
Christ, who in bearing this penalty effected an atonement. The
theory is that a wrathful Father punished a merciful Son instead of
us, with the result that we go free. The logic of it leads inexorably to
ideas of a limited atonement, since presumably God does not
assault the same person twice.61
This is a delicate point for me to discuss. First, it was the view of
John Calvin and has been the distinguishing mark of evangelicalism.
Inter-Varsity Fellowship in the United Kingdom began as a split from
the Student Christian Movement over this very point. It is risky to
seem to be calling it into question.62 Second, a few Scriptures do
speak about divine wrath in connection with the death of Christ, so
the idea cannot be simply discarded (Rom 3:25). The penal theory
may be wrong-headed, yet something like it may be true. It is
important to propose a correction, but not an overcorrection. Like
Eastern Orthodox theologians, I do not see humanity’s relationship
with God as primarily a legal one or the atonement as primarily
penal. At the same time I recognize that Christ was in some sense
victim as well as victor at the cross. The issue is both subtle and
sensitive.63
First, by way of correction, a few points should be made to clarify
the problem in the popular view of the atonement. For one thing, the
theory of penal substitution began its life in apologetics, not exegesis
or theology. It originated as a rational explanation of the incarnation.
123
Anselm wanted to explain why God became man (Cur Deus Homo).
In his medieval society he approached the atonement as an issue of
social propriety. People at that time would have agreed that an
offense against divine honor required satisfaction. Anselm’s theory
presupposed then-current ideas of social obligation and thus could
explain how God in Christ could have rendered infinite satisfaction.
Later on, Calvin (himself a lawyer) would take the idea in a slightly
different direction, claiming that wrath required retribution also. This
is what happened on the cross—God’s vengeance struck out against
Christ (Institutes 2.16.1-5).
Of course this creates a very strange impression theologically. It
pits the Father against the Son and construes forgiveness as
something God finds difficult to give. It makes grace conditional upon
penal satisfaction and gives the impression that the Father actually
hates sinners and cannot love them until his wrath is appeased. It
belies the central point that it was the Father who took the initiative in
reconciling the world through Christ.
God was not disinclined to be favorable until his wrath was
appeased. He is not humanity’s enemy; it was love that moved him
to send his Son in the first place. Love provided the incarnation and
the atonement, not wrath. Our Lord’s self-sacrifice bespeaks a
gracious God, not an angry God.
Yes indeed, God forgives in a way that takes sin seriously, but he
is always ready to forgive and does not have to be persuaded on
that score. Remember the elementary truth that the cross reconciles
the world to God, not God to the world (2 Cor 5:19). God is the
reconciler, not the one requiring reconciliation. God is the subject,
not the object, of reconciliation. Love for sinners, not anger, brought
Jesus into the world.
God did not reject his beloved Son—Israel rejected him, and the
Romans punished him. God, for his part, justified him and raised him
from the dead. Christ died as a malefactor and came under the curse
of the law at the hands of sinners. His enemies deserved the
sentence of death they passed on him. Jesus knew God’s heart
when he prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do.”64
124
It requires courage to challenge traditions that no longer serve.
Even the Catechism, having noted that the death of Jesus was not
an appeasement of the Father and that Jesus’ whole life was
atoning, fails to correct these traditions, even though many, both
inside and outside the church, need to have them corrected (par.
606-7).
125
Theological Reconstruction
What does it mean, then, that God abandoned Jesus on the cross?
Obviously Jesus was greatly distressed and troubled and did not die
calmly. He cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
(Mk 15:34). In some sense he was God-forsaken, though he was the
Son of God (Mk 15:39). The Father turned away—something came
between them. Jesus cried out to be delivered but entered the
darkness instead. Where was his faithful God in all of this?
In order to understand it, we must keep a firm hold on the category
of representation. Jesus was the last Adam, who represented the
human race in his life journey. He was not the solitary victim of this
crucifixion. He lived, died and rose vicariously on our behalf. He
trusted God on our behalf, he died in solidarity with us, he arose on
our behalf. In his death we all have died (2 Cor 5:14). This means
that when wrath was revealed at Calvary, it blazed against sinners in
the person of their representative. It blazed against the old humanity
represented there. It did not fall on Jesus as third party, not as a
victim in isolation, but on Jesus as humanity’s representative. God’s
wrath flashed out against the old Adamic solidarity.
Sin was being judged and punished in Christ, but not after the
manner of legal rationality. What we see here is the triumph of love
over all enmity and alienation. What we see is a “theodrama” in
which God administered the medicine of immortality. At the cross
God did not reject the Son. On the contrary, the Father never loved
him more than at that moment.65
Sin was overcome in the cross when judgment fell and the Son
died in our place. He walked the bitter path to death and separation
from God. Sinful humankind was delivered up in his being handed
over. The decisive point is that, as Barth says, “in his person he has
made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to
death as the One who took our place. In his person, he delivered up
126
us sinners and sin itself to destruction. He took this present evil
world and buried it in his tomb.”
The cross was a victory over sin. In cross and resurrection
together, God is the victor over sin and death. Christ’s death does
not merely address guilt—it pierces alienation and overcomes chaos
too. It is not simply propitiation but the death of death. Evil is
defeated as an enemy of humanity. Calvary is something like a black
hole into which is sucked all the power of death and law, wrath and
alienation, to be annihilated.
In its wake, the Spirit summons us to enter reconciliation and
actualize by faith what is anticipated. God reconciled the world in
Christ—God included everybody in it, without even asking. The
effectiveness of this reconciliation is not so much opting in as not
opting out. In faith we add our yes to God’s prior yes.66 God suffered
with Christ as God of the forsaken and godless when he reconciled
the world through him. “In the passion of the Son, the Father himself
suffers the pains of abandonment. In the death of the Son, death
came upon God himself, and the Father suffers the death of his Son
in his love for forsaken man.”67
In the legal framework, the divine wrath has been viewed as
vindictive anger and God as vengeful. But wrath is not a dark side of
God that frustrates his grace and demands satisfaction. It is an
aspect of God’s saving righteousness. It is the other side of God’s
saving action, and it serves grace. Even in wrath, grace is working.
Humanity is not destined for wrath but for salvation (1 Thess 5:9).
God prefers not to be angry: “I will not execute my fierce anger” (Hos
11:9). He wants to be merciful (Rom 11:32). The cross reflects not
God’s thirst for retribution but his determination to overcome
alienation and enslavement. The means to do this is the participatory
journey of Jesus into which the Spirit draws us. Christ’s death
expressed obedience to the Father which, in representing us, frees
us from sin and alienation. As the Risen One he is present with us,
making his journey our own. By the Spirit we begin this journey
ourselves and experience transformation. Christ did not appease
divine anger—his death and resurrection constitute the saving event
into which we are being drawn.68
127
The atonement is best understood in a trinitarian framework, in
relation to the missions of Son and Spirit. It is realized by the
participatory journey of the Son and our insertion into it by the Spirit.
By this act this present world order is set aside and the way opened
up to new creation. People are called to participate in these events,
to immerse themselves in this process.
Jesus Christ entered into solidarity with us and endured all that we
endure, including death. He was also raised, justified and glorified.
He went through the process we must go through, accomplishing
redemption for us. God effected a change in the human situation
through this pioneer of our salvation. Drawn into Christ’s
representative journey, we can be healed. The cross benefits all
those who let themselves be linked with his death through baptism.
Paul writes concerning himself: “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings
for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in
Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body” (Col 1:24).69
As a trinitarian event, the cross is the work of the Spirit as well as
an event transpiring between Father and Son. The Spirit brought
Christ to the cross and raised him up afterward. Even at the dread
moment of separation, the Spirit was the bond of love uniting the
Father and Son. The distance was bridged by the Spirit, and from it
came the outpouring of the Spirit on the world. The suffering of the
world touched the heart of God, and his compassion poured out to
the despised and the ungodly.70
There is a legal dimension to the atonement, but it should not
dominate and eclipse every other dimension. Human guilt is a
problem, but mere acquittal was never the goal of the cross. As with
Hosea’s marriage, God wants our relationship with him restored.
Jesus suffered judgment in our place, and the consequences of sin
fell on his head. But they fell on him not as third party but as last
Adam. In him God was dealing with the old Adamic solidarity. The
judgment did not fall on the beloved Son but on our representative
and therefore on us. Christ delivered sinful humanity up to a well-
deserved destruction.
The participatory model of atonement has a different kind of
appeal and rationality from those of the legal theory. It portrays a
world in which humanity dies and is raised to life in Christ. It speaks
128
of new creation and of the Spirit who invites us to enter into it by
faith.71
The work of Jesus can be understood within the history of the Holy
Spirit. To do so does not negate but enriches Christology by exalting
Christ as the anointed representative of the new humanity. The Spirit
enabled the conception of Jesus, the union of the Logos with flesh
and the completion of the participatory journey. The incarnation
depended on the work of the Spirit and unfolded as a Spirit-
empowered representation on behalf of humanity, fulfilling the
purpose of creation and healing humanity through a recapitulation of
the human journey.
While offering a relational Spirit Christology, I do not intend here to
deny truth in the penal substitutionary model of atonement. Grace
has to deal with sin, and the law’s just condemnation of us must be
silenced. Family room cannot altogether displace courtroom in our
theological analogies. Still, the amazing thing is that the judge in this
case actually loves us and desires our friendship. The two insights
can be merged.
This approach also has a practical dimension: while Logos
Christology highlights how different we are from Jesus, Spirit
Christology underlines how like him we can be. The Father sends us
as he sent Jesus, filled with the Spirit. The power that was at work in
Jesus is the power at work in us. Having established a beachhead
for the kingdom in Christ, Spirit is preparing a people to live in the
light of the new order and is planting seeds of hope everywhere for
renewal and transformation. Life has appeared in the midst of death,
and the Spirit is at work moving the groaning creation toward
resurrection.
129
FOUR
SPIRIT & CHURCH
THE CHURCH MAY BE VIEWED in many different ways: as
institution, sacrament, herald, servant, body of Christ, colony and
more. Here let us view it from the standpoint of the Spirit. Let us see
it as a continuation of the Spirit-anointed event that was Jesus
Christ. This is a natural way to regard a community that was created
by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost to carry on the kingdom ministry
of Jesus and be firstfruits of the new humanity he represented. Spirit
was present at the birth of the church as well as at Bethlehem, and
the church is dependent on the power of the Spirit just as Jesus was.
The church is also an event in the history of the Spirit.
The first act of the risen Lord was to breathe the Spirit on the
disciples and send them forth into mission (Jn 20:21-22; Acts 1:8).
This alerts us to the fact that the effectiveness of the church is due
not to human competency or programming but to the power of God
at work. The church rides the wind of God’s Spirit like a hawk
endlessly and effortlessly circling and gliding in the summer sky. It
ever pauses to wait for impulses of power to carry it forward to the
nations. What a dynamic and hopeful image to cherish in a day when
thinking about the church is often heavy and pessimistic. The main
rationale of the church is to actualize all the implications of baptism
in the Spirit.1
After the resurrection, God’s kingdom, which had begun to
manifest itself in Jesus himself, would continue to transform the
world through the community of empowered disciples. The church is
an extension not so much of the incarnation as of the anointing of
Jesus. Jesus is the prototype of the church, which now receives its
own baptism in the Spirit. Spirit, who maintained Jesus’ relationship
with the Father and empowered him for mission, now calls the
church into that relationship, giving it the power to carry on the
mission. There had to be, after Jesus’ departure, a colony of heaven,
living the life and power and experiencing the freedom of the
130
kingdom. Spirit indwells the church as a perpetual Pentecost and
communicates gifts to its members. Spirit ecclesiology focuses not
on the quality of the members but on the power of God at work in
and through them.2
As noted in the last chapter, the representation and participatory
journey of Jesus Christ triggered the promised outpouring of the
Spirit. Having walked our path to death and been vindicated by God,
Jesus poured out the Spirit on all flesh to effect the hope for world
transformation. Pentecost completed Good Friday and Easter
Sunday by changing history with the transforming power of these
events. Christ came to set people free, and now there is a
community dwelling in God’s love, living freely, embodying the grace
of God: Father, Son and Spirit. Now the life-giving Spirit by
resurrection, Christ is present in a new way in history, bringing life to
the world by the Spirit, who can make his representative journey a
reality in people’s lives.
The last Adam is forming a new solidarity, enlarging himself as a
person. Once confined to Palestine, Jesus has become head of a
new international body of Spirit-baptized disciples sharing his risen
life. How great are the riches of the glory of this mystery—“Christ in
you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). The Risen One is working out the
participatory journey of atonement in the world through a community
that lives by the power of the Spirit.
The danger of subordinating the Spirit to the Son in Christology
also exists in ecclesiology. This happens when church is seen as the
body of Christ to which the Spirit is added as a helper. The fact is
that Christ did not first establish the church and add the Spirit
secondarily. The Spirit’s role is not a junior role. As Jesus was
conceived by the Spirit in Mary and empowered for mission in
baptism, so the church is born and empowered by the Spirit. The
Spirit who filled Jesus empowers the community of disciples to be
the vehicle of God’s saving activity. Jesus, who received the Spirit
and ministered in power, communicates God’s life to the church to
carry on the mission. Like Jesus, the church must live not out of its
own resources but by the power of the indwelling Spirit, which
breathes, strengthens, inspires and guides.
131
On Easter the narrative shifts its focus from the earthly Jesus to
the community of his brothers and sisters who are imbued with the
same Spirit. These are the people who indwell his journey and share
his living, dying, and rising. “The body of Christ” no longer denotes
only the physical existence of Jesus but is a corporate term, referring
to the community on its way to Christlikeness. Even the term Christ
itself can apply to those who participate in the community and share
his risen life. As the body has many members, so is it with Christ, for
the community is baptized and anointed as he was (1 Cor 12:12-13).
Recall how Jesus asked Saul why he was persecuting him in the
person of his downtrodden people (Acts 9:4). Christ and his people
are tied together. We encounter the Risen One not only in word and
sacrament but also when we meet one another. “Where two or three
are gathered together in my name, I am there among them” (Mt
18:20).
The Second Vatican Council supplemented a hierarchical
understanding of church expressed by the First Council with the
vision of the church as the body of Christ, ordered and sustained by
the Spirit. “Rising from the dead, Christ sent his life-giving Spirit upon
his disciples and through this Spirit has established his body, the
church, as the universal sacrament of salvation” (Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church par. 48). This was a noble move, though
since the council there has been a struggle over how to appropriate
this ecclesiology in the local church. The charismatic renewal has
helped by introducing priests and laity to a personal experience of
the Spirit, but the gap in all our traditions between theory and
practice in this regard needs narrowing.3
The church is the instrument of Christ, called to carry on his
mission in the power of the Spirit. This power is a special kind of
power, since he who baptizes us in the Spirit is the Lamb and
Servant of God (Jn 1:29, 33). This means paradoxically that though it
is the power of creation, it is also the power of suffering love, which
does not remove our weakness or eliminate pain. The nature and
direction of this power are clarified by the cross, the power of
suffering love by which Christ overcame the world. The desire for
worldly power is carnal. The Spirit’s power comes from the Crucified
One, and the reason for seeking it is the desire to be involved in his
132
mission. The church is a dwelling place of God by the Spirit (Eph
2:22). “I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live” (Ezek
37:5). Only as God breathes on the church is it enabled to carry on
Christ’s mission.4
Although the Spirit is omnipresent and not confined to the church,
Spirit’s presence in the community is highly significant. For millennia
Spirit has longed to breathe into the body of human life more
effectively, intensely and redemptively. Pentecost offered the Spirit a
unique opportunity to work freely. Here is a community open to God’s
love, a place where (in principle) there can be a fuller realization of
the kingdom, a more decisive presence of God in history. New
possibilities have arisen for the Spirit because of the participatory
journey of Jesus Christ.
Though present everywhere, Spirit can be more effectively present
among those who know the risen Lord, can work there with greater
intensity promoting human renewal. The Spirit experienced this
freedom in the case of Jesus, but that opportunity was snuffed out in
the crisis of his death. With the vindication of the resurrection,
however, the movement of world transformation can go forward.
Community is important because God does not want faith to be
expressed only in an interior way within the hearts of individual
disciples. Human experience itself is social, and faith needs to
assume corporate form. It needs to be ecclesial and have public
attestation. The Spirit has a vested interest in the church, where men
and women confess Jesus Christ and are open to participation in the
divine life. The mission of Jesus, bringing hope to humanity and
ultimately justice to nations, has been passed on and the power to
implement it transferred to the community of disciples.5
Community is also central to the purposes of God because it
allows the relationality of triune life to be reflected in the created
order. This mirroring back gives delight to God and at the same time
supplies fulfillment to our own lives as semitranscendent and
relational beings. Made in God’s image, as differentiated creatures,
as male and female, we too delight in community. Stanley Grenz
writes, “God intends to bring to pass a reconciled creation in which
humans reflect in their relationship to each other and the universe
around us the reality of the triune God. God’s actions are aimed at
133
establishing the reconciled community of love as the human
reflection of the social trinity—the divine nature—which is love.”6
The Spirit is central for ecclesiology because he is the source of
fellowship among humans in history and the bond of love between
Father and Son in eternity. Fellowship on earth corresponds in a
measure to fellowship in heaven. The Trinity is an open, inviting
fellowship, and the Spirit wants the church to be the same,
responsive in the same sort of way. God wants to hear from us an
echo of the dynamic relations within his own life, anticipating the
coming of the kingdom. The church is meant to resemble the triune
life by being itself a place of reciprocity and self-giving. The
fellowship that we have with one another is related ultimately to our
fellowship with Father and Son (1 Jn 1:3). Fellowship refers both to
divine life and to community life, because the community is meant to
reflect the communion of the Trinity, which is the ontological basis of
the church.7
As Christ himself embodied the new humanity as the last Adam,
the church also is meant to embody it and anticipate the future of the
world. God purposes a world that receives grace and says yes to
love, and this is what the community of disciples does. In some ways
church is one social network among others, but it has a higher
promise. When the church embodies Easter life, it is capable of
becoming a sign of the coming reign of God. It is the human
assembly that points to a much larger convocation at the end of time,
and the community that anticipates the consummation of God’s
purposes for the world. The goal of creation was achieved in
principle in the resurrection of Jesus. Now it has to take shape in a
community that is the firstfruits of the future and the model of what
human relationships can be, the sign of God’s project for the world.8
At Pentecost the church received the Spirit and became the
historical continuation of Jesus’ anointing as the Christ. The One
baptized in water and Spirit now baptizes the disciples. He
transferred Spirit to them so that his actions could continue through
their agency. The bearer of the Spirit now baptizes others with the
Spirit, that there might be a continuation of his testimony in word and
deed and a continuation of his prophetic and charismatic ministry.
134
The church exists for the world, not for itself, by participating in the
apostleship of Christ by the power of the Spirit. With the goal of new
humanity in sight, God truly delights over his people (Zeph 3:17).
The blessings of the kingdom can now flow to the world, and Christ’s
mighty acts can continue and be enlarged in ever-widening circles
through the community at God’s disposal. There is a new family on
earth, made up of brothers and sisters, among whom Christ is
firstborn (Rom 8:29; Heb 2:11). Here the memory of Jesus is kept
alive by proclamation, sacrament and mission.9
The world begins to become “christomorphic” in the community
where love is being perfected (1 Jn 4:12). Such a community is
intended to depict what God wants the world to become. At
Pentecost a ruptured and broken world began to heal. People from
all over the world came together and began to understand one
another. A community was formed, full of differences and yet united
in its longing for the coming of the kingdom. The conversion of
people from many nations foreshadowed the evangelization of the
world. Through baptism in the Spirit, the disciples were formed into
an agency of the Spirit and a community in which God would work to
rescue the world from self-destruction. At Pentecost God began to
move the world from alienation to its goal and place in divine life.
Michael Welker writes, “Through the pouring out of the Spirit, God
effected a world-encompassing, multilingual, poly-individual
testimony to Godself.” The church is the sacrament of the presence
of Jesus Christ in the world.10
135
Power and Presence
As Jesus was empowered, the church is empowered for its mission
by the Spirit. Outward forms are not enough—the power must be at
work in us (Eph 3:20; 2 Tim 3:5). The kingdom of God is not just a
matter of talk but of power (1 Cor 4:20). Outsiders ought to be able
to sense the life-changing presence (1 Cor 14:25). More than
churches full of people, God wants (and the world needs) people full
of the Spirit.
Let us now take up the issue of power in the church, how Spirit is
powerfully present sacramentally and charismatically for the sake of
mission. We shall begin with the sacramental, proceed to the
charismatic and conclude with transforming mission.11
A dualism of spirit and matter has to be confronted here. Moderns
perceive Spirit as something ghostly, intangible, impalpable,
numinous, lacking concreteness. There is resistance to linking the
Spirit to the material. Many of us shy away from physical
manifestations of the divine presence and expect intangible, not real-
life effects of the Spirit. It is as if the Spirit were a “holy ghost” who
does not deal in material reality or transform real worlds. Matter-spirit
dualism is, however, not the Bible’s view, and it is far from the
ancient consensus. There is a physical side of being spiritual. Spirit
is not a ghost but the life-giver who moves in and shapes the
material realm. We are physical creatures, the Son became
incarnate in flesh and blood, and Spirit wants to effect changes in
history concretely.12
It appears that in the early centuries the churches were
sacramental and charismatic. The spiritual and the physical flowed
together. But the balance has not always been sustained. In the
Middle Ages the tendency was to favor sacramental over
charismatic, and at the Reformation the sacramental principle itself
suffered. Today renewal frequently takes place in nonsacramental
contexts, not in the historic churches, which worship God
136
sacramentally. The fire often burns outside the fireplace of the
historic institutions. My concern here is to try and recover the two-
dimensionality of charism and sacrament original to Christianity.13
Let’s begin by looking into the sacramental dimension of the
Spirit’s power and presence. Worship is central because the church
delights in what God has done and is doing in history and in its
fellowship in relation to the world’s future. As firstfruits of new
humanity, we worship God on behalf of the world in anticipation of
the harvest. We acknowledge God’s greatness on behalf of all
peoples and press toward the goal of union with God. Responding to
the Spirit, we move ever closer to God, shedding preoccupation with
self and pursuing the true basis of our human life.
In worship we become assimilated to the humanity of Jesus,
mystically and sacramentally, and pursue his journey. To the church
Jesus is much more than a historical memory. He is present in the
midst of the community as the life-giving Spirit. God summons the
church to worship him in Spirit and truth (Jn 4:24; Phil 3:3). Spirit
incites us to give God praise as his holy temple (Eph 2:22; 1 Pet
2:5). As he helped the Son to offer himself to the Father, the Spirit
helps us come to the Father through the Son, making communion
possible.14
Material signs foster the relationship between God and creatures.
They help us approach the incomprehensible mystery, and they
make invisible grace tangible. Sacraments exist simply because we
are bodily creatures inhabiting a material world. There is in theory no
limit to the number of them. Created reality is richly imbued with
sacramental possibilities. The world reflects God’s glory; therefore
anything can mediate the sacred, where there are eyes to see and
ears to hear. Since the Spirit pervades the universe, any event or
experience can bring God to mind and mediate his presence. Thus
the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Acts
7:30), and Elijah heard God speak in wind, earthquake, fire and
silence (1 Kings 19:11-12). God speaks in the glory of sunsets and
towering peaks. In particular, because humans are made in God’s
image, we encounter God in other people; we love God when we
love them and honor God when we honor them. The sacramental
137
principle operates, let it be noted, not only in liturgy but also in the
ordinary experience that grounds it.15
The life of many churches needs to be enriched with more signs
and symbols. Iconoclasm has impoverished the life of the church
and often reduced worship to a cognitive affair. This means that the
Spirit is denied certain tools for enrichment. We are impoverished
when we have no place for festivals, drama, processions, banners,
dance, color, movement, instruments, percussion and incense.
There are many notes on the Spirit’s keyboard which we often
neglect to sound, with the result that God’s presence can be hard to
access.
Jesus, as the image of the invisible God, is himself the
fundamental sacrament (Col 1:15). He reveals the Father into whose
presence the Spirit brings us. God has communicated himself and
the mystery of his love in Christ. Incarnation is the paramount event
of the divine nearness and the fundamental sacrament of our
encounter with God. No Christians are really nonsacramentalist in
the strict sense, since Jesus is the sacrament we all acknowledge.
No one who confesses Christ, the primordial sacrament, and is
enriched by the church, the sacrament of Christ, can be called
nonsacramentalist. This reveals a unity of the catholic and free
churches which should not be forgotten.16
The church too is a derived sacrament because, indwelt by the
Spirit, it perpetuates the presence of the Lord. Through members of
the body, Christ is present in the world by the Spirit. “Where two or
three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Mt 18:20).
Spirit constituted Christ’s human body as Word made flesh in Mary
and continues to make him effectively present in the church. The
Risen Lord lives in the community, releasing his Spirit, drawing
people into union with God. Conversions occur when people
encounter Christ in members of his body, who become means of
grace to them. As he acted through Christ, God continues to act
through the words and actions of disciples. If Christ is the sacrament
of God, the church is the sacrament of Christ, because it represents
him in the world. When people receive grace through members of
the body, they experience communion with God. Church and
churchly sacraments derive from the basic sacrament, Jesus Christ.
138
The Second Vatican Council calls the church “sacrament of the
world” because it exists to brings people into relationship with God
(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 1.1).17
Ordinarily when we hear the word sacrament we think of baptism
and the Lord’s Supper. But church life is sacramental in more ways
than these. God’s presence is evoked variously: through singing and
prayer, through praise and thanksgiving, through greeting and
fellowship, through teaching and instruction, through loving acts and
kind service. Reading Scripture in the liturgy is sacramental because
it mediates the Word of God. As Vatican II comments, “God himself
speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in church” (Constitution on
the Sacred Liturgy par. 7). For this reason, in some churches (such
as the Orthodox) the Bible is given ritual recognition, by being
formally carried in and even kissed. As wine is the sign of the blood
of Christ, biblical texts enable one to hear God’s Word.
Christ is present in the church in many embodied ways. In each of
them, the material becomes spiritual and the spiritual is conveyed
through material. Among the Quakers silence is sacramental,
because they listen for God speaking in stillness. Other Quaker
sacraments include the simplicity of the meeting house, sitting
together in a circle, singing and praying, waiting and listening.
Sacraments are media that transmit the grace of God to bodily
creatures, and thank God, there are many of them. By many means
of grace Christ pursues his work in us as firstfruits of the new
humanity so that he may offer us to the Father.18
Let us not impoverish ourselves. Let us not, in reaction to excess,
go to the extreme of reducing worship to grim austerity and hyper-
spirituality. Human beings are symbol users, and God is a symbol
maker. In charismatic circles people are feeling free to recover the
richness of dance, clapping, raising hands, percussion, shouting,
celebration, processions, banners and the like. We should not put
aside means of grace that can enrich our lives. We do ourselves
harm when we eliminate arts, drama, color, vestments, pageantry,
incense, saints, calendars, lectionary, sculpture. To do so is to
threaten the mystery.
Jesus touched the leper’s skin when he healed him (Mk 1:41). He
touched the hand of Peter’s mother-in-law, and the fever left her (Mt
139
8:15). Paul laid hands on Timothy’s head to communicate the Spirit
(1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Peter and John laid hands on some
Samaritans that they might receive the Spirit (Acts 8:17). The
physical and the spiritual are not antithetical but cooperative and
synergistic. The Spirit is passed from one person to another, from
Moses to Joshua, from Elijah to Elisha. God comes to us and deals
with us through material signs.19
140
Baptism and Eucharist
The term sacrament is normally used to refer to churchly rituals used
in worship, and most commonly to baptism and Eucharist. Baptism
initiates people into community, and Eucharist renews participation in
it. Together they signify initiation and participation, and are properly
associated with Christ’s commitment in baptism and his willingness
to suffer in obedience to God depicted in the Last Supper.
The identity of a community is sustained by ritual as well as word.
Sermons touch us on the cognitive level, while ritual moves us on
the affective level. Without ritual, traditions wither. Sacraments are
material signs and symbols using words and actions, through which
God gives life to us by the Spirit. As we open our hearts, we
experience being the temple of the living God (2 Cor 6:16).20
The effectiveness of the sacraments is bound up with the Spirit
and faith. Calvin wrote, “Sacraments fulfill their office only when the
Spirit, that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone
hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened
for the sacraments to enter in. If the Spirit be lacking, the sacraments
can accomplish nothing more in our minds than the splendor of the
sun shining upon blind eyes or a voice sounding in deaf ears”
(Institutes 4.19.9). Faith is also important. Vatican II states, Baptism
and Eucharist are the two central sacraments that have been
present from the beginning. Others were introduced gradually but
were conceived in relation to these originals. For example, the
sacrament of confirmation (receiving the Spirit through the laying on
of hands) and reconciliation (repentance through confession) are
related to baptism, while anointing the sick, marriage and ordination
to holy orders are related to Eucharist.
In order that the sacred liturgy may produce its full effect, it
is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper
dispositions, that their thoughts match their words, and that
141
they cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain.
Pastors of souls must therefore realise that, when the
liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere
observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration.
It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part
knowingly, actively, and fruitfully. (Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy par. 11)
Baptism is the act in which the Spirit initiates individuals into the
fellowship of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). As Jesus when
baptized in water received the Spirit, so he would baptize us in water
and in Spirit. Born of water and Spirit, we become members of his
mystical body and receive the forgiveness of sins. Jesus says, in the
long ending of Mark, “The one who believes and is baptized will be
saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk
16:16). At Pentecost, Peter called the people to be baptized and
receive the gift of the Spirit in the context of their water baptism (Acts
2:38). Through the sign of water, people are baptized into solidarity
with Christ and put on Christ (Gal 3:26). They receive the washing of
regeneration and renewal of the Spirit (Tit 3:5-6). Baptism is the
moment when the Spirit is imparted and when people open
themselves to gifts of the Spirit. Baptism is an expression of the
obedience of faith and the moment when God gives the Spirit. In
experience the Spirit may be manifested before baptism, as with
Cornelius, but water remains the public sign of the Spirit’s coming
(Acts 10:44-48).21
The Spirit is normally given with water in response to faith. This
makes baptism a sacrament and means of grace. Proper initiation is
water baptism coupled with Spirit baptism. Earlier encounters with
the Spirit call for a fresh infusion in water baptism, and later
encounters should be viewed as occasions of release of the
potentials of grace bestowed in the sacrament. One does not begin
life in the Spirit more than once, but one may be filled with the Spirit
many times in terms of awareness and appropriation.22
At baptism there ought to be an invocation of the Spirit. We find a
nice example of this in the order for baptism of the Armenian
Apostolic Orthodox Church: “We therefore pray thee, O Lord, send
142
thy Holy Spirit into this water and sanctify it as thou didst sanctify the
river Jordan by descending thereinto and prefiguring thereby this font
of baptism for the regeneration of all men.”
As a member of the free church tradition, I am not used to thinking
of baptism this way. Baptists seldom make the link between water
and Spirit baptism, but see water baptism as human response only.
A sharp line is often drawn between baptism in water and in Spirit.
The former is viewed not as a sacrament but as a response to what
God has done in Christ, the true sacrament. Baptism and Eucharist
are demythologized as events of grace and portrayed as events of
response. For Karl Barth, baptism in the Spirit is conversion, and
water baptism is the first step in following Jesus. In such thinking
baptism is witness to a human decision and not an occasion of
receiving the Spirit. A number of scholars agree that water baptism
plays no essential role in initiation; thus a wedge is driven between
water and Spirit.23
This does not seem to square with a number of Scriptures that
connect the coming of the Spirit more closely with water baptism,
and it is certainly out of keeping with the tradition of one and a half
millennia of church history with regard to the sacramental character
of baptism. Most Christians historically have held that God acts in
baptism to bestow grace. As Tertullian said, “The act of baptism is
carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect is spiritual, in
that we are freed from sins” (On Baptism 7). As the Spirit came upon
Jesus as he came up out of the water, so water and Spirit baptism
are associated. This is the impression conveyed by sayings such as
Peter’s: “Baptism … saves you” (1 Pet 3:21). Scripture seems thus to
support the catholic position—as Luther says, God’s blessings are
poured out on candidates for baptism. The breaking of this link
seems to have been the result of Zwingli’s dualism of matter and
spirit, which led many Protestants into antisacramentalism.24
At first baptism was administered to converts, not to infants. In
baptism people renounced their sins and received anointing for
ministry. Baptists today continue the practice and defer baptism of
children until riper years, whereas catholic traditions (Roman
Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist) opt for
infant baptism, in which parents along with the congregation promise
143
to raise the child in the faith and provide for her or his spiritual
formation. Confirmation later completes baptism by adding the
dimension of faith (Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 1225).
This makes a certain sense. In religion, as other areas of life,
parents take responsibility for children as they grow up. Naturally
they want them to be part of the faith community and to be nourished
by the means of grace. To deprive a child of this blessing, they
reason, would place them outside the community and might even
propel them in the wrong direction.
The danger of baptizing infants is that the action might be
regarded as magical and the importance of faith be lost sight of. We
must not rely on a ritual to save us in the absence of a call to serious
discipleship. The danger of insisting on believers’ baptism, on the
other hand, is that we might regard the human decision so highly
that we forget God’s enabling grace. What about the mentally
handicapped? Can God not work grace in the young and weak? Can
the Spirit not anoint them? It also places the children of believers in
an awkward position ecclesially.
As a Baptist, I opt for the dedication of infants and water baptism
later, as a practice that can preserve the elements we all wish to
protect (anointing, dedication, renunciation, responsibility). On the
other hand, infant baptism followed by real confirmation could have
the same result. Each community will have to decide in its own
setting which danger is greater and what it should do. Whatever we
decide (and I am not taking a position), the relationship between
water baptism and Spirit baptism should be kept. One might think of
the Spirit as truly present in infant baptism, with the effectiveness of
it unfolding gradually as the child grows in faith over the years. For
all of us, however, baptism points to a lifetime of following Jesus,
however performed and whoever the candidates. All the baptized are
called to live in newness of life (Rom 6:4).
As regards the Eucharist, it commemorates Jesus’ self-surrender
to God. He commanded it to continue so that the charism of self-
giving would be perpetuated in the church down through history.
Christ promised to be present in the meal (“this is my body”) so that
believers might experience his presence and commit themselves to
his mission when they partake of it. His own charism was deposited,
144
as it were, in the Eucharist, where Christ is present in the elements
as the One who surrendered himself to the Father.25
In the Eucharist we receive Jesus in the form of bread and wine
and share thereby in his death and resurrection. He makes himself
known to us in the breaking of bread (Lk 24:35). The supper is our
supernatural food and drink (1 Cor 10:4). It puts us in touch with the
bread that came down from heaven (Jn 6:35). Therefore we invoke
the Spirit upon the bread and wine, that they might become the
vehicles of his body and blood. This is captured in many prayers of
consecration: “We ask you to send your Holy Spirit upon the offering
of your holy church. Gather into one all who share in these sacred
mysteries, filling them with the Holy Spirit and confirming their faith in
the truth.” And it is prayed: “Recalling his death, proclaiming his
resurrection, and looking for his coming again in glory, we offer you,
Father, this bread and this cup. Send your Holy Spirit upon us and
upon these gifts, that all who eat and drink at this table may be one
body and one people, a living sacrifice in Jesus Christ, our Lord.”
The effectiveness of the sacrament is not due to any magic
surrounding what happens to the elements; rather, it is due to the
power of the Spirit in the action itself. There must be a coming of the
Spirit upon the sacrament and the people. Consider this Ethiopic
eucharistic prayer: “We beseech thee to send thy Holy Spirit upon
this oblation of the church, that in joining them together, thou mayest
grant that it be to them for holiness and for filling them with the Holy
Spirit, and for strengthening of faith in truth, that they may glorify and
praise thee through thy Son our saviour Jesus Christ.”26
As bodily creatures, we need embodied expressions such as
baptism and Eucharist to make inward grace visible and tangible.
Worship is rich when it makes use of material media. Without them it
can be thin, abstract, notional. Symbols help believers apprehend
the invisible things of God and serve as channels of grace.27 God
acts in the sacraments in the context of the response of faith. They
are neither magical actions nor mere symbols of human response. In
the sacraments God offers grace that is effective when people
receive it. The sacraments do not work automatically but derive their
effectiveness from the presence of the Spirit in relation to faith.
145
Misunderstanding about this may be due not just to prejudice but
also to the focus in Western Catholicism on the transformation, even
transubstantiation, of the elements of the Eucharist. The situation is
better in the Eastern churches, where a change in the elements is
less emphasized. Stress is placed instead on participants’
encountering the presence of Christ. In the prayer of invocation,
clergy stand before the altar with arms outstretched, imploring the
Spirit to descend on the gifts, while a deacon fans the air, depicting
the movement of the Spirit; the elements are also displayed after the
service. In other words, the Eastern Church has a more dynamic
understanding of Eucharist than the Roman tradition. “The
transformation of the elements is not the central issue for the
Orthodox believer. For him, the central event of eucharist is the
descent, appearance, and divine presence of the resurrected
Christ.”28
By invoking Spirit at Eucharist, we understand that the
effectiveness of the sacrament is due not to any magical operation
but to the coming of Spirit in response to prayer. Because
effectiveness is not automatic, participants’ preparation for their
response cannot be neglected. Grace, when offered, must be
received in faith by a genuine response. If not, the sacrament fails
and the ritual is empty.29
The sacramental principle, along with other beliefs of the church,
such as the possibility of signs and wonders, has suffered from
modernity, which leaves little room for the activity of God. In the
modern view, what is real is what can be scientifically established.
This mindset looks for physical causation and disregards divine
action. It is materialistic in outlook and exalts reason while
discounting revelation and tradition. When influenced by modernity,
religion is powerless in both its sacramental and its charismatic
dimensions. Modernity does not expect God to be present or to
move in power in either realm.30
Let us not tolerate skepticism in regard to God’s presence in the
sacraments or the charisms. Spirit is not opposed to material media
and signs. The Spirit speaks through human voices, feeds us with
bread, washes us in water. Worship is weakened when the
sacramental is lost. There is loss of mystery, liturgical beauty and
146
traditional practices. Such neglect not only represents a break with
the historic churches but also brings a self-impoverishment that
accelerates secularization. 31
The sacramental principle has been widely acknowledged in the
historic churches. The sacraments ought to be viewed as means of
grace and not reduced to mere ordinances. They are both events in
which God moves and acts of obedience. One should not repudiate
sacraments because they have been abused, for to do so
impoverishes the church. They are God-given and embodied means
of grace. Sacraments are events in which the Spirit comes and we
respond.32 My own sense is that the more we experience the love of
the Father in movements of renewal in the church, the more we will
reject the rationalistic repudiation of sacraments, and the more we
will thirst for the concrete manifestations of the Spirit found in the
historic liturgies.
The Catechism concludes:
In this sacramental dispensation of Christ’s mystery, the
Holy Spirit acts in the same way as at other times in the
economy of salvation: he prepares the church to encounter
her Lord; he recalls and makes Christ manifest in the faith
of the assembly. By his transforming power, he makes the
mystery of Christ present here and now. Finally the Spirit of
communion unites the church to the life and mission of
Christ.
147
Charismatic Presence
As well as receiving sacraments from the Spirit, we need to cultivate
openness to the gifts of the Spirit. The Spirit is present beyond liturgy
in a wider circle. There is a flowing that manifests itself as power to
bear witness, heal the sick, prophesy, praise God enthusiastically,
perform miracles and more. There is a liberty to celebrate, an ability
to dream and see visions, a release of Easter life. There are
impulses of power in the move of the Spirit to transform and
commission disciples to become instruments of the mission.
The longer ending of Mark captures the early view of these
matters: “Signs will accompany those who believe: by using my
name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they
will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing,
it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will
recover” (16:17-18). Hebrews says something similar: “It [salvation]
was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by
those who heard him, while God added his testimony by signs and
wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit,
distributed according to his will” (Heb 2:3-4). Paul confirms it: “The
weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine
power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor 10:4).33
The Scriptures describe a rich effusion of gifts upon the church
and do not indicate that they will be withdrawn before the parousia.
Paul writes, “In every way you have been enriched in him, in speech
and knowledge of every kind—just as the testimony of Christ has
been strengthened among you—so that you are not lacking in any
spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1
Cor 1:5-7). For this reason Paul urges the Corinthians, “Pursue love
and strive for the spiritual gifts, and especially that you may
prophesy” (1 Cor 14:1). Paul expects gifts to operate widely in the
churches. He tells us not to quench the Spirit by despising any of
them (1 Thess 5:19-20). Paul would have agreed with Moses (I
148
think) in his reply to Joshua: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would
that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would
put his spirit on them” (Num 11:29).34
The term gift or charism has a spectrum of biblical meanings. It
may refer to the gift of salvation (Rom 6:23), some benefit
communicated through one’s life (Rom 1:11) or a specific ability such
as speaking in other tongues (1 Cor 13:1). The word is related
etymologically to grace (charis) and points to the gracious workings
of God. Gifts are divine actions that build up the community and
advance its mission. They demonstrate the power of the Spirit, who
is at work in the church. They are manifestations of the Spirit’s
presence (1 Cor 12:7). Spirit works not only noetically, creating an
awareness of the work of Jesus, but ontically as well, releasing
supernatural, life-giving powers. Gift-giving is an aspect of the work
of the Creator Spirit who energizes history until God’s goals are
realized.35
It is a false dichotomy to split the charisms that flow from liturgical
actions from charisms that flow free of institutional structures. God
gives benefits through sacraments administered by ordained clergy
as well as in other ways. Indeed they are interrelated. Gifts of
leadership are charismatic as well as prophecy and healing. Paul
said to the elders of Ephesus, “The Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, to shepherd the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Leadership
is a gift of the Spirit and a part of the larger charismatic structure of
the congregation. Through leaders, persons may meet Jesus and
experience the Spirit. Leadership is especially needed when the
Spirit is flowing freely in the church, to protect it from the abuses of
freedom. Revivals are messy and create considerable disorder. At
times when the power is being poured out, we should pray for the
Spirit to rest on our leaders that they be able to rule us well, for the
good of the body. The need of wise pastoral oversight is even
greater when the Spirit is breaking through than at ordinary times.36
Yet the circle of gifting is wider than liturgy and institutional
leadership. The church and its leaders belong to the Spirit—the Spirit
does not belong to them. They are subject to the Spirit, who is not
under their control. The church is under the reign of the Spirit, not
the reverse. The Spirit is called the Spirit of Jesus, not the Spirit of
149
the church. Any church that denies the Spirit freedom stands in
danger of becoming a lifeless and self-glorifying church. Paul does
call us to be concerned that things be done decently and in order (1
Cor 14:40). But he is not advocating an order that quenches the
Spirit. He is commending an order in which prophecy and tongues,
revelation and knowledge are flowing, not an order that clamps down
on such things. Paul is asking for order in the midst of a charismatic
meeting, an order that does not rule out freedom and surprises.37
God gives us leaders, but clericalism must not be allowed to snuff
out freedom. The community is blessed with gifts in every member.
Some are exceptional like prophecy; others are everyday like
generosity. Each is given to serve the community; all of them are
intended to be conduits through which God’s love can flow down.
There are all kinds of gifts, not only for a select few but for everyone.
The church is a charismatic community with all sorts of giftings,
including but surpassing ordained leadership. God delights in both
form and freedom. There is value both in the freely charismatic and
in the regular activities of the Spirit in the ordered community. In this
balance we avoid anarchy on the one hand and bland uniformity on
the other.38
The charismatic dimension crops up in Old Testament narratives
where the Spirit comes upon persons, giving them abilities for
delivering the people. We see it in the inspiration of the prophets and
in the promise that prophecy will become a universal gift. The Old
Testament looks forward to the day when there will be an outpouring
of the Spirit, not just on leaders but on people at large, even the
disenfranchised (slaves, women, young people). All will be able to
prophesy and see visions.39
The charismatic dimension was prominent in Jesus’ ministry as he
inaugurated the kingdom with words of authority and deeds of power.
He challenged the rule of Satan and brought the kingdom of God
near in a saving wholeness. The miracles and healings of Jesus
were not incidental to his mission but concrete evidences of God’s
reign of love. His signs announced the end of Satan’s reign and the
coming transformation of the world: a new phase of history is
beginning that will culminate in new creation.40
150
This pattern continued after the resurrection in the mission of the
church. Paul’s preaching was not in words of human wisdom but with
a demonstration of the Spirit and power (1 Cor 2:4-5). He described
his mission as being “by word and deed, by the power of signs and
wonders, by the power of the Spirit” (Rom 15:18-19). The author to
Hebrews spoke of how God was bearing witness by signs and
wonders, miracles and gifts of the Spirit (Heb 2:4). It seems implied
that this would be the pattern of the Christian mission until the
coming of Christ. While it is true that the ministry of the apostles was
foundational and unrepeatable, their signs and wonders were
directed to human needs that persist to this day. Why would the
relevance of the kingdom to these needs vary? Why would the sick
not always need prayer and the possessed deliverance? Spirit has
not gone into retirement, or the power of the kingdom into recession.
Some doubt this, contending that charismatic life was not meant to
persist after the age of the apostles. But it is hard to make the case
for their view biblically. God’s kingdom has arrived in the power of
the Spirit, and the impression is given that it will be so on into the
future. Spiritual gifts are not linked to the apostles narrowly but
broadly to kingdom ministries. The promise of the Spirit was for the
first generation and also for their children (Acts 2:39). Gifts belong to
all the latter days of salvation history, not just to a short time. The
ideal is for every congregation to be well equipped with gifts (1 Cor
1:4-9). Every evangelist should proclaim the gospel powerfully in
word and deed. The theory in the writings of B. B. Warfield that
certain gifts have ceased, for example, is more easily explained in
terms of his polemic against the Catholic Church and his apologetic
agenda vis-à-vis miracles in the period of the Enlightenment rather
than in terms of biblical data.
Sadly, the cessationist mindset becomes self-fulfilling. Failing to
take seriously what the Bible sets forth as possibilities, people come
under the influence of secular modernity by the back door. It leads to
an experiential deficit that prevents people from entering into full
Spirit reality.41
Spirit was not so much a creedal issue for the early church as a
fact of their experience. His coming made a difference to their lives,
outwardly and empirically. It had powerful and palpable effects. The
151
love of God burned in their hearts, people spoke God’s word with
boldness, they prophesied and saw visions, they healed the sick.
The Spirit was not a theory but altered real-life situations. People
were awake to the powers of life, and spiritual gifts were basic to
church life—gifts for building up the community and gifts for
empowering mission.42
Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost, and the new epoch
began which is the watershed in salvation history. At baptism Jesus
entered the new age as the anointed representative of humanity. It
culminated on the cross, where Jesus went through a baptism of
suffering (Lk 12:49-50; 22:42). Now raised to life, Jesus can baptize
his disciples in the Spirit as it was prophesied that he would do (Lk
3:15-16; Jn 1:33). Salvation history has been lifted onto a new plane,
and global mission begins. The Pentecost event parallels the
baptism of Jesus—the disciples were baptized and empowered for
mission, as Jesus had been in the Jordan. At Pentecost a
transference of power and anointing took place from Jesus to the
disciples. Like Jesus, they were clothed in power and equipped for
mission directed by the Spirit.43
152
The New Dimension
The charismatic dimension has implications for worship and ministry.
Beyond sacramental occasions of the Spirit are celebration and
giving room for inspired speech and action. Spirit comes in liturgy but
also freely in possibilities we need to treasure and cultivate. Be
careful not to close down the freedom of the Spirit or refuse any gift
designed to enrich life and mission. Let us consider three of them
which the churches need to recover.44
Paul considered prophecy the most important gift in a
congregation (1 Cor 14:1). It is called “revelation” because God
speaks through someone, giving a word needed at that moment (1
Cor 14:30). Prophetic words are inspired words designed to upbuild,
encourage and console (14:3). The picture Paul paints for us is that
of a people waiting on God and listening to the Spirit. The potential
can be glimpsed in the fact that world missions began by means of
prophecy. The church in Antioch was fasting, praying and listening to
its prophets when the call came to commission Paul and Barnabas
as missionaries (Acts 13:1-4). Prophecy is one way the Spirit leads
God’s people forward in mission.
It is wrong for churches to suppress this gift. The community that
silences its prophets is in danger of becoming a Spiritless place.
Outwardly things may run smoothly, but inwardly the Spirit is
rebuked. Prophecy is a charism that belongs to church life and
should not be a rare occurrence. Like tongues, it arises from
encountering God and from listening. Teaching is of crucial
importance, but the prophets must also be heard. A climate of
listening must be fostered among God’s people.45
Prophetic utterances can vary greatly in quality. Our hearing is far
from perfect. Human elements enter into the word of God. Inspiration
does not eliminate this factor. Therefore prophecies are not self-
authenticating but must be tested. There can be false or trivial
prophecies. There must be testing. As Paul said, when one speaks,
153
others need to weigh what is being said, because prophets are
subject to the congregation and are not exalted over it (1 Cor 14:29).
The Didache reveals that by the year A.D. 100, the need of criteria
for measuring claims to prophecy was already felt.46
Nevertheless, the fear of false prophecy must not prevent us from
listening to God. Paul’s principle holds: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do
not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to
what is good” (1 Thess 5:19-21). Let us ask with Zedekiah: “Is there
any word from the LORD?” (Jer 37:17). To his credit, the king asked
for the Lord’s word, even though the answer did not please him. We
must make room in our liturgies for the word of the Lord.
Healing the sick was a prominent activity of Jesus, and it deserves
a place in the ministry of today’s church. The long ending of Mark
reads, “They [the disciples] will lay hands on the sick, and they will
recover” (16:18). The gospel is about healing in the broad sense and
even envisages a wholly renewed universe. God cares about the
healing of individuals, communities, nations and the cosmos. Spirit
gives gifts of healing which speak eloquently of God’s care for the
whole person (1 Cor 12:9, 28). Healings signify the dawn of God’s
reign and point to the day when the eyes of the blind will be opened
(Is 35:5-6). Even apart from the gospel imperative, sickness is a
major human concern, and simply for the sake of building bridges to
people, churches ought to signal God’s concern about it.
Healing prayer does not imply a negative view of medical science.
The powers of healing are at work in the creation. Our bodies, when
damaged, immediately begin to heal themselves. What medicine can
learn about God’s healing which is built into creation is all to the
good. Skill in medicine is a creational charism. Prayer for healing
simply means that we place problems of physical bodies before the
Father and ask for help. It is not that we worship health or demand to
be free from suffering. On the contrary, we accept our frail and mortal
life. There is “a time to be born, and a time to die” (Eccles 3:2). We
live and we die unto the Lord, accepting whatever comes from his
hand (Rom 14:8). Humanity was made for resurrection, and healing
is at most a temporary stop-gap. Nevertheless, in times of crisis and
trauma God invites us to lay our concerns humbly before him.47
154
James mentions the use of oil in the context of praying for the sick
(Jas 5:14). This unction is not only for persons at the point of death
but for the sick at large (Constitution on the Liturgy par. 73). When
we anoint the sick, God makes himself present tangibly and
sacramentally. Gestures and symbols are important along with the
use of language. As bodily creatures, we respond to such actions
and are helped to reach out to God for blessing.
As we open ourselves to prayers for healing, let us be careful not
to trespass on the divine freedom. God is free to grant healings,
whether few or many, whether usual or unusual, as he chooses.
Those that are granted point to the coming kingdom but do not
replace the need for complete renewal. Not until resurrection will
sickness and death be removed completely. How many signs will be
given depends entirely on God’s will. We know that God wants to
relieve suffering but that he has other concerns as well to think
about. For example, God maintains the stability and regularity of the
universe and may have reasons for not interfering too often in the
natural order. Raising the dead has happened, but not very often. In
addition there are factors related to issues of soul making and
character formation. When we pray for healing, we simply ask: Lord,
here are our needs; give us what you please.48
Though there are exorcisms in the Gospels and teaching about
spiritual warfare in the Epistles, intellectual and practical recognition
of this dimension is often missing in Christian communities today.
Jesus thought it important to deliver people from Satan’s grasp by
the Spirit. Jesus sent the apostles to preach and cast out demons
also (Mt 10:7-8). He said, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out
demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Mt 12:28).
Exorcisms reveal the presence of God confronting evil and bondage.
Jesus may have spoken of such matters in the language of his time,
but that does not mean he was not wrestling with dark and powerful
realities, whatever they are called. Then and now, Satan is engaged
in ruining human lives, and Jesus is intent on winning victories over
him. John says, “The Son of God was revealed … to destroy the
works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8).
Without falling into superstition, let us not make the mistake of
minimizing the titanic struggle between God’s kingdom and the
155
powers of evil. God’s sovereignty is not uncontested in this world,
and his kingdom does not come without a fight. There are people
who need to be delivered from Satan’s power, and the church is
responsible for ministering deliverance.
Spiritual warfare needs to be taken seriously in many areas. Even
churches can become entrapped and need setting free. Such
deficiencies often lie deeper than that which can be observed.
Communities come under the control of traditions and doctrinal
strongholds and can be incapable of extricating themselves. It is
notorious how spirits of bitterness and conflict dozens of years old
can continue to dominate congregations. Even denominationally, we
cannot save ourselves but must cry out to God to save us.
A false dichotomy should not be created by distinguishing too
sharply between gifts natural and supernatural. Spirit is active in
creation as well as redemption and can activate natural potentials
already present. Intuition, for example, is a natural faculty, developed
more in some than others; healing is a process going on all the time
in our bodies; possession is a condition known to psychology.
Spiritual gifts are not necessarily discontinuous with natural
possibilities. Spirit supplies natural gifts like artistry and creativity,
and it would be strange if all this were bypassed in spiritual gifting.
Gifts of the Spirit can animate natural capacities and may not be
foreign to nature as created by God.49
156
Openness to the Spirit
How charismatic life is restored in the churches is mysterious. On
the one hand, the level of God’s manifest presence itself varies, and
the degree to which there are signs, wonders and anointing is not
constant. God is free to be present as he wills, on a spectrum from
ordinary to extraordinary ways. It is simply not under our control.
When the power falls, it is marvelous in our eyes. On the other hand,
openness is a human variable. Response runs the gamut from
unbelief to unrestricted surrender (Mk 6:5; Acts 4:29-30). The best-
case scenario is God’s manifested presence coupled with
unrestricted human openness. The worst case is the withdrawal of
God coupled with human indifference.
History witnesses to revivals of Spirit when God rends the
heavens and comes down. At such times people fall under the
power, sinners are converted, the sick are healed, and history is
changed. Let us ask God to disturb our tranquillity so that he may
surprise, refresh, empower us. Let congregations be transformed to
flow with celebration and hope. Lord, grant us a fresh anointing, a
renewing of our baptism and a release of its latent potentials. We
desperately need a demonstration of the Spirit with power for the
mission to go forward. Over and above the evidence that God raised
up Jesus, evidence is needed of people having been set free.
Nietzsche’s Zarathustra taunts the church: “They would have to sing
better songs to make me believe in their Redeemer.” Though these
are the words of a bitter and lonely philosopher, they make a valid
point. Are there not many forms of faith today called Christian that
leave people captive and do not set them free?50
Mark records that Jesus could not do any miracles in Nazareth
because of unbelief (Mk 6:5). Limited expectations dishonor and
diminish God’s freedom to act. Where there is no confidence in
God’s saving power, the church declines (Ps 78:22). Therefore, let
God’s people be open to the power of the Spirit without restriction.
157
Let us not allow tradition to control our reading of the Bible in ways
that silence its message. Let us not restrict what God is wanting to
give us.
Many today suffer worldview impediment. Though we may believe
intellectually that God can move in power, something inside of us
says this is not going to happen, prayer is an illusion, the sick must
only go to doctors. This may be coupled with a fear of change. We
have our comfort zones and may prefer the orderliness of an
unrenewed church to the disorderliness of renewal. There are
reasons for not wanting the Spirit to move. We do not want to look
ridiculous. We may not want to exchange Sunday-morning religion
for real discipleship. We may not want to run the risk of opposition,
which usually comes when the world discovers that the church is
serious about mission. May the Lord shake us loose and allow us to
see the possibilities of new creation.51
Jürgen Moltmann puts a finger on the issue:
The essential impediment to the charismatic experience of
our potentialities for living is to be found in our passive sins,
not our active ones. For the hindrance is not our despairing
attempt to be ourselves, but our despairing attempt not to
be ourselves, so that out of fear of life and fear of death we
fall short of what our lives could be. The charismata of the
Spirit are present wherever faith in God drives out the fears
of life and wherever the hope of resurrection overcomes the
fear of death.52
Our responsibility is to be open. Regardless of whether this is a
time of revival, we belong to a community baptized in the Holy Spirit.
God has given us the power to be witnesses, and it is essential to be
open to the Spirit. In particular, we need to be open to the full range
of spiritual gifts, not a select number.
The problem becomes visible when we think of gifts as falling
along a spectrum from A to Z. Let A to P refer to gifts we are
comfortable with (such as teaching and administration) and R to Z
represent gifts we are hesitant about (like prophecy and healing).
Whereas the early Christians were open to the full spectrum of gifts,
158
often we are not. Our communities hardly recognize certain gifts as
real possibilities. The result is, because we are not open to them,
that these charisms are not operative. Limited expectation results in
an experiential deficit. Gifts R to Z are impeded from operating in
communities that do not acknowledge them as real options. We
need to allow the gifts to be rekindled among us as we raise the level
of our expectation and allow God to decide what should happen.
Openness does not mean knowing the outcome—for example,
whether miracles will be few or many. It just means openness.53
We need to ensure, of course, that our openness is not
undiscerning. Under the guise of charism, there can be
undocumented claims, irresponsible prophecies, elitism,
charismania. There can be inspired utterances that contradict the
word of Scripture and refuse to be subject to the discernment of the
community. There can be a love of power that is not the power of
love and sound mindedness (2 Tim 1:7). There can be lust after the
theology of glory, which looks for victory, prosperity and success but
repudiates the cross and the power that works through love.
There are risks in any call for openness. But fear of making
mistakes and seeing counterfeit charisms must not close down faith
in us. How tragic it would be if focusing on dangers closed us to the
Spirit. It is a fundamental principle that God must be free to act when
and where and how he pleases.54
159
Office and Charism
Given the promise and the peril, the need of office alongside charism
is evident. The two are positively disposed to one another. Charism
needs office the way a delicate plant needs a solid pot to hold it.
Church is community and institution—the former being the goal of
the latter, the latter holding the promise of the former. Freedom
needs order, and order needs freedom in the church. We need
neither a supercharged church without discipline nor a lifeless
church without Spirit. Renewal needs wise oversight to protect it
from abuse. It needs leaders who encourage and supervise the
ministries of the laity. Such leaders benefit the body when they are
visionary and create room for the Spirit.
At the same time, leaders can impede renewal if they are unduly
cautious. Rigidity can set in when a certain kind of order is preferred
to the disorder of the divine presence and when the word is preferred
to the Spirit. Leaders are sometimes nervous about Spirit, which may
explain why revivals usually break out in communities less hampered
by office. The way of the institution may make it necessary for God
to work at the fringes, with the people others look down on, because
they are open. God’s strategy may be to stir the fire outside the
mainline churches where people are more open to it, with a view to
moving it back into those churches later, after the fruit is tested and
those who are slow to receive are softened.55
Paul experienced the problem of maintaining order where freedom
was operating. He exercised his own authority as an apostle and
commended various offices of teaching and oversight, while
exhorting the people to evaluate what they were hearing.56 It was
and is a delicate balance. Leaders are important to the community,
yet community must not be too tightly controlled. Leaders should not
be trying to control everything but foster life and discern gifts of those
under their care. Ideally there should be a harmonious synergism of
gift and office, a dialectic of charism and institution, for the Spirit is
160
given not only to officeholders but to the whole congregation. Laity
should respect leaders, but everyone should also listen to prophets
and honor gifts of faith. The work of officeholders is to foster the
charisms of the community and harmonize them for the common
good.57
Renewal in the Spirit promises enrichment for the churches. True,
mistakes have been made and divisions created in the course of
renewal. It is not always a happy situation. Misunderstandings
happen owing to historical circumstance, and separated ecclesial
communities are formed. Nevertheless, the goal is unity and
empowerment. The goal is not to divide but to bless the church. God
grant, in the not too distant future, that renewal will be integrated into
mainline churches and result in the revitalization of Christianity as a
world movement.58
161
Transforming Mission
What has been said about the church as the continuation of Jesus’
anointing and the Spirit as present in sacramental and charismatic
ways all has to do with mission. God did not pour the Spirit out for us
to exult in it as a private benefit. The purpose was (and is) to
empower witnesses to God’s kingdom (Acts 1:8). God justifies and
saves individuals only to give them a vocation in the service of the
kingdom. He awakens a knowledge of the truth in people in order to
conscript them into the service of mission. God wants a community
that, like Jesus, gets caught up in the transformation of the world.
The church is the provisional representation of God’s call to
humanity, and like Jesus it exists for the world and nonmembers of
the church.59
Vocation is so important—and so neglected. We are saved not just
for our own benefit but to become disciples of Jesus who bear
witness to and embody the coming kingdom. We have been brought
into the representative journey of Jesus in order to live in ways that
contrast to worldly ways. Otherwise the salt loses its savor, and we
become conformed to the world (Rom 12:2). Christians are called to
live the life of beatitude, the life that anticipates and prefigures new
creation (Mt 5:3-10). When we forget this, the spiritual life becomes
empty and its point is lost. It leads to the very unreality of so much
Christian living. Though Jesus gave us a vocation, multitudes live as
though they had none. Believers are often frustrated because they
belong to churches that are not clear about mission. Normally they
would discover their vocations within the fruit-bearing activities of the
community. But if a congregation has forgotten its own vocation to be
a continuation of Jesus’ anointing, its members become confused
and may be sucked back into worldly patterns for want of vision and
structures of accountability.
A major hindrance to mission is the lack of interest in discipleship
on the part of many Christians. No one is naturally disposed to join
162
Jesus in the business of confronting the powers of evil or in the
costly action of embodying the new order. It is hard to market a
mission that goes beyond appealing for faith and advocates
practicing the way of Jesus in the world. It is almost impossible
unless the church keeps the vision alive and before us.60
The Spirit comes in power through sacrament and charism to
enable the church to participate in God’s mission of mending
creation and making all things new. The church is placed at the
disposal of the Spirit and commissioned to serve the kingdom in the
world. The Spirit is present in order that the world might be touched
by divine grace. We have been called out of darkness into marvelous
light to declare God’s mighty deeds (1 Pet 2:9). The challenge facing
the church is not theory but practice—not so much showing that
Christianity is intellectually plausible as enacting the gospel in
recognizable signs of the kingdom.61
Mission is a Spirit event—it is God’s mission, not ours. It is not a
duty following the work of Christ but is itself God’s work. Pentecost
was an act of God that initiated the new age, which is to be the
sphere of God’s new actions. It was a historical turning point and the
beginning of the end-time harvest. Indeed, mission is a sign of the
end. “This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout
the world, … and then the end will come” (Mt 24:14). Spirit is the
power behind mission, and the church is an instrument of it, not its
initiator. The church can participate in God’s mission only if it has the
power of Pentecost (Lk 24:49).
Mission is not human effort responding to a commandment. It is
not even obedience to the Great Commission. It is natural and
spontaneous. Only after the Spirit fell did the disciples speak (Acts
2:4). The Spirit creates a witnessing church. “It is not you who speak,
but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Mt 10:20).
Spreading the gospel is dependent not on human wisdom and
strength but on a demonstration of Spirit and power (1 Cor 2:4-5).
Mission is not something we do to expand the size of the church; it is
something God does to gather and bring justice to the nations. The
Spirit is not the sustainer of the church but the driving power of its
mission. The main thing for us to do is place ourselves at the Spirit’s
disposal.62
163
The goal is world transformation. “See, I am making all things
new” (Rev 21:5). The church, filled with the Spirit, is agent of God’s
coming kingdom and sacrament for the world. God touches the world
when the church speaks the truth, proclaims good news, performs
Jesus-actions, identifies with pain, builds community, shares and
forgives.63 The mission is holistic and has broad parameters.
Spiritual ecstasy is not meant to be an end in itself—the goal is
transformation. The purpose of the outpouring of the Spirit is to bring
the kingdom near and change real-life situations. Mission is an
activity that initiates people into the kingdom and promotes the
reality of the new order.64
In early texts the Spirit clothes judges like Gideon and Sampson
with power to rescue people from oppression. In Isaiah’s prophecy,
Spirit commissions the servant to bring justice and mercy to nations.
He wants to restore community, transform life and instill hope. In
Joel’s prophecy, Spirit acts on behalf of the weak and powerless,
giving the disenfranchised a voice. The theme of liberation is central
in Jesus’ ministry. He rejects charismatic actions done in his name if
they do not promote the will of God (Mt 7:21). For Paul too, the
purpose of spiritual gifts, including spectacular ones, is fostering
deeds of love (1 Cor 13:1-3). Gifts are like a pipe down which love is
to flow. Spirit is about renewing life and creating community in order
to benefit people. The Spirit becomes tangible in the deeds of love
that function like sacraments in the world.
The power of the Spirit is given to help the church become a
servant who follows the sacrificial path of Jesus. The believers have
said yes to Christ’s representative journey on behalf of humankind,
and God’s strategy now is to create out of them a new community
marked by deeds of love and caring that anticipate the coming
kingdom. We look not only for the salvation of souls but for the
redemption of creation. Our goal is not to triumph in world politics but
to live the life of beatitude, in which blessings of the age are
prefigured in this world. Discontented with existing realities, we put
our hope in the God who raises the dead. We say: Come, Lord, send
your power, make us whole. We love your kingdom—we want to see
more of it.65
164
The Spirit can throw a wonderful party. He can set our hearts on
fire and fill our mouths with songs of praise. But the goal remains the
gathering of the nations and the transformation of creation.
Sacramental and charismatic grace is wonderful, full of awe and
delight, but still the goal is the formation of compassionate, truthful,
tender creatures. Spirit is longing for more redeemed human beings
like Mary, mother of Jesus, who wait patiently at his cross, full of love
for him and for the world.
We need renewal not because we are bored but because a
powerless church cannot become a mighty army. Disciples who are
discouraged and enjoy no intimacy with God will not be able to follow
Jesus in costly ways. Not until they know God as their Father, as
Jesus knew him, and taste God’s kindness. To become kind and
loving, we must know God’s love and kindness. We need grace to
help others in their infirmities. The Spirit awakens us to life to enable
us to liberate others.66
Spirit may be mysterious, but we are not left in the dark about his
goals. The Spirit is not a mystical presence beyond any
comprehension. Yes, Spirit is invisible and beyond our control, but
that does not mean he is incomprehensible. Spirit wants God’s will
done on earth as in heaven—justice, mercy and love. This is
demanding, but it is not mysterious. If we are open to the Spirit, we
must also be open to the goals of the Spirit. “If we live by the Spirit,
let us also be guided by the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). Spirit brings us into
intimacy with God, not to foster mystical rapture as an end in itself
but to sensitize us to the will of God. Spirit wants us to follow Jesus
and embody the kingdom in our lives and relationships.67
165
Empowered Mission
We are called to holistic mission in the power of God. Our own
baptism in the Spirit is a prolongation of Jesus’ baptism, and our
mission is an extension of his mission. Jesus is looking for laborers
to enter the vineyard and carry it forward (Mt 9:37). This involves
proclaiming the gospel, healing the sick and caring for needs. We
cannot love our neighbors without caring for their needs. We cannot
teach converts to observe all of Christ’s teachings without attending
to human needs. After Pentecost, human situations were
transformed when the Spirit came in power (Acts 2:43-45; 4:32-35).
It will be always SO.68
Because mission is holistic, it must be empowered—it simply
cannot be carried out by our human wisdom and strength alone.
Actions have to be initiated and empowered by the Spirit. The
Shepherd has to go on ahead of us. There is a partnership in which
the Spirit is the leading player and we are junior partners and
instruments. It is God’s mission, and we are being caught up in it.
The Spirit bears witness, and you also (Jn 15:26-27). When the New
Testament describes the disciples as ordinary, uneducated people,
afraid and often lacking understanding, is it not telling us that
participation in mission does not depend on being talented and well
educated (Acts 4:13)? Does it not prove that any success they
enjoyed was not due to them but to God? If there was greatness in
the disciples, surely it was not their ability but their openness to the
Spirit. It was baptism in the Spirit that enabled them to give
testimony to Jesus Christ. This reminder can help us deal with our
own feelings of inadequacy in the face of the task. What a relief to
know God uses weak people! This underscores how crucial it is to
maintain a good relationship with the Spirit.
The shape of empowered mission is not arrived at ideologically or
even pragmatically. In mission we ask not just “Is this action good
and necessary?” We also ask, “Where is God leading? Is this God’s
166
undertaking?” There are no rules and regulations for mission,
because Spirit leadership is central. Mission is not social work but
deeds directed and empowered by the Spirit. Through the gifting of
the whole congregation, the church is enabled to express its
missionary character as it speaks the Word and ministers in the
power of God (1 Pet 4:10-11). Apostles and evangelists plant
churches, accompanied by signs and wonders; prophets speak the
word of God to specific situations; those with the gift of faith point the
way forward. The Spirit motivates and equips the church to move in
mission.69
The world did not set the agenda for Jesus. People could not
predict what he would do next, because he had no plan but sought
what the Father wanted. He did not operate from a program. Need
alone did not constitute the divine call. He waited for God’s urging
and the Spirit’s guiding. In the same way, the church should not go
where God is not leading or become involved just because the world
tells us to. There is no formula or doctrine of the church’s role in
society. The church lives out its witness in concrete historical
situations, waiting for God to lead. There is a role for thinking about
what to do next, but this thinking should be always done in the
context of waiting on God.
Prayer is evidence of dependency on God. In prayer we envisage
a new future, and we protest the world order as it is. We stand
against darkness and invoke God’s light. Using weapons of the
Spirit, we pull down strongholds and join the uprising against the
present disorder. Prayer shows that we belong to a different order of
reality which defies the powers of evil and anticipates the kingdoms
of this world becoming the kingdom of Christ (Rev 11:15). History
belongs to intercessors, because history belongs to God.70
Mission is holistic because sin is more than personal infraction.
Sin affects the structures of the world, and we oppose sin in all its
manifestations, including our own complicity in what is wrong.
Conversion points, then, not only to individual change but beyond to
the coming transformation of the world. Since we are creatures in
society and in a world, God wants to renew both us and our created
context. If God did not intend that, he would be tackling only half the
problem. Social sanctification and cosmic renewal are ultimately part
167
of God’s plan. This can begin to happen as the church injects values
of God’s kingdom into the public square and improves the climate for
them. As salt and light, the church is a catalyst for righteousness in
society. Many benefits exist in society because of Jesus Christ. The
church can be a means by which God’s kingdom gets its foothold in
the world.71
At the same time, there is a certain powerlessness in the
messianic way of bringing justice. The servant of the Lord does not
cry in the street and does not quench the dimly burning wick (Is 42:2-
3). He has authority, but it is the authority of one who suffers and one
who is politically powerless. In the temptations Jesus rejected
worldly ways of power and chose the path of suffering love. His hope
for worldly change was based on the presence of new community.
This approach need not lead to disengagement for fear of
accommodation. Instead we choose a different sort of engagement.
The nonviolent messianic community penetrates the social order in
its own fashion.72
A mission whose goal is the transformation of the world is
stupendous. A powerless church can hardly consider it. It
presupposes the anointing and empowerment of Spirit. May the
Spirit quicken in us a fresh vision, so that we see ourselves as a
continuation of Jesus’ anointing, are enriched with the entire
charismatic structure and remember the transforming mission of
Jesus.
God has broken into history—the new age has begun. We wait for
the consummation of history and hope for the glory of God. We are
neither optimistic or pessimistic about the world, but wait in hope,
serving the Lord. As the church echoes trinitarian relations, it models
the coming kingdom and prefigures the destiny of humanity.
168
FIVE
SPIRIT & UNION
WHEN WE LOOK AT salvation from the standpoint of the Spirit, we
view it in relational, affective terms. Every religion on earth has its
idea about the goal of life. Martin Luther’s experience of salvation as
justification has skewed the Christian understanding somewhat
toward legal terms. Emphasis has been placed on the sinner’s
change of status, from guilty to not guilty, rather than on personal
union with God. While Luther caught an aspect of the truth, a more
relational model is required. Spirit is leading us to union—to
transforming, personal, intimate relationship with the triune God.
“This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (Jn 17:3). Jesus adds, “That the
love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them” (v.
26). As the psalmist says, “Lord, you have been our dwelling place in
all generations” (Ps 90:1).
Let us explore salvation now as the beatific vision, as the embrace
of God. Bernard of Clairvaux was eloquent on this theme. He writes
in a sermon on the Song of Songs, “If the Father kisses the Son and
the Son receives the kiss, it is appropriate to think of the Holy Spirit
as the kiss” (“Holy Spirit: Kiss of the Mouth,” sermon 8). Salvation is
directed toward the loving embrace of God.1
Obviously salvation is multifaceted and has many dimensions—
conversion, new birth, justification and sanctification—but the goal is
surely glorification and union with God. Luther fixed on something
very important—the removal of our condemnation. But this is but a
facet of salvation, part of a much larger scenario. Salvation is the
Spirit, who indwells us, drawing us toward participation in the life of
the triune God. The goal is union with God at the marriage supper of
the Lamb. Thus Jesus prays, “Father, I desire that those also, whom
you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory,
which you have given me because you loved me before the
foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24).
169
This image of salvation is captured in the parable of the prodigal,
whose father longs for him to return to his bosom. It is a picture of
God, who is a relationality of love, working to bring lost humanity into
loving union with himself in the fellowship of Father, Son and Spirit.
God intends to elevate humanity to life with God, and this is what we
are beginning to experience on earth. We are destined to find our
true selves in God, in whom we live and move and have our being.
Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, and Spirit sweeps us up into the
love of God. Walking in the Spirit, we become ever better acquainted
with the love that surpasses knowledge and are filled with the divine
fullness (Eph 3:16-19). The Spirit summons us to a transforming
friendship with God that leads to sharing in the triune life. Thanks to
the grace of Christ and the love of God, the Spirit dwells in us and
unites us to the corporate triune fellowship (2 Cor 13:13)-and this
divine work characterizes the last days before the new creation.2
To think of salvation in this way is to recover what early
theologians called theosis. This category invites us to think of the
goal of salvation as participation in the divine nature, in a way that
preserves distinctions proper to Creator and creature without losing
sight of their union. Paul calls this sharing the glory of God: “Since
we are justified by faith, we have peace with God … [and] access to
this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing
the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2).3
The Reformation made justification the focus in the polemical
situation it faced. Rome had lost sight of the truth, and Luther’s
achievement was to have recovered it. Today the Catholic Church
admits Luther’s insight. But acquittal before God is only the
beginning, not the end of salvation. After being justified, we enter the
process of being conformed to Christ and anticipate sharing God’s
glory in the new community and new creation. This has been the
emphasis of Orthodoxy: our identity is found in relationship with God.
The goal is immersion in the richness of the divine life. Theosis is the
source of what C. S. Lewis calls the inconsolable longing in us.
Ecstasy awaits us. We are not just being pardoned but are being
transformed and divinized. Christ is being formed in us (Gal 4:19).4
Peter gives it classic expression: Christians are becoming
“participants of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).5 The destiny of the
170
community is to be embraced in triune life as its final condition. This
lies behind what Paul says when he claims that love (not faith or
hope) abides forever. Though faith will be replaced by sight and
hope by fulfillment, love is everlasting and is never surpassed. By
faith we take hold of grace and by hope we wait patiently for it, but
love is the very nature of God and therefore the environment of
eternity. Love characterizes life in the age to come. We will sit down
at table in the kingdom and occupy the place prepared for us (Jn
14:3; Rev 19:7). Second Peter 1:4 is not an isolated thought or
throwaway line but enunciates a fundamental biblical teaching—what
Paul speaks of as being united to Christ and John speaks of as a
mutual indwelling in God. Union with God is not peripheral to
salvation but the goal. Hope for it is kindled in our hearts by the
Spirit.6
Pope John Paul II writes, “Man is called to a fullness of life which
far exceeds the dimensions of earthly existence, because it consists
in sharing the life of God.” If we appreciated the prospect of union
with God more, we would not think to complain as much about the
arduousness of the journey. We are strangers and exiles in the
world, but in the end we are going home to be enfolded in trinitarian
life.7
Note that in the flow of this book I am choosing to treat the
salvation of individuals after the doctrine of the church. This is not
due to a devaluation of the personal aspects of salvation.
Remember, the shepherd leaves the ninety and nine to look for one
single lost sheep. God loves individuals and numbers the very hairs
on each one’s head. Every individual is precious to God. No, I place
the personal after the corporate in view of the fact that individuals
are shaped in communities. One becomes a person in relationship
with other persons, not otherwise. John Donne was right to say no
man is an island, because the self is a delicate flower that requires a
social context in order to flourish. A child raised by wolves would not
become a person, though the potential to become one is there.
Similarly, one becomes a Christian by coming into contact with the
church—by hearing the good news, encountering the presence of
God in the people or in some other way. If there were no church,
171
there would be no Christians either. Church is the sacrament of God
which brings his presence near.8
172
Union with God
The purpose of life is a transforming friendship and union with God.
United to Christ in his participatory journey, we are on the path to
share in God’s life through death and resurrection. The living flame
of love is preparing souls for union with love. Jesus speaks of this
oneness: “The glory that you have given me I have given them, so
that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that
they may become completely one, so that the world may know that
you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me”
(Jn 17:22-23).9
Union with God is a state of intimacy, and sexual imagery may be
used for it. Paul says that the love of male and female points to the
mystery of Christ’s love for us (Eph 5:31). The reason we should
reject prostitution is that we are one with the Lord (1 Cor 6:15-19).
Salvation itself aims at a wedding (Rev 19:9). The new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven, is prepared as a bride for her husband
(Rev 21:2). The angel says to John, “Come, I will show you the
bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev 21:9). This strong imagery links
salvation to the fulfillment of our deep desires as gendered
creatures. Picking up on it, spiritual writers such as John of the
Cross comment at length on the Song of Songs. They see salvation
as a mystical loving union in which, without losing identity, one
experiences interpersonal union and communion with God
(Philokalia 2.216). It is beautifully expressed by Bernard of Clairvaux:
Jesus, the very thought of thee
With sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far thy face to see,
And in thy presence rest.
The Eucharist prefigures the wedding banquet. Breaking bread and
drinking wine are tangible signs of our future feast with Christ (Lk
173
14:15). For this reason Communion should be a celebration, not a
sad memorial. Orthodox liturgy captures the spirit of celebration
implicit in the sacrament: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made
herself ready.”10 This is really what atonement means. The term
atonement, which is used only once in the King James Version of the
New Testament, is an old expression meaning “at-one-ment” and is
usually translated “reconciliation” (Rom 5:11). It speaks of unity
between God and humanity. Owing to its association in theology with
theories of the work of Christ, it has lost some of its original relational
content. Actually the word atonement speaks to us of the loving
relationality into which the Spirit is drawing people. Spirit is bringing
us into intimacy with the Father through the Son, who is sharing his
divine sonship with us.
Spirit calls us to become children of God in and alongside the Son
and to join in his self-surrender to the Father. Always the object of
the Father’s love, the Son has always reciprocated it in the Spirit.
God invites creatures to participate in this divine dance of loving
communion. God has not left us outside the circle of his life. We are
invited inside the Trinity as joint heirs together with Christ. By the
Spirit we cry “Abba” together with the Son, as we are drawn into the
divine filial relationship and begin to participate in God’s life. Union
with God is the unimaginable fulfillment of creaturely life, and the
Spirit is effecting it in us. This is what the church fathers meant when
they said, “God became man, that man might become God”
(Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.19.1; Athanasius On the Incarnation
2.54).11
We worship the God who descended to the depths of our fallen
condition and opened a path of ascent to union. The purpose of our
creation was fellowship with God, to be children of God with the Son.
God sent forth the Son to make this possible and the Spirit to share
the experience of sonship with us (Gal 4:4-7). As a result of the
hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, our human nature has
been restored and made capable of participation in God.
What we call union (theosis or divinization) is not pantheism—
there is no absorption of the person in God. By the grace of God and
as creatures we participate in him. United to Christ without becoming
174
Christ, we are also united to God without becoming God. It is a
personal union in which the distinction between Creator and creature
is maintained. We enter the dance of the Trinity not as equals but as
adopted partners. When Peter says we participate in the divine
nature, he is indicating not ontological union but union in resurrected
bodies. This is a personal union, not an ontological union. It does not
deny the distinction between God and creature or make God the only
reality. As the Persons of the Trinity dwell in and with one another, so
we, created in the image of God, dwell in and with God, sharing the
life of the Trinity and experiencing movements of love passing
between the Persons.12
As we clarify our own thinking in this regard, let us not jump to
conclusions about what Eastern religions may intend when they
speak of absorption into the infinite or the divine. Even Hinduism,
which sounds monistic and nondualistic, speaks dialectically. It is not
always clear that nonduality is meant. Sankara, who understands
God to be beyond conceptual reach and salvation as union, can
sound rather Christian at times. We need to be clear about what we
intend and patient to hear what others wish to say. It may be that
when we celebrate union with God as the goal of salvation, we have
something in common not only with the Eastern churches but also
with non-Christian Eastern religions. There may be more
commonality than we thought in this area. Believing in the prevenient
grace of God as we do, we would find this cause for thankfulness,
because it could open up more fruitful dialogue and enhance our
witness among the peoples of India.13
Union with God begins on earth and is not reserved entirely for the
future. We experience it when we are caught up in the life of God
(while remaining ourselves) in prayer. Praying with the help of the
Spirit, we begin to participate in the triune life, standing before the
Father, in union with Christ, through the Spirit. Or, as Paul says, “It is
no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).
Believers, in Christ by the Spirit, are beginning to participate in God
and experience the love pouring from the Father to the Son. Washed
by waves of delight, we return love with the Son, waiting in the
presence of God, and Spirit intercedes within us. In this life we are
175
beginning to experience union with God. We are coming into the
fullness of God (Col 2:9-10).14
Union with God is not limited to spirits. The creation does not
disappear or nature go into oblivion. The goal is new creation, a
transfigured universe where righteousness and peace dwell. It is a
new Jerusalem that we hope for, where resurrected saints inhabit the
cosmos set free from its groaning (Rom 8:23). The goal of union is
not a one-dimensional union of spirits but a multidimensional
consummation of creaturely existence in God.15
176
Justification and Theosis
Union with God was not the central category for the Reformers. As a
monk Luther feared God’s judgment and sought acquittal in Jesus
Christ. Since then Protestants have made justification a principal
article of faith. This means that the legal dimension has dominated
our thinking about salvation.16 Being forgiven and acquitted is no
doubt important. Justification is a moment in salvation, but not
necessarily the central motif. Since we have been forgiven, our eyes
are on the goal of union with the love of God. Christian experience is
more than a feeling of relief at having evaded divine retribution.
Justification is a step along the road of salvation, but it points forward
to transformation and union. It is not the principal article of all
Christian doctrine, as Luther claimed. It captures a truth—the truth of
God’s unmerited favor—but it cannot be the model of salvation as a
whole. Being saved is more like falling in love with God.17
The fact is that legal thinking and the doctrine of justification are
not as prominent in the Bible as we have made them. God is not
primarily an angry judge needing satisfaction but a passionate lover
seeking at-one-ment. Justification is a Pauline concept in Romans
and Galatians, but it plays a smaller role even in his epistles than it
did for the Reformation. Even in those epistles it features in a debate
over Gentiles and the Jewish law. Luther’s rediscovery of justification
was important for himself and for sixteenth-century reforms, but it is
not as central for us, and not even for an astute interpretation of
Paul’s theology. Unlike Luther, the apostle did not have a guilty
conscience. As a Jew, he considered himself blameless before the
law (Phil 3:6). Justification for him had less to do with a guilty
conscience than with the new age inaugurated by the resurrection of
Jesus.18
God’s righteousness for Paul is not a threat requiring
appeasement. In Greco-Roman thought, justice was a strict norm
against which one is judged innocent or guilty. But in Hebrew
177
thought, righteousness is a term indicating God’s saving activity. God
is “righteous” because he sustains creation and enables it to flourish.
The righteous God goes the second mile to heal broken
relationships. We are justified by faith when we surrender to God’s
saving righteousness, which assures us of final vindication. In
justifying sinners God is not engaging in fantasies but declaring that
they have been incorporated into the victory of Jesus Christ. For
Paul, justification tells us how God accepts Gentiles. God accepts
them the same way he accepts Jews—by grace through faith. By
electing Israel, God intended to bless Gentiles, and he is doing so by
the saving action of righteousness in Jesus Christ. Salvation, then, is
more than relief at not being condemned; it sweeps us up into the
love of God for participation in the divine nature.19
The key thing is that salvation involves transformation. It is not
cheap grace, based on bare assent to propositions, or merely a
change of status. Romans 5 with its doctrine of justification is
followed by Romans 6 with its promise of union. It is not just a matter
of balancing two ideas; it is a matter of never conceiving of the
former without its goal in the latter. For the justified person is
baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there is
no newness of life, if there is no union with Christ, if there is no
coming out from under the dominion of sin, there is no salvation.20
178
Awakening to Love
If salvation is union, conversion is awakening to love. The Father
longs for the return of his sons and daughters. He cries, “Sleeper,
awake! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (Eph 5:14).
He wants us to come to ourselves and awaken to love, to remember
our destiny and return home with Jesus, the true prodigal. The Spirit
is wooing human beings to come into their proper destiny and come
home to God’s love. Let them not reject God’s purpose for them but
acknowledge their sins and believe the good news (Mk 1:15; Lk
7:30).21
Love woos—it does not compel. Conversion is not coerced.
We are saved by grace through faith; a response is involved.
Genesis records that Abram “believed the LORD, and the LORD
reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). Faith pleases God,
and he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6). God took the
initiative, but Abram responded. Pleased by his response, God made
him a partner in the work of redemption.
God convicts and moves us toward intimacy. His Word is powerful,
but there must be a response to it. God does not overpower but
saves those who yield to his persuasion. God lays hold, but sinners
must also consent to be laid hold of. They must let God renew them.
Like Cain, prey to the power of sin, we are reminded of our freedom.
Cain was free in the face of sin to repudiate it. “Its desire is for you,
but you must master it” (Gen 4:7).22
We are not in a position to give God much that he needs. But
there is one thing he wants from us that nobody else can give. And if
we do not give it, he will not receive it. I refer to our personal love.
God can have our love only if we decide to give it. God made us to
love him, and the key issue is what we decide to do with that
freedom. God empowers but does not overpower. Grace works
mightily but does not override. God is a loving parent, not a tyrant.
179
One can be saved only by grace, but grace saves no one who does
not respond.23
God acts in history in concurrence with temporal givens and finite
agents. It is possible to cooperate with God and work in line with
God’s purposes or to refuse. Whether large or small, the human
factor is taken into account.24 Even Jesus’ miracles could not compel
faith in people with no openness. Even witnessing a miracle does not
force a person to interpret it as a divine sign. It might be attributed to
Satan or ignored altogether (Mk 3:22). Signs and wonders are
ambiguous in the absence of openness (Jn 2:23). This is because it
is love’s way not to overpower but to be gentle and persuade. God
gave human beings freedom, and he respects it. Grace is offered but
must be accepted.25
Spirit may draw, but people must consent. The Spirit helps us, but
we are also coworkers with God (2 Cor 6:1; Phil 1:19). We work out
our salvation, while God is at work in us (Phil 2:12-13). In conversion
there is an interplay of grace and assent. Heaven rejoices when
someone turns to God, because it is never a foregone conclusion.
Conversion is not predestined but arises from free response.
Therefore the angels delight when sinners respond to grace. The
father did not stop the prodigal from leaving home and did not
compel him to return. In his leaving and his returning, his liberty was
respected.
The heavenly Father deals with us as sons and daughters (Heb
12:7). A good parent does not try to control his children but teaches
them how to use their freedom properly. A parent has authority over
children but should not wield it as a tyrant. Parents lay out a possible
future but do not and cannot make their child choose it. They lay
guidelines down but cannot determine the outcome. God is not all-
determining, and God’s grace is not irresistible. He lets the prodigal
go and rejoices when he returns. This philosophy is reflected in
Jesus’ word to Jerusalem: “I would have gathered you, but you were
not willing” (see Mt 23:37). He offered himself to them but became
the stone that the builders rejected (Mt 21:42).
We are invited to the feast—but will we come? The Son has taken
a redemptive journey—but will we participate in it? Grace initiates,
but we have to respond. Spirit prepares the sinner to be disposed for
180
relationship, but the outcome is not assured. People may resist
God’s overtures. Stephen lamented, “You are forever opposing the
Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). God wants to hear the yes he heard from
Mary and from Mary’s son. He rejoices in Peter’s yes and mourns
over Judas’s no. Grace draws but does not compel. God works
within us, but we may stifle the invitation and shut ourselves off. As
Paul said, “By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace
toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder
than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is
with me” (1 Cor 15:10).
From Mary we learn to respond to God’s initiative. The Spirit
showered grace on her because she was open. So the Spirit came
upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her (Lk
1:35). Mary responded by faith to God’s grace. She listened to the
promptings of the Spirit; therefore she is blessed among women (Lk
1:42).26
181
Depravity and Responsibility
Some theologians do not think sinners are able to respond to God.
How can they do so if they are dead in sins? (Eph 2:1). The only way
they can respond is by being re-created first. They must be
regenerated and effectually called before they can say yes to God.
Some take sola gratia to mean that conversion is an act of divine
monergism—God does it all. Augustine came to this conclusion in
reaction to Pelagius, and Luther followed him in concluding that
sinners are so completely captive to sin that they cannot even call
out for divine help. Persons are not able to believe, he said, because
of the bondage of the will. They are not free to love God unless their
will is replaced. Sinners have to be reprogrammed to respond. But
this is not so much salvation by grace “through faith” as it is salvation
without faith. Sinners are compelled to have faith by irresistible
grace, which programs it. In this view it is not so much that sinners
are drowning as that they are dead and unable to cry for help.
Sinners cannot respond positively to God because they are
unconscious of any divine initiative.27
There is no pure freedom, and sin is indeed a problem of the will.
But this does not require irresistible grace and does not cancel
human responsibility. Paul has it right: “Wretched man that I am!
Who will rescue me … ? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our
Lord!” (Rom 7:24-25). Sin is indeed powerful, but sinners are able to
respond to grace. In the parable of the wedding feast, when the
invited guests refuse to attend, the king tells the servants to invite
everybody to come who wants to (Mt 22:3, 9). Obviously these
people are thought of as capable of responding. In the parable of the
pearl, the merchant is not dead but an agent actively searching.
Indeed, he seeks the pearl with energy until he finds it. In another
parable God is looking for receptive hearts as the fertile soil in which
to plant his word. For Paul the grace of God was not in vain because
he responded to it (1 Cor 15:10). The Galatians are asked how they
182
received the Spirit; the answer is that they received it by faith (Gal
3:2).28
What does it mean, then, that sinners are dead in sins? It does not
mean they are corpses. For Paul goes on to say elsewhere that
sinners are walking according to the prince of darkness (Eph 2:2)
and can exercise faith and be made alive by Christ (Eph 2:8). Their
deadness is not an inability to believe but an inability to merit God’s
favor. Paul makes this explicit: “You were… raised with him through
faith in the power of God” (Col 2:12). The Colossians’ faith,
expressed in baptism, was the vehicle of receiving the new life. Paul
does not say to the Philippian jailer, “Be saved and then believe”; he
says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts
16:31). Scripture everywhere assumes our ability to call on God and
everywhere holds us responsible on account of it. We are influenced
by God, by environment, by nature and more. Many factors affect
our culpability, but in the last analysis we are accountable.
Our accountability is part of what it means to be made in the
image of God. We are structured in such a way as to be able to
respond to him. This is fundamental to human dignity and has not
been destroyed by sin. God invites us to turn to God because we
can turn. Otherwise he would be mocking us. His invitations are
addressed to everyone. Jesus does not say, “Come unto me—if you
are elect.” He says, “Whosoever will may come.” There is an ember
of the image of God still in us, and the Spirit blows upon it. People
have capacity for the faith God looks for. The Spirit woos us but does
not impose on us.
Eastern Orthodoxy has always rejected any doctrine of grace that
denies freedom, because freedom is essential to the image of God in
us. We require grace to enter into fellowship with God, but we have a
part to play. Salvation requires the operation of both grace and the
human will.29
The Greek fathers before Augustine took this view. Faced with
fatalism in the pagan world, they defended human freedom. As I
noted earlier, it was Augustine who introduced the notion that sinners
cannot respond, and Luther extended it in Bondage of the Will. He
argued, for example, that because God foreknows everything,
everything happens by necessity, including any human responses.
183
Fortunately the Lutheran confessions and Luther’s disciple Philipp
Melanchthon did not accept this extreme doctrine.30 The Council of
Trent spoke of prevenient grace, which assists sinners to conversion
if they assent and cooperate with it. Without grace one cannot move
toward faith, but with it, one can do so (6.5). Grace is not irresistible.
God initiates salvation, but it does not take hold apart from our
response. God’s grace is like a river sweeping objects ahead of it,
but sinners can still cling to the banks to avoid being swept along.31
Sinners recapitulate Adam’s decision and identify with the fallen
Adamic solidarity. Thus they are responsible agents. Jesus invites
sinners to repudiate Adam and to emulate his own obedience,
identifying with the new humanity. The capacity to make the choice
indeed arises out of and is made possible by an encounter with
grace, but without salvation being forced on anyone. Salvation is a
gift to be received. Creatures are not left to themselves, but God
does not override their choices; God values the relative autonomy he
gave to humankind, despite the risks that accompany it.32
Apart from grace there cannot be faith, but faith is authentically a
human response and act of cooperation. Faith does not make grace
unnecessary, and grace does not make faith automatic. Grace is
powerful but may be frustrated by refusal. Faith is gift and human
act. Even in the ministry of Jesus, grace could be accepted or
rejected. At the same time, our liberty needs to be sanctified. The will
is grievously affected by sin and needs to mature in holiness. We
need to grow in our freedom because we do not yet desire the good
as we ought to. Liberty needs to be trained and directed toward
goodness (Tit 2:12).33
Though God does not normally overpower people, I do not deny
that it sometimes seems that he does. God brought a lot of power to
bear on Saul on the road to Damascus, such that he fell down before
it. It was a strong call. At the same time there was a response even
here, for Paul says that God’s grace was not “in vain,” that “I was not
disobedient” and that “Christ Jesus … judged me faithful” (1 Cor
15:10; Acts 26:19; 1 Tim 1:12).
More striking was the Gadarene, who was in no position to ask for
grace until he was delivered of the legion of demons. There are
people in this world who are incapable of giving a response to God,
184
such as the severely mentally challenged. We must not be
doctrinaire about what God is free to do in such situations to magnify
his grace. He is not obliged to respect our freedom, even if he
usually does so.
What I want to focus on is God’s desire to be loved in a
nonprogrammed way. He asks us, “Do you love me?” Our whole life
is our answer to that question. At every point in the journey is an
opportunity to say yes or no. God treats us as significant agents—
that is why the human response is integral to conversion. The proof
of this is hell: the only reason for it is the fact that God honors our
freedom that much. He refuses to override a no even though he
would dearly love to.
185
Event of the Spirit
Spirit is Lord and giver of life, in creation and new creation. Spirit
gives us creaturely vitality and resurrection newness. Spirit
indwelling is a mark of a Christian (Rom 8:9). New life is sharing in
the Spirit (Phil 2:1; Heb 6:4). Created spirit is touched by uncreated
Spirit, who introduces it to the living God. “The true aim of the
Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit” (St. Seraphim of
Sarov). Let us continue to view salvation as Spirit event.34
We have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.
Our baptism in the Spirit links us to the Lord’s journey and anoints us
for his ministry. “God … has anointed us, by putting his seal on us
and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment” (2 Cor
1:21-22). In effect, as Jesus became Christ by being anointed by the
Spirit, so it is with us. It sounds odd, but Paul’s words imply that we
have been anointed as “little Christs” alongside Jesus. This makes
plain what the purpose of anointing is: not to excite religious
affections as ends in themselves but to empower people to follow
Jesus on his path. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (Jn
20:21). We are anointed as disciples of Jesus. Spirit stirs a passion
for God in us with the purpose of our following Jesus and becoming
like him.
The Spirit fires the affections, warms the heart and makes the face
shine. But “spiritual delicacies,” as John of the Cross calls them, are
not given for excitement value but for fruitfulness. The purpose is to
fire us up in the service of God. Augustine writes, “If it pleases you to
clap and shout for joy when you hear God’s love for you declared, it
is well and good! But, if it excites you to praise his love in this way, I
hope you will be just as excited when I say that love must be a force
that is at work in your heart, leading you to serve one another”
(Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10).
Conversion is an event of the life-giving Spirit (2 Cor 3:6). It is
living water within, springing up to eternal life (Jn 4:10, 14; 7:37-39).
186
The Risen Lord breathed on the apostles and said, “Receive the
Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22). This was reminiscent of God’s breathing life
into Adam’s nostrils and of the breath blowing over the valley of dead
bones. Jesus came that we might have life (Jn 10:10). To this end he
gives the Spirit to us. Paul’s conversion is described in terms of his
being filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17). Cornelius and his circle are
said to have been saved when the Spirit fell and they spoke in
tongues and extolled God (Acts 10:44, 46). The promised Spirit of
the end times is being poured out, and people are being introduced
to the age of messianic salvation.35
Spirit comes in the proclamation of the Word. More than a
cognitive issue, this creates a power encounter. Paul says, “Our
message… came to you not in word only, but in power and in the
Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess 1:5). In the same vein,
he speaks of what Christ accomplished through him in his mission to
the Gentiles: “by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders,
by the power of the Spirit of God” (Rom 15:18-19). The impact was
more than a result of impressive human wisdom. The Spirit removed
veils (2 Cor 3:16-18). There were demonstrations of Spirit and power
(1 Cor 2:4-5). It was power ministry: “For this I toil and struggle with
all the energy that he powerfully inspires within me” (Col 1:29). The
power of the word (likely a word of prophecy) serves as a sword in
the Spirit’s hands (Eph 6:17). The word in power can penetrate the
heart (Heb 4:12-13); it can lay its secrets bare (1 Cor 14:24-25). The
grace of God, though resistible, is a mighty river, seeking to carry
sinners along with it.36
Peter instructed converts to be baptized in order to receive the gift
of Spirit (Acts 2:38). Paul asked some at Ephesus whether they had
received the Spirit when converted. Hearing that they had not, he
baptized them in the name of Jesus and laid hands on them that the
Spirit might come. In the context of water baptism, the Spirit fell, and
they spoke in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:6). Paul asked the
Galatians about their experience of the Spirit too, whether they had
received the Spirit and seen any miracles (Gal 3:2, 4). The force of
these texts is that being Christian is bound up with having a
relationship with the Spirit. Believers are expected to have a
187
transforming encounter with the Spirit, which greatly affects their
lives.
One can see the importance of a vital encounter with God in
relation to religious certainty. Reason plays a role—there are
evidences in support of faith. But in the last analysis, it is a matter of
the heart. Faith stands not thanks to words of human wisdom, but by
God’s power. Reason can create a climate for faith but not take a
person over the threshold. Experiencing God has to be part of the
package. To be a real Christian is to be alive in the Spirit in a life-
transforming manner.
Therefore spirituality is a vital part of our witness. Each believer
should focus on the power of God at work in his or her life and
expect God to make him or her an instrument of the kingdom. As the
Spirit leads the church into mission, he leads each believer too. We
need to be sensitive to divine appointments day by day. We should
live with the expectancy that God will channel love through us. Spirit
does not promise feeling states of constant victory and exhilaration,
but to be present with gifts when needed for mission.
It seems to me that most of us are not all that clear about salvation
as a Spirit event. I say that because of the language we normally use
for conversion. It is more common to hear people speak of converts
“receiving Christ” than of receiving the Spirit, though the New
Testament speaks otherwise. How many references actually speak
of receiving Christ? We appeal to Revelation 3:20, where Christ
knocks in the hope of being welcomed, but the context makes it clear
that here he is knocking on the door of a congregation, not an
individual. Colossians 2:6 speaks of receiving Christ but uses
language for receiving and transmitting tradition, not mystical
reception. More promising is John’s Gospel, which says that though
Jesus was not accepted by Israel, he can be received by us. Even
better is John 14:23, where Father and Son are said to make their
home in those who love Jesus. So there is a slim basis for talking
about receiving Christ, but the language of receiving the Spirit is
much more common in Scripture. The fact is that we welcome Christ
when we receive his Spirit.
It is not wrong to speak of “receiving Christ,” but why do we prefer
it over more scriptural language? The New Testament speaks of
188
confessing Christ and receiving Spirit. Why do we shy away from
speaking of conversion as a Spirit event? Perhaps the reason is that
we do not want to reduce conversion to an experience, which can
wax and wane. Also, we may be a little fearful of religious affections
and prefer to keep things on the cognitive plane, at the level of
assent to propositional truth. These are valid concerns. My appeal,
however, is that we not lose sight of the experiential side. Peter
speaks of joy unspeakable and full of glory (1 Pet 1:8). Becoming a
Christian is being caught up in the sublime love of God, and that is
what gave the first disciples power to spreading the gospel. God had
transformed their lives, and they could not but speak (Acts 4:20).37
Our attachment to “new birth” language sends the same message.
We are not comfortable with thinking of conversion as Spirit event.
We like to ask not whether someone has received the Spirit, but
whether she has been “born again.” Again, this is legitimate but
unbalanced. When the Fourth Gospel speaks of the new birth, it
recalls God’s breathing life into Adam, and new birth is a metaphor
for Spirit salvation (Jn 3:5). Peter speaks of being born again to a
living hope (1 Pet 1:3). Nevertheless, the imagery of new birth is
fairly infrequently used compared with language of receiving the
Spirit.
Besides using talk of the new birth to eclipse salvation as
reception of the Spirit, the way we use such language is misleading.
First, we disregard the use of the term for the regeneration of the
whole cosmos and make it a private, individual matter (see Mt
19:28). We disregard Scripture’s new creation imagery. Second, the
dimension of baptism is usually dropped when we refer to it. Third,
we use it to refer to an experience and play down the transformation
of life implied by it. Fourth, we forget that you is plural in John 3:7
and that being born again refers to participating in community. The
main point, though, is that we avoid biblical language for conversion
as Spirit event and prefer other language.38
Christ took the representative journey on behalf of all human
beings, and now the Spirit is drawing people into it, making the
mission of the representative existentially effective by pouring the
love of God into our hearts (Rom 5:5). Spirit is poured out on us
richly (Tit 3:6), anointing and sealing us (2 Cor 1:21; Eph 1:13). We
189
are no longer natural but spiritual men and women (1 Cor 2:14). We
have been adopted into a filial relationship with the Father, as Jesus
was in the Jordan (Rom 8:18; Gal 4:6). As he trusted his Father,
experienced sonship and received the Spirit, so we, having endorsed
Jesus’ representative journey, are on our way to becoming sons and
daughters alongside the Son.
Corporately we are the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19), and
personally we are indwelt by the Spirit, which unites us to Christ and
leads us to intimacy with God. Not an obscure mystical relationship,
our union leads us into familiarity with God’s heart. It is an intimacy
that does not eclipse concerns about mission but creates a longing
for the kingdom and God’s will to be done on earth.39
Spirit was not primarily an intellectual belief for early Christians but
a dynamic fact of experience. Although the Spirit points to Christ and
glorifies him, Spirit does not stay in the background as a junior
assistant. The Spirit is creating new realities and making people
instruments of the ongoing process of mission. Christianity is not a
religion of intellectual reflection with little affective impact. We
proclaim the presence of the kingdom in the power of the Spirit.40
190
Receiving and Actualizing
Conversion, then, is a Spirit event, associated with faith and baptism.
Peter told people to be baptized with water in order to receive the gift
of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Jesus spoke of being born of water and
Spirit (Jn 3:5). He instructed the disciples to baptize in the name of
Father, Son and Spirit (Mt 28:19). By this action believers are
baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). There is a renewing
Spirit bath and a washing of water by the word (Tit 3:6; Eph 5:27).
Baptism appears to be the occasion when the Spirit comes. There
is not a dichotomy between water baptism and Spirit baptism. In the
sacrament of water baptism, God blesses those who respond to his
Word. More than symbol or act of obedience, the act has a spiritual
effect. In baptism a person reaches out and God gives the Spirit.
This does not imply that the Spirit was absent before, for clearly he
was working preveniently and in the hearing of the Word. It is not so
much that the Spirit is tied to water as that baptism is part of a
conversion complex in which the Spirit is received. The connection is
not rigid. People are converted and then seek baptism. Cornelius
was dramatically converted and filled with the Spirit before water
baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Nevertheless, water and Spirit baptism are
associated, and an encounter with the Spirit should be expected with
the sacrament.41
Baptism ought also to be an occasion of charismatic experiences.
When the Ephesians were baptized in water, they spoke in tongues
and prophesied (Acts 19:5-6). Similarly with Cornelius: when the
Spirit fell, he and his family were heard speaking in tongues and
extolling God (Acts 10:46). When the dove descended on Jesus, a
voice spoke from heaven. Baptism and conversion are Spirit events,
and charisms express themselves when the giver of the gifts is
present. The baptized should be led to expect to experience stirrings
of the Spirit. When we neglect the charismatic dimension of baptism,
the debt will have to be made up later. The major cause of the thirst
191
for a second blessing or Spirit baptism today is the earlier neglect of
baptism and confirmation as charismatic events.42
Infant baptism is an ancient practice and for that reason deserves
our respect, though the meaning of baptism is clearer when the
candidate is a convert who confesses Christ and receives the Spirit.
Perhaps it is best to say regarding infant baptism that while grace is
present, the fullness awaits actualization in conscious experience at
a later time. One could view infant baptism as prospective of
blessings to be realized in the future. After all, baptism is prospective
for everyone, even adult converts, and its blessings are realized over
a lifetime, not all at once.
Baptism in the Spirit, which is sacramentally symbolized in water
baptism, gets worked out over a lifetime, whether it begins in infancy
or later life. For all of us, it is God who takes us from our mother’s
womb (Ps 71:6). Renewal is not accomplished suddenly but
progressively—“from glory to glory” (see 2 Cor 3:18). Everyone has
a certain capacity to appreciate music, but it may have to grow and
be nourished. Similarly, it takes time to learn how to ride the wind of
the Spirit and to appropriate all of the rich promise of baptism.
What about second blessings? Some experience dimensions of
Pentecost early, some later in the Christian life. Though every
Christian is washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God, few realize all that is entailed
by it experientially all at once. None of the baptized completely
realize the full implications in terms of grace and freedom, holiness
and power, that are promised. Hilary of Poitiers spoke of God’s gifts
coming on us like gentle rain, bearing fruit little by little. Grace is
received at baptism but not completely actualized in experience. Our
initial experience of grace can open up to wider spaces of the Spirit.
For some it opens up to power for worship and witness; others are
freed to delight and rest in God. I myself, for example, am scholarly
in orientation and need to grow in the ability to rejoice and celebrate.
I need the Spirit to set me free in relation to certain potentials of my
baptism. There is variety in the way God works in people, and there
are different dimensions of the Spirit that may lie dormant and need
to be actualized.
192
Simeon the New Theologian (b. 949) believed that Christians
normally receive full possession of the Spirit later in life. Though the
Spirit is truly present in every baptized person, the gift unfolds and
enters our conscious awareness later, when it is rekindled. There are
different reasons for this. It may be because we achieve a greater
openness or a more complete self-emptying. It may be due to a
change of social setting. It can be difficult to appropriate blessings in
church contexts where the manifestations of the Spirit are treated
skeptically or where certain gifts are thought to be withdrawn. Since
the power dimension of the Spirit is obscured today in many
churches, it is inevitable that many will not come into contact with it
until something changes in their situation. The second-blessing
doctrine is fallout from much bad teaching and bad practice in the
church. If the power dimension is overlooked (as it often is), the
deficit will have to be made up later.43
The rhythm of actualization varies from person to person. One’s
initiation may be dramatic or undramatic. Unforeseen turns in the
road may appear at any time. It is normal to experience moments of
renewal and release of Spirit. The gift of God may have to be fanned
into flame (2 Tim 1:6). There always needs to be growth in our
relationship with the Spirit. So there is always subsequence, always
more.
Western culture favors rational and scientific knowledge and
downplays the capacity for religious affections. This is what makes
so many Western churches spiritless. It is natural for us, culturally
speaking, to quench the Spirit. In our culture it is OK to shout in
praise of a home-run hitter at a baseball game, but not acceptable to
make a joyful noise to the Lord in church. As far as conscious
experience of the Spirit goes, reality often goes unrealized. It is hard
for the Spirit to break through and set us free. It is hard for us to
dance in the presence of God, to expect signs and wonders.44
Because the power dimension of the Spirit has been most
neglected, subsequent encounters are most often charismatic in
nature. The power for effective witness comes better late than never.
One could use the metaphor of baptism to refer to it, or one might
prefer to reserve the term for initiation. The latter has the advantage
193
of not giving the impression that some Christians and not others are
Spirit-baptized.
The term is not the issue. Whatever we call it, it is important that
the full package of baptismal blessing be quickened in us, however it
may do so. The pentecostal reality is much more important than the
terminology. It may be best to speak of spiritual breakthroughs as
actualizations of our initiation. They address the problem that
conversion is too often unempowering and not experientially life-
changing. In such cases it is usually not the second blessing that is
abnormal, but the deficient initiation.45
Initiation is the beginning, not the ending. We enter the realm of
the Spirit by faith and baptism, but its reality surfaces over time in
varying patterns. Our baptism in the Spirit is continually being
renewed and realized. It has a sacramental expression in water
baptism, but the experiential reality enters our consciousness in a
variety of ways over time. There can be and is very often a temporal
gap between initiation and the flowering of what was signified by it.
The delay may be due to our unwillingness to trust God and yield up
areas of our life. It is not easy to surrender to God, but the Spirit is
urging us to do so over a lifetime.
I warn against assuming that those with what appears to be a
formal faith are not Christian. One can be baptized and not yet have
entered deeply into Christ. It is best to assume that baptized people
are God’s children, because they bear the sign of Christ, and to urge
them to enter a fuller experience of their inheritance.
Luke sometimes writes as if conversion and Spirit baptism are
separated in time. For example, he describes a second pentecostal
event in the lives of the disciples (Acts 4:31). He tells how the
Samaritans accepted the word of God and received the Spirit a few
days later (Acts 8:14-15). He shows that Paul’s conversion took
three days to complete. Such passages, however, do not imply a
doctrine of subsequence—their concern is for experience and reality.
I take the meaning to be this: if for any reason the Spirit is not
present in power in one’s life, the situation should be rectified. God
gives the Spirit in power, and it is important that we receive it and
walk in it.
194
The issue is not terminology, and the question is not when but
whether one has encountered the Spirit in experience. To
paraphrase Jesus, what does it profit a man if he receives initiation
without power? Reality, not terminology, is the issue. Whether we call
it Spirit baptism or do not is unimportant compared with the problem
of Christians who are experientially deficient, who do not know the
Spirit’s power. We must know God experientially, not just cognitively.
We need to be empowered for mission, freed from fear, able to
speak, full of praises. We need a breakthrough in the realm of the
Spirit, an awakening to the presence and power of God. There may
need to be a release of the Spirit, a flowering of grace in experience,
an openness to the full range of the gifts.
On this point Pentecostals excel. They face up to the necessity of
fuller actualization and do something about it. They confront the
problem of subnormal appropriation and seek a breakthrough. One
might say that they are good at jump-starting an initiation that had
become stalled for whatever reason. They do it by empowered
liturgies in which the reality of the Spirit is palpable, and they supply
a social setting in which countless believers have been enabled to
break through barriers. We can quibble with their theology, but no
group knows better how to confront the problem of nonrealization.
Renewal is an actualization of our baptism, which issues in a
greater openness to the Spirit. The Spirit, who is already present in
the believer, becomes present in a new way. God becomes more
real: there is a greater sense of his presence, an increase in power
to bear witness, a greater openness to and manifestation of gifts.
What was previously intellectual becomes experiential. The
indwelling of the Spirit is experienced in a conscious way (Gal 5:25;
Eph 3:16-17). We experience enlightenment, taste the heavenly gift
and the goodness of the word of God, and discover powers of the
age to come (Heb 6:4-5).
It is analogous to what happens in a marriage. It would be nice for
a bride and bridegroom to experience rapturous union from the
beginning of their marriage and sustain it always. But this is not
essential, and in fact it usually fails to happen. Relationships can sag
for a time and be revitalized later. In the same way, there are many
factors that impede Easter life. God knows that and calls us to come
195
higher up and deeper in. God is not much worried about the precise
order of stages of Christian experience. The order varies in any
case. God’s concern is practical—not when but whether a person
has been filled with the Spirit. Tom Smail rightly exhorts us, “By
whatever name—receive!”
A longing to enter a more conscious relationship with the Spirit is
not a selfish desire, because euphoria is not the goal. The goal is
vocation and mission. We need the power of the Spirit to be disciples
of Jesus Christ. We are chosen not to privilege but to service, to be
God’s partners in the mending of creation. For this we need an
abundant supply of power and spiritual gifting. The goal is not
experience as such, but power for mission and fruit-bearing. For the
sake of vocation to mission, there must be God’s reality in us. Faith
must not be just theory nor its basis just historical reality. The miracle
of encountering God cannot be replaced by anything else.
The sacrament of receiving and rekindling the gift is often the
laying on of hands. In his ministry, Jesus often touched sick people
(Lk 5:13). They in turn reached out to touch him (Mk 5:28). Peter and
John laid hands on people too, and they received the Spirit (Acts
8:17). Paul speaks of Timothy’s gift that was in him through prophecy
and the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14). He also speaks of the gift
passed on through the laying on of his own hands (2 Tim 1:6). Those
who desire greater spiritual fullness should ask for prayer and the
laying on of hands from those who are filled.
196
The Significance of Glossolalia
The gift of speaking in tongues is related to renewal but suffers from
polemics. Some exaggerate its importance by claiming it as sole
initial evidence of Spirit filling, while others, in reaction, refuse to take
it seriously. Ironically, by being exaggerated the gift has actually
been diminished.46
Let me begin by saying that it is not necessary to speak in
tongues. There is no law of tongues in the New Testament. Peter did
not say that converts would speak in tongues, and the converts on
the day of Pentecost did not speak in tongues so far as we can tell
(see Acts 2:37). The point is that there are more ways than one to
evidence the Spirit’s presence. Peter, quoting Joel, hails prophetic
speech, for example, as a key manifestation (Acts 2:17). Knowing
what to say in the face of accusation is a sign of the Spirit (Mk
13:11). Giving away possessions and giving one’s body up in
martyrdom are evidence (1 Cor 13:3). It is best to say that speaking
in tongues is normal rather than normative. The apostles spoke in
tongues when they were filled with the Spirit, but this may not be the
pattern for everybody always. We might say that tongues is normal
but not the norm.47
However, speaking in tongues is a noble and edifying gift. “Those
who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for
nobody understand them, since they are speaking mysteries in the
Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2). They build themselves up by means of it (1 Cor
14:4). In this context tongues does not seem to be an intelligible
language but a way of responding to the inexpressibility of God, a
way of crying to God from the depths and expressing the too-deep-
for-words sighings of the heart. Tongues is prayer without concepts,
prayer at a deep, noncognitive level. We surrender to God when we
pray in tongues and give control even of our speech over to him.
Prayer in tongues is perhaps to prayer what abstract art is to
painting.48
197
Our love of rationality resists it. As educated persons, we do not
want to say anything excessive or ill-considered. We want be in
control and keep things safe and familiar. We do not even like
mysteries very much; we want theology to be as rational as possible.
Academics in particular are trained to guard their speech, so as not
to blurt out something they are not sure they want to say. It can be
hard for them to yield to tongues. The gift places us in unfamiliar
territory and requires us to be childlike in prayer. But this may be why
tongues is important. It is a means God uses to challenge strategies
of control. It is a humble but also a humbling gift to which we should
be open.49
The Spirit is given in baptism and is realized in experience
throughout life. Believers whose experience runs dry and who are
unaware of charisms should seek renewal. Renewal will not remove
our human weakness; it does not guarantee a perpetual high, but it
will help us live for God. Each receives the Spirit in the shape of a
particular charisma, which establishes the way we serve the Lord.
“Each has a particular gift from God” (1 Cor 7:7). Like DNA and
fingerprints, it is uniquely ours. It is the gifting we need to be fruitful
Christians. So let us not try to be what we are not, but allow the
uniquely shaped gift that God has made us come to expression.
198
From Image to Likeness
The Spirit awakens us to love and unites us to the Son to set us free
and make us like him. Paul writes, “Those whom he foreknew he
also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order
that he might be the firstborn within a large family” (Rom 8:29). God
is forming a new community to prefigure the coming kingdom. Spirit
is the power by which sin’s hold is broken and we are enabled to
love God and neighbor more selflessly. Conformity to Christ is the
goal of our walking and growing in relationship with the Spirit. This is
also the purpose of God for the human race—to bring it into
conformity with Jesus Christ, God’s true covenant partner.
Our potential and future are glimpsed in the risen Christ. God has
made us covenant partners in him and does not abandon us to our
sins. As God’s true partner, Jesus arrived at the goal ahead of time
as our representative and opened the way for us to follow through
participation in his journey. Yet it takes time for this liberation to work
itself through. Spirit baptism needs to issue not only in power for
mission as Luke says, but also in holiness and conformity to Christ
as Paul emphasizes.50
Genesis says that humanity was created in the image and likeness
of God (1:26-27). Though the terms are synonymous in the text,
Eastern Orthodoxy has discerned a distinction between them,
between a created image and an acquired likeness. The one term
speaks of a created given, the other of a potential future. It lets us
view Spirit as moving humans from created image to Christlikeness.
It lets us think of human beings as presently not in their final state
but unfinished, needing to grow toward maturity and perfection. We
do not now possess both aspects of the image of God; likeness is to
be realized only in the future in communion with God, when our
relationship with God and our fellows is complete.51
Created in the image of God, we are destined to be changed into
the likeness of Christ, sharing glory in the new creation. The goal is
199
for creatures who reflect God’s nature as agents to acquire Christ’s
likeness in loving fellowship with God and neighbor. Paul even paints
a picture of how it happens. Gazing at the glory of the Lord, we are
changed into his likeness little by little. In effect, we gradually
become what we behold (2 Cor 3:18).52
Image is inherent, but likeness is to be acquired. The same Spirit
who directed the process of creation to issue in image bearers now
is taking the process toward likeness. Humans now represent God in
the creaturely realm, having dominion over the earth, but their
character can develop into either similarity or dissimilarity with God’s.
They may tend toward union with God or veer away from it.
The distinction of image and likeness allows one to differentiate
our present condition as imaging God from our future condition as
reflecting Christ. We possess the image but not yet the likeness, the
latter being a potential that requires us to cooperate with Spirit. The
notion meshes with developmental views of humanity and yields
insights for theodicy. Certain evils may not be the result of the fall
into sin but may exist because they are instrumental to the task of
soul making.53
Stressing image as a created given also allows one to recognize
human dignity after the Fall. Sin damaged humans and threatened
our likeness to God, but it did not destroy the sinner’s identity as
image bearer. The Fall did not result in a radical loss of dignity or
freedom. Orthodoxy’s recognition of the distinction between image
and likeness explains in part why the doctrine of original sin did not
take hold in Orthodox circles as strongly as it did in the West.
Conformity to Christ in the presence of God is the goal of human
life. Spirit is moving us from earthly to heavenly life, from “bios” to
“zoë,” as C. S. Lewis put it. The fall of Adam complicated this but
cannot frustrate the realization of God’s purpose, because as Paul
says, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom
5:20).
Conformity to Christ issues in a certain mode of life. Accepted in
the Beloved, we too are chosen and gifted, in the midst of our
weaknesses, to take up Jesus’ journey and become gifts to the
world. In giving we receive, pressed down and running over. We
experience the joy of giving and are multiplied like loaves. We pray,
200
“Make me an instrument of your peace.” We realize the fulfillment of
our human destiny in the give-and-take of relationships.54
201
A Dynamic Process
Growing in likeness to Christ, like walking in the Spirit, is a dynamic
and gradual process. It is also an area in which our initiation in the
Spirit needs to bear fruit over time. A newborn baby is ready to grow
as soon as it emerges. Its senses come to life, its eyes open to the
light. The child begins to breathe air and feel the warmth of its
mother. But just as growth to physical maturity is a process that
takes a long time, so is growing into Christlikeness. It does not
happen at once. It takes time to be made free from sin on every level
where we are held captive. It is painful to be separated from the bias
to self and be prodded to follow the Man of Sorrows. It takes time for
conversion to be made complete and for the Spirit to lead us into
deeper love for God and neighbor. It takes time for our baptismal
initiation to work itself out in a holy life.
But we have this confidence: “Even though our outer nature is
wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor
4:16). We believe with Paul that Christ is being formed in us, like a
baby in the womb (Gal 4:19). We sing, When we say yes to God,
Spirit births Christ in us and transformation begins. Baptized into
Christ, we are washed, sanctified, justified in the name of Jesus and
by the Spirit (1 Cor 6:11). Rooted and grounded in love, we begin the
journey toward conformity. Dying and rising with him, we move
toward sonship and Christlikeness by grace through faith.55
O Jesus Christ, grow thou in me
And all things else recede;
My heart be daily nearer thee,
From sin be daily freed.
The Christian life is an outworking of cooperation with the grace of
God. Paul worked harder than any other apostle, “though it was not
I, but the grace of God that is with me,” he said (1 Cor 15:10). He
202
fought the fight, he ran the race, he kept the faith (2 Tim 4:6). Having
received life from the Spirit, believers now conduct earthly life in the
steps of the Spirit in accordance with the gospel (Gal 5:25).
Renewed moral life is fruit of our communion with Christ in the Spirit.
Through obedience to God’s will, we concretize our union with Christ
as vessels of God’s grace. We are up against an arduous struggle
with the darkness and brokenness in us. What the flesh desires is
opposed to what the Spirit wants for us (Gal 5:17). The works of the
flesh are antithetical to its fruit (Gal 5:19-21). We need a cleansing
from every defilement of body and spirit (2 Cor 7:1). We have to put
on Christ and be clothed with him (Rom 13:14). The path to likeness
is a long, gradual journey.56
Though the struggle is real, holiness and happiness go together.
There is a cost to nondiscipleship. Refusing to be a disciple of Christ
and refusing to grow into his likeness is a great loss as well as a
wasted opportunity to become what God made us to be. To refuse to
be renewed is to refuse abundant life in this age and in the age to
come. To refuse to be conformed to Christ’s likeness is to forfeit the
goal for which we were made. It also wounds God’s heart and
grieves the Spirit, who longs to see us changed (Eph 4:30).
203
The Direction
The direction of conformity to Christ is not spelled out in laws and
detailed commandments but indicated in a more general way. It is
summed up in terms of “the mind of Christ” (Phil 2:5). His journey is
becoming our journey as we are caught up in participation by the
Spirit, who is completing atonement by effecting transformation in us.
In union with Christ, God’s love floods our being by the Spirit (Rom
5:5). It is not so much a matter of an imitation of Christ as our being
the locale for the realization and radiation of his love through the
Spirit. Fruit begins to grow on our branches, and though we cannot
cause it, we must want and allow it to grow.
The destined likeness has become visible in the Son, who
revealed the Father and our goal by his incarnation. On the one
hand, Jesus is the stamp of God’s nature and the radiance of his
glory (Heb 1:3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in him
(Col 1:19; 2:9). Thus he reveals the Father. On the other hand, he is
the new Adam in whom the true human likeness can be seen. It is
measured by Christ’s action: “You know the generous act of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became
poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). John
adds, “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and
we ought to lay down our lives for one another” (1 Jn 3:16). The goal
of redemption consists of being conformed to this new image of
humanity, achieved by the Son in the Spirit and appropriated by us
through the Spirit.
When the Son took flesh, he bestowed a fullness of grace upon
our human nature, delivering it from sin and death. Humanity in
principle was raised with Christ and glorified together with him. When
we are converted, we are pointed in the direction of union with God
and likeness with Christ through participation in his vicarious
humanity by faith. We enter into covenantal partnership with God
and, secure in his acceptance, begin to live in newness of life and
204
bear fruit. Faith frees God to work out in us the kind of life he has
always longed for the creature.
Jesus sums up the goal as being to love God with all our heart and
our neighbor as ourselves. This is exactly what he himself did. It is a
path of giving without self-seeking, of embracing the unlovely. Paul
sums it up in what is virtually a hymn to Christ: “Love is patient; love
is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not
insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice
in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all
things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends” (1 Cor
13:4-8).
Conformity to Christ also involves entering into the sufferings that
result from worldly resistance and hostility. The path is to pursue love
in a fallen world. More than Christlike, it is Fatherlike, since the Son
reveals the Father. The goal is not only to become like Christ but
also to become like the Father: to become compassionate like he is,
to love as he loves, to give as he gives without expecting anything in
return, to welcome sinners as he welcomes them, to love even
enemies. Freely we have received, freely we may give.57
The likeness of Jesus is different from the likenesses of him that
are fashioned by culture. Societies create totems, gods that
represent what people value most. In North American society Jesus
is often and easily transformed from one who gives his life for the
kingdom to one who symbolizes success and power. The focus must
be kept clear on the Jesus of revelation, not the Christ of culture.
Spirit points us to Jesus of Nazareth and is creating in us a lively
expectation of the new order of God’s kingdom.
Jeremiah bought a field in order to identify with the restoration of
Jerusalem that would come after the time of judgment. By analogy,
the Christian life is proleptic of new creation. Our lives ought to be
full of gestures that prefigure God’s coming kingdom the way Jesus’
life did.
Obviously we arrive at death in a state of unfinished conformity to
Christ. What happens then? Is the shortfall in Christlikeness
miraculously made up, or is there opportunity after death for further
sanctification and maturation? The Catholic tradition has taught the
latter, and it makes some sense. Since in this life renewal comes not
205
by instant metamorphosis but by gradual transformation, perhaps
conformity to Christ continues after death as a journey. If life is a
process of education, perhaps there is a training school above.
Catholic theology calls this purgatory. It affords the possibility of
progressive sanctification after death before entry to heaven. The
Catechism says, “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still
imperfectly purified, are assured of eternal salvation but after death
undergo purification, to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the
joy of heaven” (par. 1030).
John Wesley once reflected that he thought that some would need
to mature in paradise while awaiting the last day. A person like Job,
for example, who had responded to God in life but lacked Bible and
sacraments, would meet Christ at death and need time to grow in
him. The pre-Christian believers of the Old Testament would be
found in the same position. They began to respond on earth but
would need opportunity to grow in grace. Realistically, how different
is it with Christians?58
206
The Spiritual Journey
St. John of the Cross likened the Christian journey toward union with
God to the ascent of Mount Carmel. He pictures it as an arduous
path and a narrow way. The refiner’s fire both delights and wounds;
our relationship with the Spirit is not all sweetness and light. It is
bittersweet, because we share in cross and resurrection. The cross
is not only a past event but also a present factor in experience. “We
ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while
we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom 8:23).
When enslaved people glimpse freedom, their chains really begin to
hurt. When we are given hope, we feel even worse about tears not
wiped away and brokenness unhealed.
At conversion (though not only then) we experience the sweet
presence of God with indescribable joy (1 Pet 1:8). After a period of
restless searching, God gives us peace and happiness. But we soon
learn that there is dying as well as rising. There comes at intervals
the dark night of the soul, when God seems to withdraw his
presence—times when we are cast upon him and cry out to him in
anguish. Jesus, who knew God’s fatherly presence all his life, died
crying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Those who
identify with Jesus must expect to taste both the experience of
presence and the experience of Godforsakenness.59
The purpose of troubling experiences—so far as we can discern it
—is to wean us from our idea of a God who always pampers us and
to bring us to God as he really is, our rock and fortress. We are
deprived of the pleasures of Christian experience in order to move to
greater heights. We can be guilty of lust for spiritual things as well as
material. We can lust for pleasures of the soul and not really desire
virtue. We can be gluttonous for spiritual sweets and delicacies. We
must be weaned from this and not shy away from the dark night.
God is not always near and intimate. God pursues good purposes in
the silence and aridity of the night too. The wilderness experience of
207
withdrawal from spiritual sweetness is essential for maturing. Let us
not flee from it—God has a deep work to do in our lives. Is garbage
not taken out weekly, rather than only once? Is it a pleasant duty?
The cup of discipleship must be drunk to the bitter end. Let us not
shrink back and refuse to let God transform us. If renewal stops with
spiritual delicacies, it will not fulfill its purpose.60
Are Christians the only ones God is renewing? No, as John says:
“Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (1 Jn 4:7).
Nothing is said here about a profession of faith. John simply says
that if someone is truly loving, grace is at work, even if anonymously,
in that person’s heart. The prevenient and sanctifying grace of God
is at work in the world beyond the church, and we should be
sensitive to its fruits. As Peter says, “In every nation anyone who
fears [God] and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:35).
Conversely, John also says that unloving persons are not born of
God, whatever creed they profess. People cannot be walking in
darkness while walking in fellowship with God, regardless of what
they say (1 Jn 1:6). Godliness and holiness as well as doctrine are
criteria for truth and reality in religion.61
208
From Corruption to Incorruption
The goal of salvation is union with Christ in divine glory. The process
of conformity that begins on earth will be completed in the new
creation, when the dead are raised incorruptible and life is renewed
in totality. The gap separating this world from the next is a wide one
that cannot be bridged save by God’s own action. Spirit is preparing
us for the great leap to consummation, when life really begins. It will
be a totally new situation. Sin and death will be no more. Creation
will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious
liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:21). There will be a new heaven
and new earth in which God will dwell with mortals (Rev 21:1). The
nations will be his peoples, and he will be their God forever (Rev
21:3). God will be fully present and known. Humanity will reach the
goal of union with God, and there will be a perfected community,
where love reigns in all relationships. Then we will share in the glory
of God, in the divine sphere of life.
What Jesus prays will come true: “Father, I desire that those also,
whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my
glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the
foundation of the world” (Jn 17:24). The goal of union, communion
and participation will be realized—“the love with which you have
loved me may be in them, and I in them” (Jn 17:26). Hendrikus
Berkhof comments, “When God has lifted his human creature out of
this provisional and alienated form of life and brought him home into
his very presence, then, at last, life really begins.”62
What we have inherited from Adam is not so much guilt (which we
bring on ourselves) as corruption and death. Therefore what we
need from Christ is not so much acquittal as resurrection. Indeed we
are saved by his life (Rom 5:10). Life triumphs over death in the
resurrection and brings immortality to light (2 Tim 1:10). Those who
share in his sufferings will share in his glory as well (Rom 8:16-17).
They will be like him and see him as he is (1 Jn 3:1-2). Life will be
209
given to our mortal bodies by the Spirit, who will transform the body
of our humiliation to conform it to the body of his glory (Rom 8:9-11;
Phil 3:21).
Let me reiterate: union with God is not pantheism—creatures
never cease to be creatures. This is not ontological unification.
Instead we are to be caught up into the relationship of triune love.
Our nature will be restored by resurrection and made capable of
participating in the divine life. Conformed to Christ, we will share the
glory of God and enter the fellowship of Father, Son and Spirit (1 Jn
1:3).
Death is the moment of our return to God. It is the end of the
journey and the culmination of our yes. It is the opening up of the
eternal life we have already begun to live in union with Christ. Death
is not defeat, then, but the final yes and the moment of fulfillment.
God calls us to our final rest, which is his own everlasting embrace.
Henri Nouwen says, “For the beloved sons and daughters of God,
dying is the gateway to the complete experience of being the
beloved. For those who know they are chosen, blessed, and broken
to be given, dying is the way to becoming pure gift.”63
God is supremely beautiful and dwells in unapproachable light (1
Tim 6:16). This light has shone in the face of Jesus Christ, who
descended into the abyss of brokenness, divesting himself of all
comeliness. Christ is now raised and transfigured, and by faith we
glimpse the glory of God. As we wait for his parousia, Spirit fosters in
us an anticipation for the coming glory, making us long for the day
when Christ will hand the kingdom over to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).
Through the Spirit we wait for the hope of righteousness (Gal 5:5),
when the Spirit brings creation home to its Maker. Let us tell the
world not so much to flee the wrath of God as to enter the journey
that leads to the Father’s house, where we will know the true God
and Jesus Christ whom he sent and be flooded with love
everlasting.64
The goal is a sabbath rest of unbroken communion. “Let us
therefore make every effort to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11). As the
temple of God, as community and individuals, let us tend the flame
that burns on the altar (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). The Spirit indwells us with
a view to the eternal dwelling of God with humanity (Rev 21:3).
210
There is no temple in the new Jerusalem, because the Lord is there
(Rev 21:22). As we await the consummation, let us then cultivate
friendship with God and meditate on life in union with God. Let us
hold fast to the mystery that is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col
1:27). Let us open ourselves completely to the Spirit and ask for the
realization of God’s gift in us. Let us actualize our baptism in every
possible way: in love and holiness, in power and freedom. God is
with us and in us. Therefore let us live in his presence and bathe in
his love. Let us grow into union with God, yoked together with others
in the community and eagerly awaiting the marriage supper of the
Lamb.
How lovely is your dwelling place, Here is the answer to our
scattered confusion, to the “muchness and manyness” that afflict us
moderns. We must not forget that there is a sanctuary within us to
which we ought always retire. “Eternity is within our hearts, pressing
upon our time-torn lives, warming us with intimations of an
astounding destiny, calling us home unto Itself.”65
O LORD of hosts!
My soul longs, indeed it faints
for the courts of the LORD;
my heart and my flesh sing for joy
to the living God. (Ps 84:1-2)
211
SIX
SPIRIT & UNIVERSALITY
IN THIS CHAPTER WE come to the issue of access to the grace of
God in Jesus Christ and the light that Spirit casts on it. We know that
God, lover of humanity, desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). His
embrace is wide and open to a lost and ungodly race. If only what
Jesus’ opponents said were true: “Look, the world has gone after
him!” (Jn 12:19). God woos sinners—if only they would come. Jesus
said, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to
myself” (Jn 12:32).
The biblical hope for the world is that “the LORD will become king
over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be one and his name
one” (Zech 14:9). Isaiah predicts,
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all
peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines,
of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained
clear.
And he will destroy on this mountain
the shroud that is cast over all peoples,
the sheet that is spread over all nations;
he will swallow up death forever. (Is 25:6)
There is a universality in the gospel—Jesus came to bring justice to
the nations (Is 42:1). The psalmist writes,
May God be gracious to us and bless us
and make his face to shine upon us,
that your way may be known upon earth,
your saving power among all nations.
Let the peoples praise you, O God;
let all the peoples praise you. (Ps 67:1-2)
212
But how is the voice of God heard outside communities where Christ
is named? If anyone failed to hear about God’s love, would God’s
heart not be broken? 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, it has been the
accepted reasoning for centuries. Even today what I call restrictivist
thinking holds sway in large parts of the church, though less now
than before.
Though wrathful against sin and rebellion, God still does not want
to exercise wrath:
My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm
and tender.
I will not execute my fierce anger. (Hos 11:8-10)
The Incarnate Word was filled with grace and truth, not just with
truth (Jn 1:14). Truth by itself can be heartless and cruel. It can
shrivel up and harden and be used to crush others. But God’s truth is
full of grace, soft and tender.
Counting against restrictivism is not only God’s nature as Father
and the universality of the atonement of Christ but also the ever-
present Spirit, who can foster transforming friendships with God
anywhere and everywhere.1 Spirit is present in the farthest reaches
of this wonderful, ambiguous world. The Lord and giver of life broods
over the depths of creation and renews the face of the land. The
Spirit is present everywhere, both transcending and enfolding all that
is, present and at work in the vast range of happenings in the
universe.
The Spirit meets people not only in religious spheres but
everywhere—in the natural world, in the give-and-take of
relationships, in the systems that structure human life. No nook or
213
cranny is untouched by the finger of God. His warm breath streams
toward humanity with energy and life.
In a profusion of images, Hildegard of Bingen depicts Spirit in
marvelous ways: as the life of creatures, as a burning fire that
sparks, ignites, inflames and kindles our hearts; as a guide in the
fog, a balm for wounds, a shining serenity and an overflowing
fountain that spreads to all sides. Spirit is life, movement, color,
radiance and a stillness that restores, bringing withered sticks and
souls alive with the sap of life. The Spirit purifies, absolves,
strengthens, heals, gathers the perplexed, seeks the lost, pours the
juice of contrition into hardened hearts and plays music in the soul,
melodies of praise and joy. The Spirit awakens mighty hope, blowing
winds of renewal everywhere in creation.2
The cosmic breadth of Spirit activities can help us conceptualize
the universality of God’s grace. The Creator’s love for the world,
central to the Christian message, is implemented by the Spirit. He is
“the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas” (Ps
65:5). He is the reconciler of the whole world (2 Cor 5:19). A rainbow
of mercy encircles his throne (Rev 4:2-3). God’s mercies fail not; his
generosity is inexhaustible. Let no one limit his liberality or begrudge
its extent (Mt 20:15). God is always reaching out to sinners by the
Spirit. There is no general revelation or natural knowledge of God
that is not at the same time gracious revelation and a potentially
saving knowledge. All revealing and reaching out are rooted in God’s
grace and are aimed at bringing sinners home.3
Access to grace is less of a problem for theology when we
consider it from the standpoint of the Spirit, because whereas Jesus
bespeaks particularity, Spirit bespeaks universality. The incarnation
occurred in a thin slice of land in Palestine, but its implications touch
the farthest star. Spirit helps theology break free of attitudes that
diminish grace and create hopelessness. Slogans valid at one time
can become invalid in another. A narrow outlook is now
communicated by this ancient saying: “There is no salvation outside
the church.”4 Originally this was a warning against apostasy and was
not intended as a statement on access to grace. Whatever it used to
mean, however, it now conveys the sense that great masses of
214
people live and die without any hope. It has come to mean that there
is no salvation outside Christianity.
Many today are struggling with that tradition. It may have been
influential in the past, but today many both inside and outside the
church are skeptical. They find it hard to believe that the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who seeks a single lost sheep out of
a hundred, would be that severe in his dealings with us. It is not only
the influence of modern culture that fosters this sort of skepticism.
Many believers have developed a sense that the God revealed in
Jesus has not been well served theologically in this matter and that a
better explanation must be possible.5
Recognizing the cosmic breadth of Spirit activities can help us
understand the divine universality, since God’s breath is everywhere,
reaching out and touching people. The bond of love of the Trinity is
the power of God in the world, ceaselessly pouring out love and
creating hope. The Spirit has a thousand ways of passing by and
gracing people. We can abound in hope for people through the
power of the Spirit, who inspires hope in us, not only for our future
but also for the future of the world and for the ungodly whom God
would justify (Rom 15:13). Christ’s work is complete and for all
—“one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for
all” (Rom 5:18). There is no way around it—we must hope that God’s
gift of salvation is being applied to people everywhere. If so, how
else than by the universal presence and activity of Spirit?
The Bible is a book of hope. God declares through the Seer, “I am
making all things new” (Rev 21:5). God is setting creation free from
bondage and giving it the liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:21).
God will lift humanity up into union and make his dwelling with us.
Chaos will be overcome, together with all that ruins and destroys.
The new Jerusalem, the bride of Christ, will descend from heaven
and surpass every aspiration. Astonishingly, even nations that
persecuted the church will be present in the new city, not destroyed
but redeemed. Christ will rule over them, and the treasures of
civilizations will be brought in.
A river flows through the middle of this city, and the tree of life
heals the nations, probably from the very wounds they suffered by
resisting God so long. The curse is lifted, and the sword barring
215
access to Paradise is removed. The Spirit and the bride urge all to
come and join the dance. Their words are not “Come, Lord Jesus,”
as we might expect; instead they are inviting sinners to drink God’s
living water (Rev 22:17). What an all-embracing vision of God’s love
for humanity and for creation!6
Questions of access to salvation and religious pluralism can be
approached profitably from the perspective of the future. God has a
purpose for the nations. We should not take our cue from the
present, where God’s purposes are relatively unrealized, but from
the future. Israel may be rejecting Christ now, but God has plans to
be merciful toward both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 11:32). The nations
will be gathered—Assyria and Egypt alongside Israel will constitute
the people of God in that day (Is 19:25). At the moment religions are
locked in competition and coexistence, in dialogue and apologetics,
but it will not always be so. We anticipate the day when the rulers of
earth bring their honor and glory into the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:24,
26).
The Christian message is good news, not just for the well-behaved
and pious, not just for Jews and Christians, not just for the elect few;
it is good news for the world, for all sinners without discrimination, for
all the hopeless, the forgotten, the marginalized. The last Adam
represented humanity, and God is saving the whole world through
him. God longs for the return of his lost sons and daughters and
wants his house to be full of guests (Lk 14:23). When some refuse to
attend the banquet, the king in the parable orders his servants to go
and invite everyone they can find (Mt 22:8-9).
Let us not forget to hope: love “bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13:7). In regard to those
outside the church, let us be patient and long-suffering, not
judgmental. God’s love suffers long—let us hope against hope and
never give up. Love knows no hopeless cases.
Let us not be too sure who will be justified and who condemned.
No one is automatically barred from heaven. We leave all people to
the mercy of God. We are good news people—negativity does not
become us. Neal Punt says that negativity “detracts from the
positive, world-embracing, and thrilling good news of what God in
Christ has done for humanity.”7
216
Two Errors to Avoid
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.8 Universalism is perhaps less of
a threat, because a number of biblical texts indicate plainly that
persons are free to accept or reject salvation. Although certain texts
taken in isolation could imply universal salvation, the warnings that
occur in the same books must influence their interpretation. Though
God is able to save all people and would even like to, Scripture does
not encourage us to think that everyone will accept his love or that
God will use his superior power to overcome all rejection. The scope
of redemption is universal, but Scripture suggests that one can be
finally impenitent and be excluded from the kingdom (Rev 21:8, 27).9
The fact that God does not override the possibility of human
refusal is attributable to the value he places on freedom. God wants
humans to love him freely and accepts the risk that some will refuse.
God values the give-and-take of creation too highly to override it.
Having established a significant universe, he does not cancel its
significance. God accepted risk when he made human beings
capable of rejecting love and placing themselves outside grace.10
At the same time, let us not place inordinate emphasis on self-
damnation. Jesus preached good news and did not come to
condemn the world (Jn 3:18). He was not a hellfire preacher, though
he spoke of hell. Our emphasis, like his, should be on God’s
extravagant love of human beings, not on God’s anger (see Tit
3:4).11
Restrictivism is the more widespread error when it comes to
salvation, especially among evangelicals. The term denotes a
doctrine that non-Christians will all be damned, whether they hear
the gospel or not. If the ark of salvation should not reach them, it’s
217
too bad—they will drown. Access to salvation is limited to those who
hear and accept the gospel message. Since only a minority have
had the good fortune to have been born in the right place at the right
time to hear and accept the gospel, heaven will be lightly populated
while hell will brim with souls. The majority will have no way to avoid
hell. I wonder if the Corinthians were not anxious about this in
relation to their ancestors, so that they invented a baptism for the
dead (1 Cor 15:29).12
It is hard to defend restrictivism. According to the idea of double
predestination, God passes over some and offers them no mercy.
“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men
and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others
foreordained to everlasting death” (Westminster Confession 3.3). In
this view God is not troubled by the sparse harvest of salvation or
the unfairness of salvific arrangements. God approves of things
exactly as they are, having decided whom to sovereignly love and
whom to sovereignly hate. Since God ordains everything, it follows if
the unevangelized did not hear the gospel, they simply were not
meant to hear it. This gives the fear of God new meaning and his
justice a new twist. But what a dreadful potentate God is and what
an awful justice he displays, according to this theory.13
Restrictivism is too heavy a burden for most people. It is hard to
believe that the divine plan would leave so many without hope.
Would the Shepherd who leaves the ninety and nine to search for
one lost sheep devise so restrictive and heartless a plan? Is there no
understanding that would do more justice to God’s love for the
nations?
In reply, restrictivists ask, Are you guided by Scripture or driven by
a desire for universality that really stems from your culture and your
feelings of pity rather than the Word of God? This is always a good
question to ask theologians on both sides of any issue, and the
reader will have to judge whether a sound biblical and theological
case can be made for wider hope.
218
Universality and Particularity
There is a tension inherent in the Christian faith between universality
and particularity, a tension between the belief that God loves the
whole world (universality) and the belief that Jesus is the only way to
God (particularity). It challenges skills of theological interpretation to
explain how they both can be true. Does God love the whole world or
not? God may desire all to be saved, but it is hard to see how they
possibly can be. How can a large number meet the requirement of
believing in the gospel? It would seem that they cannot. If hearing
the gospel clearly is required for salvation, it would seem that God
does not want all to be saved. This is not a problem invented by
skeptics, though they like to use it against us. It is primarily a
challenge to theological interpretation, to explain how it proposes to
correlate universality and particularity.
I believe it would help us if we recognized the twin, interdependent
missions of Son and Spirit. It reduces tension between universality
and particularity and fosters a sense that they are complementary
rather than contradictory. The two poles turn out to be both-and, not
either-or.
Here is the scenario. Christ, the only mediator, sustains
particularity, while Spirit, the presence of God everywhere,
safeguards universality. Christ represents particularity by being the
only mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim 2:5-6), while Spirit
upholds universality because no soul is beyond the sphere of the
Spirit’s operations. Spirit is not confined to the church but is present
everywhere, giving life and creating community. Hovering over the
waters of creation, Spirit is present also in the search for meaning
and the struggle against sin and death. Because inspiration is
ubiquitous and works everywhere in unseen ways, Spirit is in a
position to offer grace to every person. Because Spirit works
everywhere in advance of the church’s mission, preparing the way
for Christ, God’s will can be truly and credibly universal.14
219
The life-giving Spirit, breathed out by the Father, works in the
world and in all of history. The Spirit renews the face of the ground,
gives life to every creature and bestows insight. The texts that speak
of this include those picturing the Wisdom of God, which is
associated with the Spirit. We read in Proverbs, God’s wisdom is
present in creation, and God calls out to all people everywhere by
means of it. Beyond Torah and special revelation, wisdom speaks
within human experience itself. We are summoned to pay heed to
the order of the world and to observe the wisdom displayed in the
structure of things. God speaks even where Christ is not yet named
—God does not leave himself without witness (Acts 14:17).
Does not wisdom call,
and does not understanding raise her voice?
On the heights, beside the way,
at the crossroads she takes her stand;
beside the gates in front of the town,
at the entrance of the portals she cries out:
“To you, O people, I call,
and my cry is to all that live.” (8:1-4)
Proverbs goes on, The world is not chaos but meaningful and
good. The Spirit hovers over it and calls us to consider our place in
the world and to choose good rather than evil. Love God, do what is
right, do not follow paths that lead to death: such truths do not
belong only to civic righteousness and common grace but have a
larger meaning. They reflect the divine concern for every person and
show that no one is far from God’s presence. God “is not far from
each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water….
I was beside [the LORD], like a master worker;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race. (Prov 8:24, 30-31)
220
God’s Spirit and wisdom are at work everywhere—their actions
pervaded history from the beginning and continue to do so. John V.
Taylor calls Spirit the “go-between God” because he ceaselessly
fosters relationship, within the Trinity and also between God and
humanity. If history is thought of as a stage play, Spirit is its director,
touching the world and directing the economy of salvation by subtle
influences. He spreads his gifts generously, even to people outside
the church and in the wider world. Martin Buber, for example, was
not a Christian but was surely gifted by God. Acknowledgment of
these universal operations grounds mission in the activity of the
Spirit at the heart of creation and maintains universality. It lets us
avoid narrow perspectives and be hopeful about people who have
not yet acknowledged Jesus as Lord.15
Grace is extant not only in Christian contexts but in every place
where the Spirit is. There is grace in general revelation and special
revelation, and both are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. God reaches out to
sinners in a multiplicity of ways, thanks to the prevenience of the
Spirit. God loves sinners, and the Spirit works in them that they may
ultimately become obedient to Jesus Christ. Granted, such a goal
can take much time to achieve. Yet instead of saying there is no
salvation outside the church, let us simply say there is no salvation
outside grace, or only finally outside Christ.
The tension between universality and particularity is eased when
we do justice to the twin mission of Son and Spirit. The truth of the
incarnation does not eclipse truth about the Spirit, who was at work
in the world before Christ and is present now where Christ is not
named. The mission of the Son is not a threat to the mission of the
Spirit, or vice versa. On the one hand, the Son’s mission
presupposes the Spirit’s—Jesus was conceived and empowered by
the Spirit. On the other hand, the mission of the Spirit is oriented to
the goals of incarnation. The Spirit’s mission is to bring history to
completion and fulfillment in Christ. Thus the double mission of Son
and Spirit can provide the perspective we need to handle the tension
of universality and particularity.16
God’s empowered presence graces the world, giving life and
hope. It is the source of movement in the world and is present
221
wherever reality reaches out to God. Spirit is not an esoteric “ghost”
but an empirical power that breaks forth in perceptible ways. This is
the power that called forth life from nonlife and the power drawing
humanity to God. The Spirit struggles against the evil that pulls us
downward and strives to bring creation to completion in God
(Augustine Confessions 13.7.8).
Spirit works ceaselessly to persuade human beings to trust and
open themselves up to love. Those with eyes to see can discern the
Spirit’s activity in human culture and religion, as God everywhere
draws people to friendship. People can search for him and find him
because “he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). People can
shut themselves off from God and refuse the call, but they may also
respond to the One who rewards those who diligently seek him (Heb
11:6).17
The Spirit’s work is not limited to Jews and Christians. God is truly
“the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim
4:10). Peter says, “God shows no partiality, but in every nation
anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him”
(Acts 10:34-35). These words suggest that faith is more than assent
to theological propositions. It involves a relationship of trust in God
which manifests itself in godly living.
There are believers who do not belong to any church. Jesus has
sheep that do not belong to this fold: “I must bring them also, and
they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd”
(Jn 10:16). Humanity was made to live in fellowship with God, and
Spirit everywhere woos sinners to come home.
The incarnation should not be viewed as a negation of universality
but as the fulfillment of what Spirit had been doing all along. The
birth of Jesus by the Spirit was the climax of a universal set of
operations. Hovering over Mary, Spirit was engaged in new creation.
The incarnation marked a new stage in Spirit’s universal operations.
Spirit, everywhere at work in the whole of history, was now at work in
Jesus to make him the head of a new humanity. Throughout history
the Spirit has been seeking to create such an impression of God’s
true self in human beings and hear the response to God that would
delight his heart. This is what happened in Jesus by the Spirit. The
invisible became visible, and a yes was heard on behalf of the race.
222
Jesus became the receptacle of God’s self-communication, and in
him God received complete acceptance. Therefore the Spirit filled
Jesus without measure and opened up the possibility for us to share
this fullness. The floodgates of grace were opened for the world.18
223
“And the Son”
The term filioque (“and from the Son”) was introduced into the
Nicene Creed by the Western church, so that the third article reads,
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father and the Son [filioque].” The Western church acted
unilaterally by inserting this term without heeding protests from the
East, and this resulted in the first great division of the church. Making
this insertion represented a misuse of power. But there is another
aspect of the issue to consider.
The idea of adding filioque was not perverse theologically. The
risen Lord did and does pour out the Spirit on the church. But the
phrase in the creed can lead to a possible misunderstanding. It can
threaten our understanding of the Spirit’s universality. It might
suggest to the worshiper that Spirit is not the gift of the Father to
creation universally but a gift confined to the sphere of the Son and
even the sphere of the church. It could give the impression that the
Spirit is not present in the whole world but limited to Christian
territories. Though it need not, the filioque might threaten the
principle of universality—the truth that the Spirit is universally
present, implementing the universal salvific will of Father and Son.
One could say that the filioque promotes Christomonism.19
In my view the phrase diminishes the role of the Spirit and gives
the impression that he has no mission of his own. It does not
encourage us to contemplate the broad range of his operations in
the universe. It tends to restrict Spirit to the churchly domain and
deny his presence among people outside. It does not encourage us
to view the divine mission as being prior to and geographically larger
than the Son’s. It could seem to limit Spirit to having a noetic function
in relation to Christ, as if the Spirit fostered faith in him and nothing
more. It undercuts the idea that Spirit can be active where the Son is
not named and supports the restrictive reading of the axiom “Outside
the church, no salvation.”
224
My principal objections to the filioque are not related to its actual
meaning. First, inserting it was an abuse of power. The Roman
jurisdiction had no right to alter an ecumenical creed without
consulting the larger church. Second, the insertion fostered a
theology of restrictiveness. The original wording upheld the freedom
of the Spirit to operate everywhere and did not suggest his
confinement.
Greek Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware writes, “Many Orthodox feel
that, as a result of the filioque, the Spirit in Western thought has
become subordinated to the Son—if not in theory, then in practice.
The West pays insufficient attention to the work of the Spirit in the
world, in the church, in the daily life of each man.”20 The creed was
better before this term was added to it, because it recognized Spirit
as the power permeating the cosmos and energizing all of history.
The mission of the Spirit is not subordinate to the Son’s but equal
and complementary. The filioque was introduced into the creed in an
irregular way and adversely affects our understanding of salvation.21
The Catechism of the Catholic Church concedes that the opinion
of the Eastern churches is as valid as its own on the theology of this
point (par. 248) but does not take the step of retracting the clause or
its earlier condemnation of the East at Lyon (in 1274). Surely it would
be healing to the divided church and liberating to its vision of
salvation if the filioque were withdrawn. Yves Congar comments,
“The Roman Catholic Church could … suppress the filioque in the
creed, into which it was introduced in a canonically irregular way.
That would be an ecumenical action of humility and solidarity which,
if it was welcomed as genuine by the Orthodox church, could create
a new situation favourable to the re-establishment of full
communion.”22 Amen!
225
The Larger Framework
Viewing the Son’s incarnation as an event in the history of the Spirit
lets us consider particularity in the context of universality. The
mystery of God was uniquely and unsurpassably revealed in Jesus
(particularity), but this happened with the aid of the Spirit, who had
always been working in creation and in history before that time
(universality). God sent his Son in “the fullness of time” to a world
being prepared by the Spirit (Gal 4:4). What God was aiming to
reveal in Jesus was long in preparation, and Jesus came as
fulfillment to a process in which the Spirit had been a central player.
Spirit gives us a clue to the universality of God’s plan, as the
searching and gathering love of God preparing the world for
redemption. This allows us to see the offer of grace as something as
broad as history itself. Jesus did not represent the first offering of
God’s grace—rather, the offer reached its culmination and high point
in him. The offer was so intense and world-changing through his
participatory atonement that the Spirit could then come in
pentecostal power.
Creation and redemption, then, are continuous, not discontinuous.
Creation is not a work lacking in grace but the gift of divine love.
Marcion saw no grace in creation and no continuity between creation
and redemption. He even identified the God of creation as a different
deity. Though this view was condemned, today’s neo-Marcionites
make a similar distinction when they deny that creation is a work of
grace and that God is reaching out to people everywhere.23
The issue is hope and whether we are entitled to have it. Salvation
can be a universal possibility if we recognize the universal, loving
activities of the Spirit. God has always wanted friendship and
reconciliation with sinners. What Jesus made explicit and
implemented has always been true. There is a stream of redemptive
revelation. We read in Hebrews, “Long ago God spoke to our
ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these
226
last days he has spoken to us by a Son” (1:1-2). It has always been
possible to cast oneself on the mercy of God, even when one’s
theology is conceptually incomplete. God is a Person, and people
can receive the gift of his love without knowing exactly who the giver
is or how much it cost. This is the way that holy pagans like Enoch,
Melchizedek and Job were saved.24
Zwingli grasped the significance of this point: “There has not lived
a single good man, there has not been a single pious heart or
believing soul from the beginning of the world to the end, which you
will not see in the presence of God.”25 This hope leads us to
recognize moves of the Spirit everywhere in the world. The hope is
also expressed by Vatican II: “Those also can attain to everlasting
salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of
Christ or his church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace,
strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the
dictates of conscience” (Church par. 16).
“Prevenient grace” is the term Wesley used to refer to universal,
gracious operations of the Spirit. In his context the issue was how
sinners could exercise faith without it being a contribution to
salvation. His answer was that grace comes before (prevenient to)
the response, before any human movement toward God. It enables
sinners to respond to the Spirit, who draws them to the light without
forcing them.26 Wesley also used the category at times in his
thinking about the issue we are concerned with here, universality.
Spirit precedes evangelization, not only empowering witnesses to
preach and heal but also present already in all the places where they
go. For Wesley this understanding eased the problem of the fate of
the unevangelized and enabled him to say that people would be
judged by the light they have and by their response to it.
God wants a relationship with sinners, and if we accept the
category of prevenient grace, we acknowledge that God offers
himself to creatures. Spirit speaks to everyone in the depths of their
being, urging them not to close themselves off from God but to open
themselves up. Because of Spirit, everyone has the possibility of
encountering him—even those who have not heard of Christ may
establish a relationship with God through prevenient grace.27
227
Karl Rahner defends prevenient grace and the universality of the
Spirit’s operations in somewhat different language. He sees God
presenting himself to every human being, as was his intention when
he created humans. It flows from his purpose in creation, not from
some obligation to humankind. God wants everyone to have the
possibility of salvation. This does not spell universalism, because
one can either open or close oneself to the offer. It simply gives
everyone the opportunity of encountering God on the basis of grace
and shows that his salvific will is genuinely universal. If one is open
to the divine mystery, a relationship begins. Its development toward
union with God follows, whether it takes a short while or a long
time.28
Reformed theology recognizes universal operations of the Spirit in
its category of common grace. The significance of such grace is
diminished, however, by the use of the term common rather than
special. In the Reformed view, common grace is a gift of God to
sinners, but a gift that helps them only in nonsalvific ways. Common
grace helps people behave better than they would if left to
themselves. The notion seems to have arisen to explain why sinners
do not seem as depraved as the Reformed system of doctrine says
they should be. Speaking of common grace is a way of admitting that
human depravity is less than total without revising the doctrine.
Calling grace “common” is odd, but at least it recognizes that the
Spirit is at work in the whole world.29
God’s presence fills the world and touches every heart. Spirit
should not be restricted to one segment of history or one sphere of
reality. The Spirit flourishes everywhere, beyond the boundaries of
church. The Spirit’s ministry is global, not only domestic, and ontic,
not only noetic. Spirit can be encountered in the entire range of
experience, having always been present in the whole world, even in
the groaning creation, preparing it for new birth (Rom 8:23). World
history is coextensive with salvation history. Recall that God
reminded Judah, “Are you not like the Ethiopians to me?” (Amos
9:7). Remember that Jesus has other sheep than those of this fold,
and he will bring them too (Jn 10:16).30
228
Spirit in Other Religions?
Does prevenient grace bear fruit in the religious life and traditions of
humankind? If the Spirit is gracing the world, does he grace it in the
area of religions? Does God’s offer ever get thematized in the myth,
doctrine or ritual of non-Christian religions?
The first hurdle we have surmounted in this chapter was
restrictivism. We could have stopped there. The main thing is to be
able to have hope for the otherwise hopeless. But this other issue,
the role of religions in the providence of God, cannot be easily
sidestepped. People demand to know if theology can grant the
possibility of the Spirit’s being at work in other faiths.
A positive answer seems possible.31 If the Spirit gives life to
creation and offers grace to every creature, one would expect him to
be present and make himself felt (at least occasionally) in the
religious dimension of cultural life. Why would the Spirit be working
everywhere else but not here? God is reaching out to all nations and
does not leave himself without witness (Acts 14:17). Would this
witness not crop up sometimes in the religious realm? It seemed to
do so for Cornelius, a non-Christian whose moral and spiritual life
before conversion is highly praised in Scripture (Acts 10:2). Evidently
the Spirit had been at work in his life and faith prior to his conversion.
People search for God in religions; are we to say that they never
encounter God in religion, in spite of the inadequacies and
distortions that are to be found in every religious worldview?32
Revelation goes out to the world and comes to expression in the
course of human history. This is what has been called general
revelation. As the artist is revealed in her work, God the Creator is
revealed in the beauty and order of the world over the course of its
unfolding. God is drawing the nations, and religions supply
occasions when people can respond to him. God communicates with
all his creatures, and they are able to relate to him. Paul made this
plain at Athens, when he connected Greek worship with the
229
knowledge of the true God (Acts 17:22-31). Of course the Athenians’
theology was distorted and incomplete. But it did contain certain
insights into God’s purpose.
Because truths are embedded in various religious traditions, we
ought to seek redemptive bridges to other traditions and inquire if
God’s word has been heard by their adherents. We ought to look at
other traditions with empathic understanding—and at our own
religion with a critical eye. If we did so, we might be enriched and be
moved to do our theology less in the “Christian ghetto” and more
globally.33
Let us be more consistent. In the past we have listened to non-
Christian voices, such as Plato and Aristotle, because we thought
they had truth to offer. We thought that we might learn from them,
and indeed we did. We did comparative theology using insights from
classical Greece. The result was not always beneficial, but we did it.
Why stop there? Maybe there are others to whom some truth has
been given. It does not diminish faith in Christ to inquire but shows
our openness to learn more truth as we wait for the parousia.
Theology should not be done in narrow, constricted spaces but
should interact with other religious philosophies in the hope of
mutual enrichment. A further advantage is that in such dialogue,
opportunities arise for proclaiming Christ as God revealed and
incarnate in a human life.
Let us appreciate the spirit of Irenaeus, who said, “There is but
one and the same God who, from the beginning to the end by
various dispensations, comes to the rescue of humankind” (Against
Heresies 3.12.13). Openness to others does not imply that they have
heard God’s voice accurately and know only truth with no admixture
of error. All of us make mistakes in our theologies, because God’s
ways are not coercive and because the truth can be suppressed by
unrighteousness. But we should not prejudge such things. Spirit is
present everywhere, and God’s truth may have penetrated any given
religion and culture at some point. We should be eager to find out.
What an opening for mission it would supply!34
We have to say both yes and no to other religions. On the one
hand, we should accept any spiritual depth and truth in them. On the
other hand, we must reject darkness and error and at the very least
230
see other faiths as insufficient apart from fulfillment in Christ. The
key is to hold fast to two truths: the universal operations of grace and
the uniqueness of its manifestation in Jesus Christ.
I see this flexible attitude in Acts: in Peter’s openness to pagans
(10:35), in Paul’s generous spirit at Lystra (14:17) and in the Athens
apologetic (17:22-31). The Bible sounds many different chords. If the
book of Romans sounds a pessimistic note, St. Luke sounds a
hopeful one. He gives the impression that aspects of religion can be
brought to fulfillment in Christ. It goes along with his extending
Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam, showing that Jesus is
the fulfillment of God’s dealings with humanity. Grace has never
been absent from history but has always been preparing for the
coming of Christ (Lk 3:38). Jesus is the culmination of all God’s
providential dealings, not just in the case of Israel.35
Reasonable though this possibility sounds, it has not often been
entertained by theology. The Christian tradition has seldom been this
positive toward other traditions, and Protestant theology in particular
has been reluctant to grant that the Spirit is in any positive way
active in the religious life of humanity.36 Among the reasons is fear
lest the uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation be jeopardized if the Spirit
were thought to be active outside gospel and church. It might blur
the distinction between true and false religion and lead to all kinds of
assimilation and syncretism.37
Nevertheless, it would be strange if the Spirit excused himself from
the very arena of culture where people search for meaning. If God is
reaching out to sinners, it is hard to comprehend why he would not
do so in the sphere of religion. There is some indication of this in
Scripture. Although the Bible condemns error and evil in non-Jewish
or non-Christian religions, it also sometimes looks favorably on
adherents of such religions.
Abram’s encounter with Melchizedek, for example, reveals God at
work in Canaanite culture. The patriarch accepted the blessing of
Melchizedek, a pagan priest, and paid tithes to him. Abram seems
convinced that they were both worshiping the one and only God and
to have realized that his own calling did not make God a private
possession. The encounter showed him that while he was to be a
source of blessing for the nations, God was also at work among
231
them (Gen 14:17-24). Soon after that, Abram met King Abimelech,
who surprised him by displaying more piety and uprightness than he
himself had (Gen 20).
Similarly in the New Testament, as noted earlier, Cornelius is
depicted as a devout man in whose religious life God was already at
work and to whose prayers God attended before he heard the gospel
(Acts 10:1-8). Such people are in effect believers of other
dispensations who await messianic salvation. They are servants
destined to become sons and daughters, as Wesley put it.38
Religion is an important segment of culture, and God is in touch
with it. It is central to human life, because we were made for
fellowship with God and our hearts are restless until we find him.
People look to religion for answers to deep questions. God is at work
drawing them. 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.39
Vatican II asks us not to reject anything that is true and holy in
other religions. It speaks of seeds of the Word of God which reflect
rays of his light. It urges us to look for ways in which people may be
responding to his urgings (Declaration on the Relationship of the
Church to Non-Christian Religions par. 2). John Taylor writes, “The
eternal Spirit has been at work in all ages and all cultures making
men aware and evoking their response, and always the one to whom
he was pointing and bearing witness was the Logos, the Lamb slain
before the foundation of the world.”40 John Paul II speaks similarly
about the Christian attitude to other religions and refers to Spirit in
this connection. In an early encyclical (Redemptor Hominis, 1979) he
spoke of the presence of Spirit in non-Christian religions.
Though Jesus is not named in other faiths, Spirit is present and
may be experienced. God can speak to people’s hearts through the
Spirit. “The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every
man the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery.”
232
Regardless of time and place, it is possible for anyone to receive
God’s offer of grace because of the Spirit, who is active
everywhere.41
Many readers are moved by the story C. S. Lewis tells in The Last
Battle, the final volume of the Chronicles of Narnia. A pagan soldier
named Emeth learns to his surprise that Aslan regards his worship of
Tash as having been directed to him. Emeth says, As is clear from
this excerpt, Lewis understood God to be at work in the religious life
of humanity.
I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death,
for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I
have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it
is better to see the Lion and die than to be the Tisroc of the
world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious
One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead
with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said,
Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He
answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I
account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great
desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear
and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then
true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion
growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not
against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are
one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the
services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of
such different kinds that no service which is vile can be
done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.
Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for
oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he
know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a
cruelty in my name, then though he say the name Aslan, it
is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest
how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth
constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.
233
Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been
for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly.
For all find what they truly seek.42
Because of the Spirit’s ubiquitous inspiration, we do well to be
open to people of other faiths. We should watch for whatever Spirit
may be teaching and doing among them. This posture creates the
possibility of a dialogical relationship. We can enter into the faith of
others and acknowledge truths and values found there. These are
our fellow human beings, seeking truth as we are. God is reaching
out, and people are responding. So let us watch for points of contact
and bridges of communication. God reveals himself to all nations in
creation and in history. There is nothing to fear from interreligious
dialogue. It is a privilege and an opportunity to speak with others
about what concerns them most. Without in any way being hesitant
about making known the claims of Christ, we should listen and learn
from the insights of others. Believing in the finality of Christ does not
require us to be arrogant in our claims or closed to grace at work in
other people.
In the Middle Ages theologians reflected on how grace might be
accessible to those outside the church. In grappling with it, they
spoke about a “desire” (votum) for God and the sacraments. Just as
prior to the birth of Jesus, when belief in God was sufficient for
salvation, so now, they surmised, people can express the desire for
Christ by trusting in God. Under certain circumstances, an implicit
desire for salvation, involving faith and love, would be sufficient. God
would accept such a disposition and regard it as a movement in the
direction of Christ. This mode of teaching was picked up by Vatican
II.43
One can avoid the one-sided Christic view by referring to the Holy
Spirit, who renders effective the mission of Christ and makes God’s
reign present everywhere. There are elements of grace found in
other religious traditions, and one hopes they may mediate God’s
presence for people.44
This is not a trivial issue. It is an urgent matter, since over the
centuries the majority of humanity has existed without hearing the
gospel. The theory assumes that God, who chooses humanity to be
234
saved and who sent his Son to die on behalf of them all, knows (like
Aslan) how to recognize inclinations toward him when they are
present. Such desire for God does not give people everything they
will ultimately need—it is a weak initiation and lacks the nurturing
context of church. But it allows a decision to turn from self-centered-
ness and to give oneself to God and neighbor. It involves a kind of
dying to self and rising to life. It is not in any way an achievement of
which one may be proud, but is a work of grace. It involves the
sense of being gifted and enriched by God.45
At the same time, let me say that we should not glorify religion or
overlook error. Though most religions contain some truth, they also
contain much that is dark and oppressive. We know that from our
own experience of Christianity, in whose history sin has often
tragically manifested itself. As we listen for the Spirit in other
religions, we must be prepared to encounter error and abuse. John
Paul II, despite his positive regard of other faiths, has issued
criticisms of Buddhism (concerning its disdain for the world and
detachment) and of Islam (for portraying God as majestic but not
gracious). And, of course, however many positive elements are
found, non-Christian religions lack the knowledge of God’s
reconciling act in Jesus Christ.46
It would certainly not be wise to regard religions as such as
vehicles of grace. 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. It is
one thing to be attentive to the Spirit at work in a religious context
and to be thankful if a religion helps inculcate holiness and virtue. It
is another thing to claim that other religions are vehicles of grace and
salvation. What Buddhism offers (Nirvana) is not the same as what
Christianity offers (union with God). Views of the proper goal of life
differ from one religion to another. Buddhism does not point to Christ,
and Christianity is not interested in dharma. One can be sensitive to
the Spirit among people of other faiths without minimizing real and
crucial differences between them.47
It is possible on the basis of the particularity of Christ to propose a
global theology. God has not left himself without witness anywhere,
235
though he has revealed himself definitively in one particular human
life. Moral and spiritual worth can be found in other faiths, yet God’s
revelation in Christ is of surpassing value, normative in relation to
general revelation and universal in significance. Jesus is the
incarnation of God, but the Spirit also sustains human relationships
with God broadly. On this basis, we expect the Spirit to be drawing
humanity into the range of Christ’s saving work everywhere.48
Spirit, present in the whole world and at work among all peoples,
is at work in the sphere of religious life, so that religious experience
may play a preparatory role for the coming of Christ. Spirit is at work
in advance of mission, preparing the way for Jesus. This modest
proposal claims only that God is everywhere at work, even in the
religious sphere, and may be speaking to people with ears to hear.
We do not claim to know how the Spirit works among non-Christians,
but only that he is active. This gives us hope and opens us to
charitable relationships with those of other faiths.49
In regard to the question of revelation in other religions, we must
walk very prudently. On the one hand, God’s decisive self-revelation
took place only in Jesus Christ. There is no other deity revealed in
other religions. The one God is the triune God. On the other hand,
God is not our property and possession but is active throughout
creation and history. The history of Israel, for example, led to the
coming of Jesus. Here God was at work apart from Jesus Christ but
leading up to him. By analogy with Israel, we watch for anticipations
in other faiths to be fulfilled in Christ. We do not affirm the possibility
of God’s revealing himself outside Christianity begrudgingly—we
welcome it! Not only does such a possibility suggest bridges in other
cultures to enhance mission, but it also allows us to hear the word of
God from others and deepens our own understanding of
revelation.50
236
The Criterion
If we listen for the Spirit’s voice in the midst of the ambiguity of
religions, the issue of discernment becomes key. Just as we ask
where God is at work in the world providentially, so we ask where the
Spirit is moving in the realms of human experience. The issue of a
criterion is urgent: how do we judge such matters?
The need for a canon or measuring stick is evident. It was evident
at the 1992 World Council of Churches meeting in Canberra,
Australia. In the name of a global perspective, a Korean theologian
attributed to the Spirit a range of pagan beliefs and practices. A
similar thing happened at the 1994 “Re-imaging” conference in
Minneapolis, where the goddess was invoked and historic theology
was trashed in the name of Spirit.
Many such problems continue to arise. What are we supposed to
make of the Hindu god that is said to drink milk? Was God not in the
events surrounding the collapse of communism and of apartheid? Is
the power being experienced in the “Toronto Blessing” from God, or
is it fraudulent? We need a criterion for discerning the movings of the
Spirit.
There are things in the world that cannot be attributed to God. God
reigns over the world, but warfare and resistance are also real. God
is not the only power there is, and God does not control everything
unilaterally. There is a struggle between good and evil in history, and
divine victory waits for the future. Though present everywhere, Spirit
is not identical with everything, and certainly is not related to that
which deceives and destroys. Powers hostile to truth and threatening
to life must be discerned and resisted.
In the 1930s, for example, many intelligent Americans and
Europeans were fooled when they visited Berlin and Moscow; the
same thing happened in China in the 1960s. These naive visitors
experienced a spirit of renewal and returned home enthusiastic for
regimes that later proved to be oppressive, even murderous. They
237
thought they had glimpsed new possibilities for human life, but they
were sadly and dangerously duped and deluded.
The apostle John warns us not to believe every spirit, because
there are false prophets and false Christs (1 Jn 4:1). Paul speaks of
Satan’s being disguised as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14). He writes,
“Our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against
the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this
present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly
places” (Eph 6:12). Open as we should be to the Spirit in the world,
we must test everything, holding fast to what is good and abstaining
from every form of evil (1 Thess 5:21).51
How do we recognize the Spirit at work in the world beyond the
church? The answer again is found in the double mission of Son and
Spirit and the link between them. Truth incarnate is the criterion for
testing spirits. The question to ask is christological (1 Jn 4:2-3). Spirit
is in agreement with the Son and agrees with what he said and did.
The Paraclete, Jesus tells us, brings to our remembrance what he
said; he does not speak on his own but says what he hears. “He will
take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16:13-14; see also
14:26). Thus Spirit points to the criterion of incarnate wisdom. What
the Spirit says and does cannot be opposed to revelation in Christ,
because Spirit is bound to the Word of God. The reciprocity is clear
—Spirit births the Son in Mary’s womb, and the Son identifies the
ways of the Spirit. To identify prevenience, we look for the fruit of the
Spirit and for the way of Jesus Christ.
The gospel story helps us discern movements of the Spirit. From
this narrative we learn the pattern of God’s ways. So wherever we
see traces of Jesus in the world and people opening up to his ideals,
we know we are in the presence of Spirit. Wherever, for example, we
find self-sacrificing love, care about community, longings for justice,
wherever people love one another, care for the sick, make peace not
war, wherever there is beauty and concord, generosity and
forgiveness, the cup of cold water, we know the Spirit of Jesus is
present. Other spirits do not promote broken and contrite hearts.
Such things tell us where the brothers and sisters of Jesus indwelt
by the Spirit are.
238
Jesus uses this criterion himself for recognizing his sheep: “I was
hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me
something to drink” (Mt 25:35). Why does he consider these his
sheep? Simply because they are just like the children of the merciful
Father. Obviously they belong to the kingdom, because their faith is
manifest in their actions. They are doing the works of the kingdom by
the grace of God. These are not actions that Satan would be
promoting (Mk 3:23).
Fruits of the Spirit are not only cognitive. When we inquire after
them, we should not investigate propositional truth alone. Signs of
the kingdom have to do with the transformation of life. Good works
do not merit grace, but they may signal a response to grace.52
We want to do nothing to detract from the uniqueness of Christ’s
salvation. Jesus is decisive for the participation of anyone in God’s
kingdom. He is not simply one prophet among many, one way
among many. Nevertheless, the quota of members in his body is not
limited, and the church is not identical to the kingdom of God. Jesus
tells us that people will stream to the kingdom from every quarter,
while many of those who believed themselves chosen will be absent
(Mt 8:11-12). But how will it be known that they belong to Christ?
Behavior that corresponds to the will of God is one of the factors. On
the last day, some who confess Christ will be rejected because they
refused to do the charitable deeds of the kingdom (Mt 7:21-23).
When Jesus articulated the beatitudes, he did not qualify his
statements as we tend to do. We take him to be saying, for example,
“Blessed are the meek who sign on the dotted theological line.”
Jesus puts no such restrictions on the beatitudes. He says, “Blessed
are the poor in spirit”—period.
Wolfhart Pannenberg comments,
Others, … without even knowing it and without knowing
Jesus, honored Jesus and his teaching by the way they
treated the needy and will participate in the kingdom of
God. Jesus and his teaching are the criteria of the ultimate
judgment concerning human participation in final salvation.
The final separation is not along the lines of whether
somebody knew Jesus and belonged to his congregation in
239
earthly life. Rather, the point is whether the behaviour of
human persons corresponds to the requirements of the
kingdom embodied in Jesus’ teaching and activity.
Jesus is the criterion of salvation even for those who never knew
him or his message. Participation in salvation is not impossible for
people outside the church. The factors are behavioral as well as
cognitive.53
The ways of God are admittedly hard to track, but movements of
the Spirit in history can be seen because they are movements of the
Spirit of Jesus. Because of him we know what we are looking for, at
least in a general way. Jesus, the light of the world, is the criterion for
discerning Spirit. The history of the Spirit reaches its climax in him
and is therefore identified by him. As I noted earlier, some things
about the filioque disturb me, but not everything. The truth of it is
precisely the point about Christ’s being the criterion of Spirit activity.
In pointing to Christ, however, Spirit is not pointing to any worn-out
interpretations of Christ or baptizing everything that the church’s
tradition has said about him. Spirit also convicts the church where it
has gone wrong and helps us grasp old truths in new ways. The
Spirit helps us recognize signs of the times and position the words of
Jesus in changing situations. The criterion cannot be equated with
what we have thought so far, because we may not have been true to
the gospel in our thinking. We may be standing in need of correction.
Restrictivism is a good example of this. Therefore, let us listen to
what the Spirit of Jesus is saying to the churches (Rev 2:7). The
Jesus criterion keeps us focused, but the Spirit also has to prevent
us from falling into ways that do not honor Christ. The criterion and
canon have to be negotiated in creative ways.54
240
Spirit and Universality
God’s universal salvific will is broad and generous, but how do those
who have not heard the gospel in any clear or empowered way gain
access to it? Spirit is the key to the universality of our particularity.
Grace is always present by the Spirit. Though one is free to accept
or refuse the offer, the possibility of salvation exists for everyone,
grounded in the generous and reckless love of God. Life is filled with
opportunities to say yes or no to God.55
It is possible to reject grace, of course. John Paul II in his book
about hope insists that hell is a possible outcome of human life,
though no one can say who or how many end up there. He is right—
hell can be the final outcome for impenitent sinners who persist in
faithlessness and lovelessness. The possibility of everlasting ruin
exists and attests to the high significance of creaturely freedom.56
I want in this chapter to foster hope and diminish the pessimism of
salvation that has long afflicted tradition. God is a serious lover who
does not allow persons to perish without any opportunity to respond
to his love. We do not know how the opportunity presents itself, but
we can be sure that it does because of the loving heart of God.
Some may say I am guilty of hoping too much. Am I driven in this
direction by wishful thinking? It is proper to ask about the context of
a theological position and the motives behind various points of view.
I do not think that I am drawn to hope only by wishful thinking, but I
take the question seriously.
But since motives can be involved, I also wonder what possible
motivations may underlie restrictivism. Why has tradition restricted
the scope of divine mercy? After all, this is a strange thing to be
doing. Is there something more at work than theological
considerations? The Bible suggests one. Why was Jonah displeased
by God’s generosity to Nineveh, and why were the Pharisees
unhappy with Jesus for welcoming sinners? Why did they object so
to his generosity? One has the feeling that they lacked a certain
241
sense of the reckless divine generosity that would culminate in the
giving of the beloved Son for the world. One gets the sense that they
thought those who attend God’s party have a greater right to be
there than others.
The elder brother sulked when the prodigal was welcomed home. I
imagine he said to himself: I am the one who deserves a party, not
this worthless fellow. There are really two lost sons in that parable,
and one remains lost at the end of it. Though the elder brother had
lived his whole life with the father, he did not really know him. At
least he did not share his father’s generosity and experienced no joy
at the prodigal’s return, only resentment. He was angry and refused
to go in to the feast. The story ends with the father appealing to him:
“All that is mine is yours—come in!” (see Lk 15:25-32). I wonder if he
changed his mind and went in.
It is easy to feel resentful at the universality of grace. We may
think to ourselves: Have we not done our duty? Have we not been
faithful all our lives? Why should undeserving outsiders get in easily?
Would it not be fairer for those outside the church to be outside
salvation too? There is a voice in us, isn’t there, that says no one
ought to gain entry to the kingdom who doesn’t really belong and is
not wearing the proper badges.
I am glad to see a shift to greater hope in Christian thinking and a
growing reluctance to restrict grace. This is a result not of
contemporary cultural pressures but of paying closer attention to the
nature of God and—I think—to the pervasive presence of the Spirit.
As a result, God’s universal salvific will registers higher now in the
hierarchy of doctrine than formerly. Belief in God as a serious lover
who does not readily give up on the lost occupies a more primary
position on the list, giving us more freedom to hope and to believe all
things (1 Cor 13:7).
Many Christians are becoming optimists of salvation. God’s
mercies are great—every person is loved by God and touched by the
Spirit. Rather than assuming others are hopeless, we regard them as
loved by God and not-yet-Christians. Had we met Saul of Tarsus
before his conversion, we might well have concluded that this
persecutor of the church was beyond the pale. But we would have
been wrong. Isn’t it wiser to engage in mission with hope, trusting the
242
God who has been at work beforehand? Hope can be an
encouragement rather than an impediment to evangelism. It fosters
good relationships and encourages points of contact. God does not
send us into mission knowing the final destiny of every soul. It is not
our job to judge the world or identify the elect. Jesus did not do so,
and he warned that there would be surprises for those who tried. He
said that the first would be last and the last first.
Let us never give up hope for those who have not yet believed.
For one thing, who can say what a no means? What if the gospel
was heard from a drunken sailor? What if the message was
distorted? What if a zealous restrictivist had portrayed God as
particularly niggardly? What would a no mean then? What if the no
will turn into a yes by the last day? Do we have any notion how hard
it must be for not-yet-Christians to extricate themselves from their
own cultural-linguistic communities and become baptized Christians?
Have many of us had to make a costly decision like that? Let us be
filled with sympathy and not at all judgmental, even toward those
who have seemed to say no to Jesus until now.
In our mission we are not motivated out of the fear of hell. God
sends us forth to proclaim the coming of his kingdom in the power of
the Spirit, to make disciples for the reign of God. We go not because
of a mere commandment or because of fear, but because we have
been caught up in the mission of God by the Spirit, who makes us
witnesses and enables us to speak. Let the whole world know that
Jesus Christ has died for it and reconciled it. Let the nations come
home and take their place at the table of God.
243
SEVEN
SPIRIT & TRUTH
IN THIS FINAL CHAPTER we consider issues of truth and
revelation, of inspiration and illumination, which are concerns of the
Spirit of truth, who guides the community into truth (Jn 16:13). We
want to inquire how the Spirit reveals God’s identity and brings
revelation to fruition.
Here I want to raise an issue of doctrinal fidelity that is often
neglected—the imperative of timeliness. Theology must be faithful to
revelation but also speak about things that matter in present
situations. God wants worship in Spirit and truth—that is, grounded
in the truth of Jesus and open to the Spirit who takes us more deeply
into it (Jn 4:24-25). A theology that does not inquire after God’s will
for the present may be orthodox but is not really listening to God.
Doctrines are to be timely witnesses, not timeless abstractions.
Theologians must wait on God concerning what is crucial. Fidelity
and creativity are both called for.1
Was not the subject of the last chapter an example? People are
eager to know how other religions should be viewed from a Christian
point of view. This is only one of many issues on which we need
light. We wonder about ministries of women, how to integrate faith
with modern science, how to be open to gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Theology must read the Bible and also listen to what the Spirit is
saying. In this way we grow as hearers of the word of God.
Challenges present themselves, and we seek the mind of Christ.
Out of the interaction of challenge and response, fresh insights can
come. We have to engage in strenuous theological reflection. We
need the mind of Christ on many issues today. It is essential to be
able to discern how God is acting and where Christ is in the events
of history. More than intellectual training is needed for this. It requires
the spiritual formation of the whole person. This book is an attempt
to view old truths from fresh angles and in new contexts in order to
244
hear a relevant word from the Lord. Its success will depend on
whether this is what happens.2
I do not intend God’s leading into truth to be a matter of only
parochial interest. It should be placed in a global setting, because
God’s interests are much wider than the church. God is self-revealed
in creation and history as well as in the experiences of Israel and the
story of Jesus. God does not leave himself without witness among
the nations. The Athenians were expected to know God because he
was not far from them (Acts 14:17; 17:27). The Spirit is guiding,
luring, wooing, influencing, drawing all humanity, not just the church.
He wants every person to come to a knowledge of the truth so that
through Christ justification and life may be provided for them all
(Rom 5:18; 1 Tim 2:4). Not everyone listens, but God speaks to all.
God is not parochial in his interests. He is concerned to gather the
nations. His heart aches over the alienation of humankind; his arms
are outstretched to the world. He wants the human race to know him,
to come higher up and deeper in. If only the world would let itself be
gathered into the Father’s arms! The nations belong to God, who is
at work among them (Jer 18:7). Beyond the revelation to Israel and
by Jesus Christ, God reveals and inspires, leads and guides. Amos
said that God led the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from
Kir as he led Israel out of Egypt (9:7). Redemptive activity is broad
and ought to be placed within the framework of a universal
outreaching.
At this time in history, peoples of the earth have their own
traditions and resources, but God wants to bring them to the
heavenly Jerusalem. Isaiah sees Israel in the future as part of an
international community of worshipers: “Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hands” (Is 19:25). The biblical
hope is that all nations will one day fear the Lord (Ps 102:15, 22).
All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the LORD;
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before him.
For dominion belongs to the LORD,
and he rules over the nations. (Ps 22:27-28)
245
Nations now experience revealing activity in their midst and are
intended to be incorporated into God’s people. The nations of earth
will be blessed through faithful Abraham and will become God’s
peoples (Rev 21:3—note the plural).3
It is not just Christians whom God would bring to the unity of faith
and knowledge of the Son. He has an interest in the salvation of all
nations and is leading them as well as us into truth. Ecumenism has
to do with more than just Protestants getting along with each other,
Catholics and Protestants reconciling, and Eastern and Western
churches exchanging recognition. God wants to bring humanity into
unity in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:15). God’s leading should be viewed
broadly. There is a drawing of nations that leaves them in
possession of some insights into God’s ways. The form such insights
take is never ideal, and the rendition may even be poor, but truth
impinges on every people. By means of dialogue, we can hope for
development within traditions, leading to more adequate
understandings. We approach other faiths as possible sources of
truth, however fallible and culturally situated they (and we) are.4
246
Growing as Hearers
My intention is not to make the global aspect of the Spirit’s work
central, but to focus attention on the need for Christians to grow as
hearers of the Word of God. The need for growth in insight is
evident. We always need a better accounting of what we believe.
Our faith seeks understanding. Who among us does not need to
know God and discern his will better? Changing circumstances
require timely applications.
I have touched on certain aspects of Spirit in relation to truth; for
example, I have noted that the Spirit makes the truth come alive and
provides a witness in the hearts of believers (1 Cor 2:4; 1 Jn 2:27).
But let us address now the issue of Spirit’s guiding the church into
truth. For we pilgrims need clarity as we travel toward the heavenly
city. We need the Spirit to help us recover and maintain unity in the
bond of peace (Eph 4:3). A situation of disunity has been permitted
to arise which grieves the Spirit, impedes the church’s mission and
renders church discipline very difficult. We need the reunion of a
divided church in truth so that we might walk together and the world
might believe.5
One aspect of sanctification is maturing as hearers of the Word of
God, as we open ourselves to all the dimensions of the biblical
witness. Not as isolated individuals but as members of the
community, God calls us to listen to other interpretations and
experience a deepening of insight. Through the Word of God, the
Spirit continues to transform our lives and lead us into a stronger
love for God and neighbor. Just as Spirit gradually sanctifies
individuals, so he leads the church into a deeper apprehension over
time.
The issue is the appropriation of God’s Word. On the one hand, as
Paul says, the church of the living God is pillar and bulwark of the
truth (1 Tim 3:15). It has received a treasure, bears witness to the
gospel and passes the message on. On the other hand, the
247
community needs the ongoing leading that God promises: “I will
instruct you and teach you the way you should go” (Ps 32:8). We
need that gentle luring and persuading that summons from us an
increasingly intelligent response. God’s leading is normally gentle
and noncoercive, of a kind that respects the creativity and even the
folly of human beings.
The Spirit cares for truth in the locus of Christ’s body and fosters
movement toward truth, despite our mistakes and errors. In this
matter we should be both hopeful about receiving fresh insight and
sober about possibilities of our being mistaken. Because God’s
leading is experienced in all the churches, we must be open to what
can be learned from any quarter.6
Growing as hearers is essential because the truth of profound
matters is not easily grasped and the implications not quickly
apparent. In matters of ultimacy, one discovers treasures without
completely possessing them. Improvement in understanding is
always possible—and also desirable, because of our limitations and
shortcomings. Therefore we ever pursue and seek to penetrate the
truth more thoroughly.
Insight into divine matters is like a seed that needs to grow into a
mature plant. It requires pondering truth and dwelling on it in mind
and heart, as individuals and communities, with respect for what
others think. Advances in understanding occur as the church
meditates on the mysteries of salvation. “Even if revelation is already
complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for
Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course
of the centuries” (Catechism par. 66).
Mary, who treasured the things that she experienced and
pondered them in her heart (Lk 2:51), is our example. She needed
time to meditate on what she had seen and heard, time to consider
what it might mean. This is true of the community. The truth once
delivered to the saints is sufficient for every age, but we need time to
reflect on it in order to gain better comprehension. Mature knowledge
does not come quickly or easily, given the limitations of human
nature and our fallenness. It takes time to penetrate profound
matters and make them our own.
248
But seeking truth is exciting and promising. God has so much
more to tell us than we have grasped thus far. Humility must be the
order of the day. This is how we learn and grow. Let us cast aside
rigidity and that know-it-all attitude and open ourselves to more light
that God can shed on his Word and the human situation.7
As an evangelical, I admit to having failed to reflect much on how
the Spirit leads into truth or on issues of development of doctrine.
The evangelical emphasis on the propositional nature of truth has
directed attention almost entirely toward biblical exegesis, to the
neglect of other dynamics involved in interpretation. Those who like
to call themselves biblical Christians often think of themselves as
unaffected by the historical processes that affect others. We suffer
from a naive realism, as if our interpretations have sprung without
mediation from our reading of the Bible. We sometimes act as if
historical elements played no part in them. It is not so.
Another reason I neglected the development of doctrine was a
certain anxiety about the possibility that tradition might usurp
primacy over Scripture and that the truth might change. For such
reasons I took notice of negative but not positive aspects of tradition.
If Catholics tend to be overly positive about developments in doctrine
throughout the church’s history, evangelicals tend to forget how
much they have benefited from God’s leading in tradition. We need a
better balance of hope and realism. Let us be hopeful because the
Spirit leads us and realistic because of our fallibility and proneness
to error. Both progression and regression occur in the development
of our understanding. 8
Development is not only concerned with the conservation of past
interpretations but is also oriented to the future. It is essential that if
the church is to go forward in mission, it be open to the Spirit’s
leading. Mission is hindered when the church becomes ossified,
clinging to its past. Such a posture jeopardizes its effectiveness.
Though our traditions are rich and ancient, we must resist the
temptation to choose the past and refuse today’s issues. We must
be faithful to original revelation but also move forward with God,
listening to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
We are a pilgrim community traveling toward the future. Many
forms and images of faith have changed over the centuries and
249
continue to change. How we think about doctrines and practices is
always subject to reconsideration. There are new models for thinking
and acting. Although what we decide about them must grow out of
original revelation and be rooted in Scripture, freshness and
relevance, aptness and timeliness should also be at work.9
Spirit works in the history of salvation to help the church enter
divine revelation and make it our own. He secures the church in truth
and leads it to further insight. Spirit, power of Jesus’ birth and power
leading him through life, has been poured out now to bring the
community to birth and to lead it forward. Indwelling Christ’s body,
Spirit opens it up to the truth, to a fuller comprehension of the truth
over time. God has promised to guide his people: “The LORD will
guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places” (Is
58:11). The psalmist says: “This is God…. He will be our guide
forever” (Ps 48:14). God says, “I will instruct you and teach you the
way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you” (Ps
32:8). And Jesus promises, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will
guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13).10
Spirit helps us in the development of our understanding. The
Paraclete, Spirit of truth, is with us to lead us (Jn 14:16-17). “Where
the church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is,
there is the church and every kind of grace—the Spirit is truth”
(Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.24.1). The church continues in the
truth because the Spirit abides with it. Though capable of making
mistakes, the church knows that God will not abandon it, come what
may. The church persists in the truth by grace through the presence
of the Spirit.11
This is crucial when it comes to grasping the significance of the
Word for today. In mission, the community needs to be able to
understand the message in fresh contexts—not in ways that go
beyond revelation but in ways that penetrate it, not new revelation
apart from the gospel but an understanding of the Word of God in
new circumstances. The words of Jesus are quantitatively complete,
not needing additions, but they are not qualitatively grasped—they
need pondering. They need to become fresh and alive for each
generation. Revelation is not a closed system of propositional truths
but a divine self-disclosure that continues to open up and challenge.
250
Hans Küng writes, “The Spirit cannot give new revelation but through
the preaching of witnesses can cause everything that Jesus said and
did to be revealed in a new light.”12
Spirit sheds light along the pathway of mission, helping the church
respond to challenges in timely ways. It is not enough to know what
is written; we also need to grasp the significance of the Word. It is
not enough to recite the text, if we are not saying what is crucial for
the present situation. Spirit makes us sensitive to what God wants to
be said now. Jesus warned against dwelling on trivialities and
neglecting weighty matters (Mt 23:23). Paul sought to be timely and
relevant in the cultural situations he entered as an evangelist. He
gave thought to how he could be a Jew among Jews and a Greek
among Greeks in order to save some (1 Cor 9:19-23). He did not
achieve this by staring at Bible texts but by thinking and praying
things through.13
The church always needs to grow and to experience reform. There
are always errors to be overcome and new directions to be taken
that would enhance mission. Because it is easy to lose our way,
God’s promise to lead us and not abandon us is most precious.
Pilgrims may take wrong turns and stumble. Like the traveler in
Jesus’ parable, an entire community can fall among thieves and be
left at the side of the road. When that happens, God pours oil on our
wounds and provides restoration.
The confession “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic
church” is not a claim to perfection. It is an expression of confidence
that whatever happens, we are Christ’s church, against which the
gates of hell will not prevail. Particular churches may falter and
languish, but the church universal will continue (Augsburg
Confession 7). We are not abandoned amid earthly struggles but
enjoy the grace of perseverance through the Spirit.
Though we possess a faith once delivered, we do not grasp its
significance completely—nor will we till the end of time. Revelation
itself is only in part—how much more the insights latent in it! We are
on the road to truth, not at the end of the journey. God’s Word has
not been mastered, nor can it be. Growth in the knowledge of truth is
always possible. Furthermore, we are never beyond falling into error.
Therefore let us not be quick to condemn others but always be open
251
to improved insight. Humility is fundamental for growing as hearers.
We must not be too proud to have second thoughts; we need not
regard changing one’s mind as a weakness. Newman had it right: to
live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.14
Given God’s promise to lead us, progress in understanding should
be possible, in spite of mistakes. Theology can always be improved,
practice always made more appropriate. Revelation itself does not
grow, but our understanding of it may be refined and amplified
through action and reflection. Growth can occur in the elucidation of
truth. Ideas can unfold without changing, and there can be progress
in articulation. Implications can be clearer and a better
understanding gained. In contrast to wooden orthodoxy, we confess
the faith of Jesus freely and openly in each new present. Our grasp
on it is neither complete nor absolute. Though it is the final truth for
all time, we also seek the concrete truth of it for this time. It is God’s
living Word, powerful for the occasion when first spoken and
significant for all other times and places as well. It is never
surpassed but always richly interpreted.15
Development does not only have to do with mental concepts. The
truth that unfolds in our understanding does not consist only (or even
mainly) of abstract ideas. It concerns life in the community and
guidance on issues of discipleship. It concerns the deployment of the
Word of God—for example, to help people who are trapped and
powerless. It concerns how to signal the victory of Christ over the
powers of this age. The Word of Jesus needs to be made effective in
concrete situations by the Spirit.16
Yet this does not imply an inevitability of progress. Early thoughts
may well be superior to recent ones. We may regress rather than
progress. Certain aspects of modern theology indeed have that
appearance. So the promise of the Spirit’s leading into deeper
apprehension does not translate into a guarantee of evolutionary
progress. Therefore we pray in the words of the collect:
Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy
catholic church. Fill it with all truth; in all truth with all peace.
Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it;
where anything is amiss, reform it; where it is right, strength
252
and confirm it; where it is in want, furnish it; where it is
divided and rent asunder, make it whole again; through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
253
What Is Revelation?
Without revelation there would be no good news to be unfolded.
Only because the silence has been broken and God is self-revealed
do we have insight into God’s triune nature and gracious purposes.
Revelation is an act of interpersonal communication. By acting in
history to save humanity, God has drawn back the veil of mystery
and disclosed a portion of who he is. The knowledge of God arises
from his identity as embodied in the narrative of salvation. It is
theology’s task to reflect on the meaning of this history, drawing out
the truth of the story without replacing it. We need to understand the
nature of revelation in order to understand how it can be opened up
and developed over time. For if revelation had no content or if the
content were fixed in timeless propositions, theological development
would be either wildly subjectivist or dead in the water.17
On the one hand, liberal theology views revelation in relation to
human experience rather than as historical and cognitive. In this
view revelation is not tied down at all in its content but is viewed as a
transforming event that sets people free. For Adolf von Harnack, for
example, revelation was an ethical project aimed at moral renewal.18
Doctrine in that case is viewed sociologically, as what Christians are
thinking in any given generation. Doctrine is not really considered to
be of the essence of faith. It tends to be fluid and not tied to Scripture
or past decisions of tradition. In this way of thinking the essence of
faith does not consist in a set of truths deposited in a book or in a
creed but is a new way of being in the world, grounded in the life of
Jesus. What faith may become doctrinally is anyone’s guess. Its
development is very open-ended. In a transformist theory of
development, continuity is sought more in spirit than in doctrine.19
This is not a sound view of revelation or a valid theory of its
development. God’s self-revelation certainly makes an impact on the
soul, but more attention needs to be given to the truth claims
inherent in the event of transformation. That which transforms people
254
through the gospel is the self-disclosure of the triune God in history.
Liberalism places too much emphasis on experience and too little on
cognitivity. In revelation God also causes light to shine out of
darkness, giving us true if partial knowledge of triune relationality
and salvation.20
On the other hand, evangelical theology errs on the other side. It
very often views revelation in terms of timeless, propositional
content. This way of thinking has a long history among Protestants
and Catholics. It characterized the approach of the First Vatican
Council and characterizes some streams of evangelical thinking
today. In this model revelation is thought of as the communication of
truths otherwise inaccessible. As a result, the task of theology is to
assemble these truths, like pieces of a puzzle, and form them into a
system. Charles Hodge likened this process to the way a naturalist
systematizes species of plants. This is a strong view of revelation as
conceptual-verbal, with little room for historical and contextual
factors. Theology becomes a kind of summarizing activity. It implies
a criticism of the Bible as the grand narrative it actually is. Imagine
God giving us a Bible with thousands of unassembled pieces and
hundreds of stories far from conceptual.21
On this view, possibilities of theological development are limited.
They can really only be of a logical or exegetical kind. Theology
might grow by tightening its grasp on certain aspects of biblical truth.
A better job might be done collecting and synthesizing the facts of
revelation. Hodge, for example, thought that the Westminster
Confession of Faith was the finest system of doctrine precisely
because in his opinion it best synthesized the facts of revelation. The
Westminster Confession, essentially a compendium of biblical texts,
represented progress because of improvements in gathering,
defining and organizing the data. This view leaves little room for
revelation to be opened up by the Spirit and little room for timeliness.
After someone like Hodge assembled the data, there really wouldn’t
be much for later theologians to do. Perhaps God permitted the
vagaries of canonical and textual criticism to force us to rely on him
as revealed through the Bible rather than on the Bible itself.22
This is not a sound view of revelation or a satisfactory theory of
development. Revelation is not primarily a communication of
255
timeless truths otherwise inaccessible. Revelation is conveyed in the
story of the mighty acts of God. There is no box full of pieces for the
theological jigsaw puzzle. The Bible offers little if any truth expressed
abstractly, in noncontextual ways. Scripture does not provide
detailed legislation for every situation. Paul, for example, didn’t even
like to lay down the law, because he considered Christians to be
sons and daughters, not slaves (Gal 4:1-6; 5:1). Furthermore, there
is considerable variety in the subject matter of Scripture and in the
way topics are handled. There is unity amidst plurality, a running
together of the human and the divine, and a historical texturing
through the scriptural genres. One does not receive the impression
that the writers of Scripture are secretaries having timeless truths
dictated to them. The Bible is an inspired but also human witness to
revelation. God is heard to speak through historicity and human
weakness. Küng writes, “Through all human fragility and the whole
historical relativity and limitation of the biblical authors, who are often
able to speak only stammeringly and with inadequate conceptual
means, it happens that God’s call as it is finally sounded out in Jesus
is truthfully heard, believed, and realized.”23
There is a better way to understand both revelation and doctrinal
development. Revelation is neither contentless experience
(liberalism) nor timeless propositions (conservatism). It is the
dynamic self-disclosure of God, who makes his goodness known in
the history of salvation, in a process of disclosure culminating in
Jesus Christ. Revelation is not primarily existential impact or infallible
truths but divine self-revelation that both impacts and instructs. The
mode of revelation is self-disclosure and interpersonal
communication. As such it is pregnant with significance and possible
development.24
Revelation comes to us through what has happened in history, and
especially in Jesus Christ, in whom God comes into view. Jesus
Christ himself is the self-revelation and image of the invisible God
(Jn 1:18; Col 1:15). Vatican II states, “Jesus perfected revelation by
fulfilling it through his work of making himself present and
manifesting himself: through his words and deeds, his signs and
wonders, and especially through his death and glorious resurrection
256
from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth” (Dogmatic
Constitution on Divine Revelation par. 4).
Revelation is neither human transformation alone nor a set of
propositions on a variety of topics. It is our introduction to a Person.
Jesus said, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9).
Revelation is addressed not only to the intellect but to the whole
person. There are truths implicit and explicit in it, but they point to the
personal center.
Revelation is dynamic, historical and personal, and being faithful
means being faithful to God himself in his self-disclosure. It means
being faithful to the story of God’s saving actions to which the Bible
bears witness. Theology is a secondary language that lives off the
power of the story and explicates its meaning to God’s people on the
move. It uses the biblical story in the context of the community to
make sense of life and put people into touch with the divine mystery.
Revelation is the act of self-disclosure revealing ultimate truth. It
cannot be surpassed, but our understanding of its relevance can
always be surpassed.25
A model of revelation as self-revelation allows for possibilities of
unfolding and development. Revelation is more than propositional,
more than experiential. It informs and shapes us, it transforms and
instructs us. We can grow into its truth as we can grow into Christ
himself. Because it is so dynamic, Spirit can direct the community
through it. As we respond, the meaning of revelation can unfold
toward fuller consciousness. Spirit can foster a growing
apprehension of divine revelation and (despite mistakes on our part)
lead the church into truth. Because the power that generated
revelation is at work in the church, the meaning and significance of
revelation can be gradually unfolded.26
257
Inspiration and Illumination
Inspiration is the action of the Spirit that secures the Scriptures of
and for the church. It is an act of God for the purpose of securing
what has been revealed for the salvation of the nations. Inspiration
ensures that the truth of the story will abide perpetually in its integrity
and be handed down to all generations. For this reason the divine
self-disclosure was given a literary attestation. We use the term
inspiration to refer to a divine activity that secures in written form the
portions of revelation that God wanted to have fixed in writing.
Vatican II states,
In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while
employed by him they made use of their powers and
abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them,
they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and
only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since
everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred
writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it
follows that the books of scripture must be acknowledged
as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth
which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake
of our salvation. (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation chap. 2)
Inspiration is part of a larger action of the Spirit in forming and
sustaining community. Scriptures contribute mightily to the
strengthening and vitalizing of a people. The biblical testimonies
were recorded to keep the good news alive and to ensure a future
for the people of God. Spirit assembled this plurality of witnesses to
point to saving reality. Scripture’s very richness and variety supplies
a standard that is capable of being used to guide the church on
every step of its journey. Inspiration is an act that forms and reforms
258
the community. The Spirit’s guiding influence works alongside human
literary activity in the community to secure a canonical text, which is
part and parcel of God’s larger work of gathering and shaping his
covenant people.27
The Bible is prime testimony to God’s self-disclosure and keeps
the church on track. It bears witness to revelation and secures the
knowledge of saving events, together with their interpretation. The
Bible is the document of revelation, which makes Jesus accessible
to those who have not known him in the flesh. The witness has been
placed in a literary form so as to be reliably transmitted.28
Inspiration is another aspect of the Spirit’s work of bringing God’s
plans to fruition. Spirit brings writings into existence so that
revelation might continue to be effective for succeeding generations.
Inspiration secures a classic text through which the Spirit can
continue to speak, making texts live and helping us grasp their
significance. The Bible is a product of the Spirit’s working in the
community to sustain it.
The canon of Scripture sustains and liberates. Its many voices
preserve rich meaning and describe a field of play for the community.
It is original testimony to Jesus Christ, valid for all time, a testimony
that cannot be replaced or canceled by later authority. It constitutes
the criterion for discerning spirits and evaluating revelations. The
church must never cease to reflect on these primary witnesses to
ensure its own authenticity. These testimonies keep us rooted in and
oriented to original revelation. They indicate the boundaries of our
habitation.29
Scripture as the Spirit’s text enjoys a privileged position. We give it
our full consent and pledge ourselves to observe its truth. Every
other claim to revelation and development of doctrine is tested by it
and must be shown to be included in it. We seek in the Bible both
the meaning of the words and the truth toward which they point. The
Spirit intends not only what was understood by the inspired authors
but also the truth toward which their witness is pointing. Therefore
we attend not only to original meanings but also to understandings
that arise from subsequent reflection. God is at work in the history of
salvation, illuminating as well as inspiring.
259
The need for guidance is evident in the formation of the canon
itself. How was the church led to this collection of texts? One cannot
explain the canon on historical grounds alone. There is no list
revealed of what books ought to make up the Bible. The canon was
not a decision of episcopal authority. It was the result of the Spirit’s
working within diverse believing communities. It resulted from an
interplay of objective and subjective factors. The books were
gathered within the experience of the community, and by a process
only partly visible, the canon achieved unanimous recognition.
While it is true that Christians are people of the Book, it is also true
that the Bible is a book of the people. It was the Spirit’s gift to them
collectively. The canon was determined by the churches as they
listened to the Spirit. If this is so, and if we respect the wisdom of
tradition in giving us the canon, ought we not to respect it in other
ways too—for example, in matters of interpretation?
The guidance needed to secure the text of the canon is also
needed in areas of interpretation, which is never final and which
continues within the community in a never-ending conversation. We
require illumination for ongoing interpretation. As believers interact in
the course of their Bible reading, fresh insights and applications
arise. God’s revelation unfolds as we search for understanding. If
inspiration secures Scripture, illumination is meant to enable readers
to recognize Scripture’s timely meaning. Spirit causes the Word to be
heard and opens up the truth, helping readers experience and
communicate it. The Spirit helps us correlate God’s Word with the
challenges of our day. Spirit takes the Word of Jesus and helps us
place it in new situations, not adding to what Christ said but bringing
it to remembrance and causing it to be revealed in a new light.30
We can speak of an inspiration of text and reader. Past inspiration
secures Scripture, and present inspiration empowers readers. We
need illumination if we are to be transformed by the text. The
Scriptures would remain a dead letter apart from the power of God.
The goal of interpretation lies beyond exegesis and aims at the
existential augmentation of the reader. The text projects a world and
clears a space into which we enter and experience transformation. It
projects an alternate world and invites us to follow Jesus in it. Spirit
puts us into touch with the very subject matter of revelation.31
260
Interpretation is not laying new foundations or establishing new
meanings. Any valid interpretation must be congruent with Scripture
and must not twist it. If this were not so, the Bible would be not the
judge of issues but a lump of wax that could be manipulated. Despite
the literary theories of postmodernity, a text does not mean anything
whatever but something definite. Our goal is to find out what that is
and to ask the Spirit to open up the dimensions of its significance.
We need it to point out the sins of our culture, to indicate the
direction of our mission and to lead us to the implications of doctrine.
Inspiration and illumination together require a style of
interpretation that takes both the ancient text and the modern
horizon seriously. We should care about original meanings and
about current concerns of discipleship. We want to be led in the
direction of the kingdom. As we await its consummation, we look to
the Spirit for a better apprehension of what God is calling us to be
and do. We need to know what is fitting and right. We need Spirit to
help us get a grip on the significance of the Word.32
Spirit opens up what is written in a controlled liberty of
interpretation. To ignore past inspiration would be to risk heresy by
straying outside the field of play. To ignore present inspiration would
be to risk dead orthodoxy by neglecting what is crucial and timely.
God gives us freedom to operate within biblical boundaries by the
Spirit, who inspired the witnesses and also opens the significance of
scriptural words.
Heresy often parades itself as liberating, but in fact it usually
narrows interpretive options and reduces mystery. Orthodoxy is
richer because it keeps more things in play and opens things up to
richer possibilities.
261
A Theory of Development
As an evangelical, I had not considered the unfolding of God’s Word
much because of an anxiety about how tradition might take primacy
over Scripture. I sensed the danger that tradition in the guise of
development might engineer a takeover and insert ideas into the
faith which are unknown and even contrary to the Bible. Tradition
might bring revelation under human control, under the guise of
development. Therefore it is important always to observe the
principle of apostolicity. Any insight being claimed as a valid
interpretive development must be tested by revelation. All
interpretations must be in harmony with scriptural revelation and at
least implicit in it. Revelation must not be increased or changed by
subsequent illumination.
At the same time, the negative possibilities must not frighten us so
much that we refuse to listen to the Spirit. We enjoy a covenantal
relationship into which the Spirit wants us to enter ever more deeply.
As we meditate on Scripture, we can advance in understanding and
gain fuller elucidations of truth, leading to deeper relationship with
God. The community ought always to seek the unfolding of God’s
Word and development in its understanding. The Lord goes with us
even through dark valleys and ever strives to make himself better
known. The psalmist pleads, “O that today you would listen to his
voice!” (Ps 95:7).
Because the Spirit works to shed light on us, the truth is not
something merely external: it is also internal. God is working the
mind of Christ into us (1 Cor 2:16). The meaning of the Word of God
is being worked on within the entire community, not just among the
leaders. We saw that in the way the canon was gathered. In the
context of diverse and geographically separated churches,
agreement was reached. It happened because God’s people were
listening, and the scriptural canon was only the first of many
262
treasures. The creeds and liturgies and styles of spirituality are our
priceless heritage, and we have the Spirit to thank for them.
Looking to the development of doctrine, think for example of the
Holy Trinity. The basis for trinitarian theology was given in the
gospel, but clarification was required and took time. The disciples
had experienced God in his threefoldness as Father, Son and Spirit,
but it all had to be thought through. How is the oneness to be
reconciled with the threefoldness? How can we avoid falling into
modalism or tritheism? The result was not a rational solution but a
statement of the mystery of three Persons in one divine being. We
should view it as an achievement of Christian thinking directed by
the Spirit.
The same pattern obtained with Christology. The disciples
experienced Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate and risen Son of
God. Various interpretations were given in the New Testament
concerning his humanity, his deity and his anointing with the Spirit.
Only after discussion and prayer did the community grasp the
mystery of his sonship, being human yet at the same time fully
divine. Christology was not the product of human thought alone but
arose from the worship of the community and its liturgy.
Spirit has been guiding Christian understanding toward a sounder
grasp of truth. These developments were not corruptions or results
only of human processes. They represent a finer comprehension of a
revelation that is unsurpassable. Thus our respect for tradition is not
the result of blind submission to external norms and authorities. It
derives from our confidence in the leading of the Spirit—not of
individuals in isolation but of the church as a whole, not in ways
chiefly theoretical but in the context of worship and obedience. The
Spirit keeps the church in the truth. We depend on God’s promise to
be with us in our understanding as we walk the pathway of mission.
A mystical approach to matters of development is better than a
legal orientation. The truth is tested not by experts but by the people,
the mystical body of Christ. Truth is not external to the church but the
gift of the indwelling Spirit. Revelation is pregnant, and development
arises from the presence of the Spirit in community. There are
authoritative sources—Scripture and tradition, ecumenical councils,
reason and experience, elders and bishops—but authority is
263
ultimately charismatic. There is no law of development other than
dependence on the Spirit, who helps us reach a better articulation of
our faith and practice. Development is a historical process that
cannot be controlled by ironclad norms. There are no formal criteria
of truth, no absolute guarantees that we will not make a mistake.33
Authority in matters of development, then, rests not only with
leaders but with all the people and their giftedness. The Bible asserts
its authority in community. We listen with anticipation for God’s voice
and respect the expertise of the community in interpretation. The
cumulative reflection of the community over centuries has greater
authority than one’s individual opinions. As in medicine, though the
community of doctors can be mistaken, one is inclined to trust it, for
we have nothing better. Readers should not consider their
interpretations valid without regard for community. We are not
autonomous readers, and tradition may save us from making
irresponsible judgments.
Let us drop our prejudice against tradition. The wisdom of past
generations who have negotiated the canon before us is valuable,
not because of a “democracy of the dead” but because the Spirit is
interpreting the meaning of Jesus in the community over time. Let us
not read the Bible in isolation but in the context of the historical
community. Let us read it with the creeds, liturgical practices and
teachings of the fathers in mind. This is being attentive to the
presence of the Spirit in the church and having a sense of a living
continuity.34
Development in understanding is an internal process orchestrated
by the Spirit who guides the community, speaking through Scripture
and tradition. One danger to avoid in this area is a too-controlled
objectivity. One can become obsessed with formally defined criteria,
as though an institution or a book could guarantee truth. We can be
attracted to hyperobjectivity if we are concerned to control outcomes.
John Henry Cardinal Newman illustrates this error. Having identified
several principles that would help to identify valid developments in
doctrinal understanding, he finally fixed on papal infallibility as the
decisive criterion. It is attractive to think that we have a final, infallible
authority. We devoutly desire such objectivity. But this is a temptation
in disguise. It tempts us not to listen to the Spirit because we have
264
an infallible office to clear away doubts. Newman himself admitted to
not having believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation before
becoming Catholic, but upon accepting papal infallibility, he had no
further difficulties believing it. How convenient to be able to give a
blank check to an infallible authority, which then becomes the
decisive criterion.35
With such an office, the Roman Church becomes itself guardian of
truth and authoritative teacher among other churches. It can teach
by the authority of its office and demand obedience without having to
explain. But this situation yields an authoritarian result—people
believe they are obeying God by submitting to Rome. The criterion of
development becomes the magisterium itself.36
Protestants can fall into the juridical posture too. Scripture can be
put to such use when it is treated as a book of rules and an authority
external to the church. It is much harder to make it work, however,
without an authoritarian magisterium to decide between varying
interpretations of the Bible.
The papacy is an obstacle to church unity for Orthodox and
Protestant. John Paul II is aware of this and asks for forgiveness (as
his predecessor had done) for past abuses of the office. In his letter
“Christian Unity” (1995) he seems to want to remove this obstacle to
unity. It sounds as if he wants to make the papacy an office that
would serve the church and not dominate it. Pope John XXIII had
viewed his role in that way, as servant of the people, not so much
sovereign. A papacy that enshrined the primacy of service rather
than dominion would permit closer unity with churches that cannot
accept the papacy as the final authority and criterion of truth. John
Paul has not yet offered to relinquish the primacy of dominion, but he
does present himself as a servant. Were he ever to do so, the impact
would be momentous.37
Another danger is uncontrolled subjectivity. Westerners today
often practice interpretive individualism and forget that the Spirit
guides the community. The Scriptures are not in every way external
to the church but belong in its bosom. It ought to be the exception,
not the rule, that a conflict would exist between Scripture and
tradition. Of course Scripture enjoys primacy over tradition, where
there is a dispute. It is canon—nothing can be added to it. But
265
normally Scripture should be read in the context of the church and its
traditions.38
Luther created a problem in the way he appealed to the Bible.
Though his emphasis on grace and faith were on target and
appropriate at the time, the way he made the point could encourage
us to place our own interpretations against those of the church. The
modern turn to the subject thus began (unintentionally) with Luther.
His appeal to Scripture against the church, in a pitting of private
judgment against the historic community, laid foundations for
subjectivity in theology. A painful controversy set Luther against the
institution of the church and led many in the direction of subjectivism.
To interpret the Bible not along lines established over centuries but
according to one’s private judgment leads to chaos.39
We trust the Spirit to help us continue in the truth. Our hope lies in
the mystery of the Spirit, who is present in the church. Formal criteria
and offices can help protect us but do not guarantee anything. They
are gifts of God, not substitutes for the Spirit. Let every Christian
think and act as a responsible person and seek truth within the
communion of saints.
Theology makes progress by penetrating revelation ever more
profoundly and also by encountering voices outside the community.
Combining the two horizons is fruitful because it brings the Word of
God to bear on new situations. It absorbs (as it were) the lesser
lights that shine in the world as a result of the Spirit’s prevenience
and makes them subject to the revelation in Jesus Christ. The result
is a Christian message that is faithful to the apostolic witness and
able to speak to the present-day world. This contrasts with a
theology that pulls up the drawbridges and refuses to interact, as
well as with a theology that sacrifices Christian identity in an effort to
appear relevant.40
266
Criteria of Development
Are there criteria to help us identify valid theological developments?
Do we have anything to go by? Here are seven useful tests
proposed by Newman: (1) A genuine development would preserve
the original idea of a doctrine. (2) There would be a continuity in the
outworking of its development. (3) It would reveal the power of
assimilation and absorb what is good from the outside. (4) It would
exhibit logical sequence. (5) It would anticipate its own future. (6) It
would exert a conserving action on the past. (7) It would manifest
chronic vigor and persistence. These principles provide a basis for
discernment and give a good start.41
Newman’s tests are hopeful but may lack realism. They do not
take the possibility of corruption very seriously. Developments that a
Protestant might consider accretions and additions can be defended
as authentic according to these tests. It is understandable that
Newman, a convert to Rome, would not be emphasizing corruption
and the possible need for reformation in the church. But we do need
to place a law of corruption alongside the laws of positive
development. Sometimes, it is true, an idea is refined and developed
over the years, but sometimes it may be twisted in the wrong
direction. There can be a departure from instead of a preservation of
the original impulse. Exaggeration, excess, superstition can creep in.
There can be both good and bad assimilation, good and bad “chronic
vigor.”
Not all developments are necessarily positive. Lenin and Mao
developed Marxist theories in murderous directions. Welfare-state
thinking has addicted governments to overspending without doing
much to alleviate the condition of the poor. Development cannot be
assumed ipso facto to be a good thing. Elaboration can be imperfect
or mistaken. We cannot assume that a modern interpretation is the
right one.
267
Belief in papal infallibility itself does not pass Newman’s tests. It
was not original. It did not lie within the horizon of biblical or patristic
thought. That God might guarantee the truth by means of a
magisterium is an attractive idea, but that does not make it true. The
history of doctrine is complex, and the doctrine of papal infallibility
might be viewed as an attempt at a shortcut. Having such an office
diminishes reliance on the Spirit to guide the community.
Consultation among churches is important in regard to
development. Such consultation is impeded but not prevented by
church divisions. In principle, developments ought to find general
acceptance and not be the view of one communion only. A single
denomination should not promulgate new dogmas without consulting
others. Rome has created problems in this way by promulgating
belief, for example, in the immaculate conception and bodily
assumption of Mary. Though not required by Scripture, these beliefs
are rooted in the devotional life of Catholic churches and have power
there. But Rome ought not to have developed them without
consultation. It is doubtful that it would do so again after Vatican II,
now that consultation has become an important part of Catholic
practice. Pope John Paul II desires full communion with all the
churches and is unlikely to do anything that would further jeopardize
unity.
Protestants, for their part, have to explain why their various
schisms continue and appear permanent. The Reformation rightly
pointed to some important issues. We needed to hear about grace
alone, faith alone, Scripture alone. But now that Rome has heard
these things and largely reformed itself, why do we remain separate?
Would Luther have gone into schism if he had faced Rome as it is
today? I doubt it. When will it be time to call off the schism?42
268
Applying the Criteria
Theology as a discipline pursues truth by clarifying and
substantiating biblical claims. It asks what we should believe and
why. Theologians are members of the church who interpret the Word
of God and speak on the church’s behalf. Their role is not to spin out
opinions and speculations but put forth proposals for wider
deliberation. They propose interpretations, while others ponder and
render verdicts on them. It is fair to expect that any insight
theologians offer be well founded in the Scriptures and tradition and
that it resonate with the hearts of God’s people.
What individual theologians think is not identical with the faith of
the church. Not every belief of particular theologians will become
part of the common faith. Various issues are interacting today in the
consciousness of the church. Though there are divisions, the truth as
seen by one ecclesial community is often balanced by truth as seen
by another, and out of the interaction fruitful insights can often
emerge. Profound truths are seldom perfectly expressed in any one
formulation, so we seek movement in the direction of the truth by
way of relative truth and error.
To make our investigation more specific, I propose to take up
issues of development in relation to the moves actually made in this
book. Are they private opinions or of broader interest? Are they
timely and crucial? Are they in touch with developments in the
thinking of the community, or are they products of one person’s
thinking? Since wisdom resides in the larger community, is the
community picking up on them? In a divided church, it is inevitable
that some communities will not like what I say at certain points, but
how does this work stand generally?
1. The book is committed to being ecumenical, drawing on
insights about the Spirit from many traditions. Theology has
not always been done this way, but the Spirit is leading us
269
in this direction. We need to be catholic in space and in
time, loving the church of every century and every continent
—because Spirit desires unity in the body. It is wrong to
adopt a sectarian tack and despise insights of others. There
is variety in theology to celebrate, and each tradition has its
logic and grammar. There are strengths and weaknesses in
them, but theology is enriched when matters are considered
ecumenically. Spirit is behind current tendencies toward
unity—Roman and conciliar, evangelical and charismatic.
There are gifts of God scattered over a wide variety of
places in the church. They need to be gathered together.43
2. A move that I had expected to make but then did not
make was to employ the feminine pronoun consistently for
Spirit. At first I thought it biblically permissible as well as
timely, but later I reconsidered. Spirit imagery in Scripture is
often feminine, and recognizing this would not have been a
capitulation to feminism. It would have been a response to
concerns about the dignity of women and the value of their
experience, and it would have allowed feminine imagery
into what is otherwise wholly masculine speech about the
triune Persons. But I realized that it would not be quite right
because, in the case of Spirit, all three pronouns (he, she,
it) can at times be suitable, and the feminine pronoun would
not always be right. As illustrated by my own hesitation, the
church is not sure what to do in the area of gender and God
language. Only time will tell how our speech about God will
be affected by the current discussion.
3. My decision to adopt the model of the social Trinity and
to explore the Spirit’s identity as a Person within the
trinitarian society proved important. It lets us move away
from the quasi-modalism of Western theology toward an
ontology of Persons in communion, which seems to hold
promise. All theologians, when they speak of Father and
Son, sound like social trinitarians, but some fear sounding
tritheistic. On this point the book sides with Orthodoxy and
also a number of Western theologians, stressing the divine
threefoldness and tripersonality.
270
4. This relational ontology is dynamic, zeroing in on the
interaction within the Godhead and God’s openness to
relationships outside. The doctrine of the Trinity supplies a
way to understand God as truly open and personal. It offers
a creedal way of correcting the immobility of classical
theism without falling into process philosophy. Trinity
presents a picture of interactive change, playful relationship
and familial dynamic. It illustrates how light can break forth
from ancient symbols and illuminate present-day conditions.
It also eases the move away from theological determinism
toward seeing God’s power in terms of his resourcefulness
in dealing with free creatures rather than totally controlling
them.44
5. The book attempts to recover Spirit’s cosmic role,
focusing on the creedal designation “Lord and giver of life.”
This is an ancient truth, and one that bears on
contemporary concerns, including evolution and ecology. It
helps us transcend the warfare between science and
theology around evolution and suggests how we might
conceptualize Spirit’s presence in ongoing creation more in
keeping with today’s scientific understanding. Recovering
the Spirit’s cosmic role also lifts up a continuity of grace in
creation and redemption and helps us think of grace
working outside the church. This notion is found in Wesley,
Vatican II and the Protestant mainline churches, but has
encountered resistance among evangelicals of the classic
Reformed type.
6. I thought it timely to recover Spirit Christology, given its
solid biblical foundations, in a way that would balance
Logos Christology without denying it. Even more promising
was its implications for atonement in terms of recapitulation.
In agreement with the Greek fathers, this reduced
somewhat the too-central role that juridical thinking has
played in the theology of the cross in the West. I found
myself agreeing with Orthodoxy, in tension with those for
whom penal substitution dominates.
271
7. Lifting up Spirit in the sacraments is not innovation for
theology in Catholic traditions, since the roots of such
thinking are ancient. Coming from a Baptist it may lift an
eyebrow. What influenced me in this direction was not only
Scripture and the weight of tradition but also a sense of
liturgical barrenness in the churches that have abandoned
sacramental mysteries and other ancient practices. My
sense is that I am not alone in wanting to enrich the
evangelical and charismatic with the liturgical, and that this
bodes well for church unity.
8. My openness to the charismatic is not surprising, since I,
like so many, have been touched by the renewal. Without
becoming charismatic in affiliation, I have long been sure
that God is pouring out the Spirit in Pentecostalism. I can
think of no more important event in modern church history
than the rediscovery of Pentecost. The mind of the wider
church appears to be changing and becoming more open to
this new (though actually old) form of faith. Cessationist
attitudes still impede reform, but they are in retreat.
Because theology has not been the strength of the renewal
movement, I dare to hope that this book might be of some
help in the construction of a theology for it.
9. An attempt was also made in ecclesiology to overcome
one-sidedness in the Christian mission. One wants to
acknowledge God’s concern for the whole creation—for
evangelization, justice and healing. This emphasis has
been accepted by Catholics and mainline Protestants
already in a remarkable consensus.45
10. Viewing salvation more as union with God than as right
legal standing places me with Orthodoxy over against the
juridical orientation of Western theology. It is appropriate to
question the way the doctrine of justification has been made
so central in Protestantism. The truth of this doctrine is not
questioned here, only its relative place in the larger picture.
Justification has a goal: an outworking in sanctification and
vocation, and ultimately a sharing in the glory of God. As
272
Barth said, the doctrine of justification need not be
absolutized or granted a monopoly.46
11. An issue of timeliness facing theology is religious
pluralism and accessibility to grace. I have suggested a way
to see these issues in the context of the Spirit’s work. The
universal salvific will of God is implemented by the Spirit,
who is at work everywhere in creation. We ought to be
saying not that “outside the church” but that “outside grace”
is no salvation. Inside the church there is salvation in
fullness—but outside the church there is still grace and
hope. There has plainly been development in thinking on
this matter among Catholics, Orthodox and the Protestant
mainline. Again, opposition tends to be limited to
evangelicals of the classic Reformed type. Their own
position is burdened by difficulties, and the consensus does
not seem to be moving in their direction.
12. This chapter suggested a Spirit-oriented model of
development that understands Spirit as bearing witness to
truth in the bosom of community. Assessing theological
developments for validity amounts to sensing the mind of
the church and the sensus fidelium. The chief obstacle to
theological unity in the broader church seems to be the
papacy in the present definition. Given the spirit expressed
in “Ut Unum Sint,” a breakthrough could happen at any
time. May God so grant.
273
Discerning Valid Developments
The test of truth and vitality in theology is, first, fidelity to original
revelation and, second, responsiveness to challenges of the day.
Theology ought to be true to the Word of God and ought to deliver a
timely word. In order to do this, theologians must study the Word and
listen to God. We are not lacking in wonderful examples. It was the
Spirit who led the church of Antioch to commission and send Paul
and Barnabas on the first missionary journey to the Gentiles (Acts
13:1-3). It was the Spirit who convinced the leadership in Jerusalem
not to burden Gentile converts with regulations meant for Jews.
Similarly, William Carey sensed it was time to take the gospel to the
Indian subcontinent, William Wilberforce knew that slavery should be
abolished, and Martin Luther King Jr. became convinced that it was
time to extend the full rights of citizenship to black Americans.
Spirit is active in development. What happened in these cases
was based on the gospel but went further than the biblical text in
terms of specific application. So how did these people know what to
do? They listened to the Spirit as they read the gospel. They were
able to say, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts
15:28).
As we wait for the coming of the Lord, let us look to the Spirit to
enable a speaking of God’s Word to new generations. When we
allow our minds to be transformed by the Word, we are able to
recognize and test the will of God (Rom 12:2). Spirit gives us the
ability to make decisions in concrete situations. We can be
understanding of the will of the Lord and avoid foolishness (Eph
5:17). Spirit enabled the disciples to see through what the Sanhedrin
was planning (Acts 4:8-12). It enabled them to unmask the plans of
their persecutors (14:5-6). It gave them something to say at decisive
moments (Mk 13:11). Spirit does not add to what Jesus said but
causes what he did say to be revealed in a new light. Revelation is
not a closed system of timeless truths but can continually prove
274
fruitful and confront new challenges. Spirit makes the Word of Jesus
a fresh word for those with ears to hear.47
At the same time, discernment is crucial. The criterion cannot be
vitality alone, for there is plenty of pagan vitality in the world (1 Cor
12:1-2). John warns us not to believe every spirit (1 Jn 4:1). Spirit is
not to be confused with any old form of life. The Nazi and Marxist
movements were full of vitality, but they were not from God. Claims
to inspiration have to be scrutinized, because wolves dress up in
sheep’s clothing.
Paul was aware of the dangers implicit in the charismatic structure
of the church. Disorder and abuse forced him to raise issues of
authority and tradition within the community. In the course of his
reflections, he laid down some fundamental principles that serve us
still. He says, first, that God has placed apostles in the church. Paul
himself, commissioned by the risen Lord, could exercise authority,
though he preferred to exhort rather than to command. Today we
continue to respect this apostolic authority when we submit to the
New Testament. Second, Paul identifies local ministries such as
prophets and teachers, elders and deacons. They are servants of
the servants of God, charged with seeking the well-being of the
people. Third, authority is vested in the community itself (1 Thess
4:19). Paul expects a congregation to discipline itself, to test claims
by the gospel and by the evidence of fruit bearing.48
On these foundations the church has developed means for
evaluating claims to illumination and discernment. First, it holds fast
to what it received from the Lord and the apostolic traditions (1 Cor
15:1-5). It respects the truth as it has unfolded within the apostolic
mission. Second, it submits to the Scriptures as norm of the truth. A
complex and multifaceted witness, the Bible supplies the counsel of
God and relevant direction when listened to in community. Third, it
takes prayer and worship seriously. If a doctrine “will not preach,” it is
probably seriously flawed. We are interested in how the community
as a whole receives a theological interpretation. Does it hang
together, does it bear good fruit?
Fourth, gifts such as distinguishing between spirits (1 Cor 12:10-
11) are given to discern the source of prophetic words. They guard
the community against prophets who are only speaking visions of
275
their own minds (Jer 23:16). Fifth, the church has offices to help.
Paul appeals, “We appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect
those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and
admonish you” (1 Thess 5:12). The New Testament does not require
any one order of church leadership, but in most denominations there
is a threefold pattern. There are bishops to oversee the work of
churches in a particular area, elders and ministers to lead
congregations in Word and sacrament, and deacons to lead in
service of the needy. From time to time there are also councils as
described in Acts 15.
As I have suggested, even the papacy, were it a servant presence
and a voice for articulating the sense of faith of people, might be
recognized by the churches separated from Rome. A teaching office
of some kind could find a place. The Constitution on Revelation puts
it well: “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves
it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly,
guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine
commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (chap. 2). Even on
this topic there is room for Protestants and Catholics to come
together.49
Sometimes enlightenment occurs as tradition is adapted to new
challenges so that it speaks more readily to them. This essentially
cautious approach ensures maximum continuity with the past. Other
times tradition has to be challenged and a call issued to return to
original revelation (as happened at the Reformation) so that God’s
Word can stand in judgment over corruption. It would be nice if
tradition were pure and never required challenging, but often in the
history of the church the Bible has had to serve as a correcting,
liberating counterauthority.50
Such tests have procedural value. They help us recognize truth
and unmask deceit. The community must weigh what is being said (1
Cor 14:29). It has to develop sound practices of listening and
remembering what it has learned. If hearing and receiving are
undisciplined, teaching may come to naught. The church that listens
to the Spirit must be a responsible community; otherwise it can fall
into confusion and even error. The Spirit wants to teach us, but
human responsibility is required if real learning is to occur.51
276
In the midst of division, Spirit wants the church to become a
united, loving, open communion. There is one body of Christ; let us
seek to manifest our oneness that the world might believe. Let us
move closer together in truth. In our day God is calling forth a spirit
of remorse for our dividedness and a great longing for unity. Let us
promote the restoration of unity among Christians and a continual
reformation. As the Decree on Ecumenism puts it, “During its
pilgrimage on earth, this people, though still in its members liable to
sin, is growing in Christ and is being gently guided by God,
according to his hidden designs, until it happily arrives at the fullness
of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”
Philip Schaff remarks, The early church was a group of different
communities, united in the confession of one Lord Jesus Christ but
not identical with one another. Its unity was unity in diversity, not a
unity of sameness or a unity imposed from above. We must
remember that unity does not spell uniformity. God’s own unity is
triune, and he gives existence to a vast diversity of creatures. God
also brings into church people from every tribe and gives them a
diversity of gifts for a variety of ministries. So God is not against
diversity. He does not want lifeless uniformity. He loves a unity that
celebrates variety and rejoices in what is different.
Union is no monotonous uniformity, but implies variety and
full development of all the various types of Christian
doctrine and discipline as far as they are founded on
constitutional differences, made and intended by God
himself, and as far as they are supplementary rather than
contradictory. True union is essentially inward and spiritual.
It does not require an external amalgamation of existing
organizations into one, but may exist with their perfect
independence in their spheres of labor.52
There have always been differing forms of church down through
history. Such differences do not pose a threat to unity. What
threatens unity is hostility and competition. The early churches were
different but lived in communion.
277
May the Spirit take us forward to appropriate the truth of the
gospel together for our time. May our desire for unity help the world
see and believe, to the end that every fragment of truth and
righteousness be gathered up into the storehouse.
278
Conclusion
My heart cries out, Living flame of love, ever burn on the altar of my
heart. Welcome, Holy Spirit! Come and renew creation. Breathe on
these dead bones, fill us with hope, lead us into God’s embrace. You
are at work everywhere, even where unnamed and unnoticed,
preparing for new creation and the marriage supper of the Lamb.
Therefore we adore you, Lord and giver of life; come to us and set
us free. Be no more a stranger or a lost relation, but fill us up with
your love.
I began this book with the idea that certain things had been
forgotten and even wondered whether even a few corrections might
be needed, but I was not thinking that a constructive vision of Spirit
would take shape. But it did, and this is my gift to the reader. I invite
us to view Spirit as the bond of love in the triune relationality, as the
ecstasy of sheer life overflowing into a significant creation, as the
power of creation and new creation, as the power of incarnation and
atonement, as the power of new community and union with God, and
as the power drawing the whole world into the truth of Jesus.
The book reflects my own faith journey. The spiritual vitality so
evident in Scripture is rare and thin in the religious circles I inhabit.
The atmosphere is restrained and the style highly cognitive;
expectations are rather low regarding the presence of the kingdom in
power. So I thirst to experience the reality of Spirit in my heart and
church. I am tired of spiritless Christianity with only rumors and
occasional glimpses of wonder and signs. But I am glad to report
that in the course of writing my heart has been blessed. I have
caught the fire again.
I hope the book helps people to grow in understanding the Spirit.
We have reviewed the basic symbols, conducted searches of
tradition and engaged challenges of our time. Risks were taken in
interpretation, with the intention of stimulating discussion. Nobody
has all the answers—I certainly do not. But one way to make
progress is to look at issues in a new way and enter into
conversation. Theology does not depend on any single theologian.
279
Truth will yield its secrets to the body of Christ if we will listen to God
and to one another humbly, accepting correction.
God bless you, my dear readers. May a gift be imparted to you.
May the wind of God blow on you, may the Spirit draw you closer to
God’s loving heart. May Father, Son and Spirit make their home in
you. Let us pray:
O Thou who camest from above,
The pure celestial fire to impart,
Kindle a flame of sacred love
On the mean altar of my heart.
There let it for Thy glory burn
With inextinguishable blaze,
And trembling to its source return
In humble prayer and fervent praise.
Jesus, confirm my heart’s desire
To work, and speak, and think for Thee;
Still let me guard the holy fire,
And still stir up Thy gift in me:
Ready for all Thy perfect will,
My acts of faith and love repeat,
Till death Thy endless mercies seal
And make the sacrifice complete.
(Charles Wesley)
280
Notes
281
Introduction
1 The Complete Works of St. John of the Cross, ed. P. Silverio De
Santa Teresa, trans. E. Allison Peers (London: Burns and Oates,
1964), pp. 1-195, and Richard Rolle, The Fire of Love (1434;
Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus Reprint, 1979). Jean Jacques Suurmond
captures the playful dynamic of Spirit in Word and Spirit at Play:
Towards a Charismatic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1995), picking up on Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of sabbath rest:
God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), chap. 11.
2 An Encyclical Letter of the Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II
(Sherbrooke, Quebec: Editions Paulines, 1986), p. 69. Clark H.
Pinnock, “The Great Jubilee,” in God and Man, ed. Michael Bauman
(Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale College Press, 1995), pp. 91-101.
3 References in Philip J. Rosato, The Spirit as Lord: The
Pneumatology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981), pp. 3-5.
See “Concluding Unscientific Postscript on Schleiemacher” (1968),
in Karl Barth, The Theology of Schleiermacher, ed. Dietrich Ritschl
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 261-79.
4 Among late-twentieth-century books on the Holy Spirit, three are of
particular value: Yves M. J. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3
vols. (New York: Seabury, 1983); Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of
Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Michael
Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1994).
282
5 Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), pp. 1-19.
6 Neglect of the Spirit in systematic theology is even visible
(surprisingly) in J. Rodman Williams, a charismatic theologian. He
deals with the Spirit primarily in the area of salvation but does little to
overcome neglect in the areas of Trinity, creation, Christology,
ecclesiology, etc. His title therefore is less than apt: Renewal
Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, 3
vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1988-1992). Wayne Grudem
introduces a charismatic dimension into soteriology but fails to notice
the Spirit’s relevance for other aspects of his paleo-Reformed
framework: Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994).
7 Tom Smail, “The Cross and the Spirit: Toward a Theology of
Renewal,” in The Love of Power and the Power of Love, ed. Tom
Smail, Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright (Minneapolis: Bethany
House, 1994), pp. 15-16.
8 John Baillie models for me the integration of theology and prayer.
A rich devotional life stood at the center of his fine academic work.
More than balance, what he achieved was integration. See
especially his A Diary of Private Prayer (New York: Walker, 1986)
and The Sense of the Presence of God (New York: Scribner, 1962).
9 Welker emphasizes that the line of biblical teaching on the Spirit is
coherent and should not be thought of as obscure (God the Spirit). It
might also be said that Welker omits from his discussion certain
elements of what is clear. He lays great emphasis on the liberational
aspects.
10
283
Regarding the preparation of my own heart, my wife and I spent two
months on retreat with the community at Schloss Mittersill, Austria,
and nourished our souls. Besides that, and in addition to regular
spiritual disciplines, I would be ungrateful not to acknowledge the
influence of the Toronto Blessing during this period of writing. The
flow of grace and love in this remarkable awakening can only be
marveled at: see John Arnott, The Father’s Blessing (Orlando, Fla.:
Creation House, 1995).
In speaking of the heart, I appreciate what Orthodoxy calls the
“apophatic.” This term is used by St. Basil, for example, to indicate
how God surpasses all our thoughts about him and how we know
God not by reason alone but by spiritual sensitivity as well. Compare
Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western
Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994), chap.
3. The apophatic does not imply agnosticism concerning the truth of
dogmatic formulations. It surpasses but does not negate the truth:
Verna E. F. Harrison, “The Relationship Between Apophatic and
Kataphatic Theology,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 318-32. Win Corduan
finds a form of mysticism based in the New Testament: Mysticism:
An Evangelical Option? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991),
chap. 7. Compare Nelson Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay in the
Phenomenology of Mysticism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1992). In terms of theological method, this means that a theologian
is not limited to biblical data alone but also reflects on the
experiences generated by it.
11 Hans Küng, “How Should We Speak Today About the Holy
Spirit?” in Conflicts About the Holy Spirit, ed. Hans Küng and Jürgen
Moltmann (New York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 114-17.
12 The Cloud of Unknowing, trans. Clifton Wolters (New York:
Penguin, 1961).
284
13 Moltmann, Spirit of Life, p. 289. Liberal theology tried to show a
continuity between God and the world, the dynamic nature of
creation and the nearness of God to every human soul, but did it in
theologically revisionist ways. The Spirit of the triune God on the
other hand offers aspects of continuity, dynamism and religious
accessibility in the classical framework. Therefore Spirit is the bridge
between evangelical and liberal theologies: compare Kenneth
Cauthen, The Impact of American Religious Liberalism (New York:
Harper & Row, 1962).
14 The Shakers struggled with this issue and may stimulate our own
thinking: see Linda A. Mercadante, Gender, Doctrine and God: The
Shakers and Contemporary Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990).
15 William H. Shepherd Jr., The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit
as a Character in Luke-Acts (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994). Compare
Alasdair I. C. Heron’s decision to use it: The Holy Spirit
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 8, 176.
16 Gordon D. Fee chooses the masculine pronoun: God’s
Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), p. xxiii.
17 The reference to Aphrahat is found in Francis Martin, The
Feminist Question: Feminist Theology in the Light of Christian
Tradition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), p. 242. Those
who propose thinking of the Spirit in feminine ways include Congar, I
Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3:155-64; Moltmann, Spirit of Life, pp. 157-
58; John J. O‘Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (London:
Sheed & Ward, 1988), pp. 97-99; F. X. Durrwell, Holy Spirit of God
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986), pp. 151-57; Donald L. Gelpi,
The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit (New
York: University Press of America, 1984).
285
18 Thomas N. Finger, Christian Theology: An Eschatological
Approach (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1987), 2:486; Pike, “God as
Lover and Mother,” chap. 4 in Mystic Union.
19 Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in
Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), pp.
50-54, 83-87.
20 Plus there is a political calculation for an evangelical writer: is it
worth using the feminine pronoun when the likely result is to lose a
host of conservative readers while gaining approval from a handful of
feminists, most of whom have their sights set on much larger and
less orthodox changes? The answer is no, it is not prudent.
21 Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994).
22 On the deployment of canon in faithful and creative ways, see
Delwin Brown, Boundaries of Our Habitations: Tradition and
Theological Construction (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1994).
23 I resonate, for example, with John Wesley, who moved close to
Orthodoxy. See Randy L. Maddox, “John Wesley and Eastern
Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences and Differences,” Asbury
Theological Journal 45 (1990): 29-53.
24 I have always been moved by J. Rodman Williams, The
Pentecostal Reality (Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International, 1972).
286
25 Alan J. Roxburgh, Reaching a Generation: Strategies for
Tomorrow’s Church (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993),
chap. 8. Our culture is intrigued with mystery: Reginald W. Bibby,
Unknown Gods: The Ongoing Study of Religion in Canada (Toronto:
Stoddart, 1993), pp. 117-37.
287
Chapter 1: Spirit & Trinity
1 John D. Zizioulas strikes this note as regards the divine nature:
“Personhood and Being,” chap. 1 in Being as Communion: Studies in
Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1985).
2 For a sound introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity, see William
J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of
Salvation (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1982).
3 Other excellent books on the Trinity include Ted Peters, God as
Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life (Louisville, Ky.:
Westminister/John Knox, 1993), and Colin E. Gunton, The Promise
of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991).
4 One can find the aphorism in Millard J. Erickson, Christian
Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983), 1:342.
The skeptical response to it is in John Hick, God Has Many Names
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 124.
5 On the meaningfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity understood as
loving relationality, see Catherine M. LaCugna, God for Us: The
Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1991).
6 For background to this usage, see Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the
Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1961), 1:210-20.
288
7 On divine spirituality see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), 1:370-84.
8 This is the error of Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, who refuses to accept
evidence for the distinct personhood of Son and Spirit alongside the
Father: God as Spirit (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).
9 Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London: James
Nisbet, 1943), p. 140.
10 John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (New York:
Paulist, 1989), chap. 3, and Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol.
2, chap. 5.
11 I am indebted here to Cornelius Plantinga for his Ph.D. thesis,
“The Hodgson-Welch Debate and the Social Analogy of the Trinity”
(Princeton University, 1982), chap. 3, which is summarized in “Social
Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement, ed.
Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga (Notre Dame, Ind:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 21-47.
12 For data supporting the personhood of the Spirit, see Gordon D.
Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of
Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 829-42.
13 Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the
Resurrection (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993).
289
14 Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London: James
Nisbet, 1943), pp. 89-96.
15 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:395-96, 422-23, 428-32.
16On the mystery of the Trinity and the Spirit within the trinity, see
George A. Maloney, The Spirit Broods over the World (New York:
Alba House, 1993), chaps. 2-3.
17 LaCugna, God for Us, chap. 8.
18 Johnson, She Who Is, 220; John L. Gresham, “The Social Model
of the Trinity and Its Critics,” Scottish journal of Theology 46 (1993):
325-43; Robert L. Wilkin, “Not a Solitary God: The Triune God of the
Bible,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 36-55; Donald G. Bloesch, “The
Mystery of the Trinity,” chap. 7 in God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom,
Holiness, Love (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995).
19 Johnson, She Who Is, chap. 11. John Sanders traces the
influence of Hellenistic assumptions about the divine nature on the
Christian doctrine of God in Clark H. Pinnock et al., The Openness of
God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), pp. 59-100.
20 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:370-84; A. Okechukwu
Ogbonnaya, On Communitarian Deity: An African Interpretation of
the Trinity (New York: Paragon House, 1994).
21 Karl Rahner equates the immanent and the economic Trinity:
Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury, 1978), p. 136.
290
22 Francis Martin, The Feminist Question: Feminist Theology in the
Light of Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994),
pp. 284-89.
23 Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the
Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1972),
chap. 5, and Hill, Three-Personed God, pp. 78-79, 225-32.
24 William Hasker, “Tri-unity,” Journal of Religion 50 (1970): 6-11;
Hill, Three-Personed God, pp. 59-62; Hodgson, Doctrine of the
Trinity, pp. 144-57. 25Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/1, trans. G. T.
Thompson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), p. 400. Robert Jensen
asks tellingly, “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went?” Pro Ecclesia 2
(1993): 296-304. Hendrikus Berkhof sounds like a unitarian in The
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1964), chap. 6.
26 Hill discusses them under the heading “Neo-modal Trinitarianism:
The Uni-personal God of Three Eternal Modes of Being,” chap. 5 in
Three-Personed God.
27 Hans Küng, Credo: The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today
(New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 150-56.
28 Blair Reynolds, Toward a Process Pneumatology (London:
Associated University Presses, 1990).
29 William C. Placher, “The Triune God: The Perichoresis of
Particular Persons,” chap. 3 in Narratives of a Vulnerable God
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminister John Knox, 1994).
291
30 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1991), p. 16.
31 Johnson, She Who Is, p. 228.
32 LaCugna warns against doing what I am doing here but also
provides help with doing it: God for Us, pp. 296-300.
33 Peters, God as Trinity, pp. 34-37; LaCugna, God for Us, pp. 288-
92; Vincent Brummer, The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical
Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
34 O‘Donnell, Mystery of the Triune God, pp. 77-80.
35 Iconography uses the dove to represent the Spirit. Catechism of
the Catholic Church, par. 701. Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus
Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1986), p. 226.
36 Peter J. Cullen, “Euphoria, Praise and Thanksgiving: Rejoicing in
the Spirit in Luke-Acts,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 6 (1995):
13-24.
37 Kasper, God of Jesus Christ, p. 226; O’Donnell, Mystery of the
Triune God, p. 79. The theme is central to Gregory A. Boyd’s
interaction with process theology in Trinity and Process: A Critical
Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-polar Theism
Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics (New York: Peter Lang, 1992).
38 Augustine On the Holy Trinity 15.17-19.
292
39 On this matter see Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 1:85-92;
David Coffey, “Holy Spirit as the Mutual Bond Between the Father
and the Son,” Theological Studies 51 (1990): 193-229; Peters, God
as Trinity, pp. 67-70; and LaCugna, God for Us, pp. 296-300.
40 Heribert Muhlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person: Ich-Du-Wir, 2nd
edition (Münster, Germany: Verlag Aschendorff, 1966); Maloney,
“Holy Spirit Within the Trinity,” chap. 3 in Spirit Broods over the
World.
41 Michael Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer
(Minneaplis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 50-51, 184.
42 Gunton, Promise of Trinitarian Theology, pp. 48-55; Pannenberg,
Systematic Theology, 1:315-19.
43 Joseph A. Bracken, The Triune Symbol: Persons, Process and
Community (New York: University Press of America, 1985); Hill,
Three-Personed God, pp. 218-25.
44 John Breck, “The Face of the Spirit,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 165-
78; replied to by Robert Dotzel in Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 5-10.
45 Anthony C. Thiselton notes the value of the social Trinity for
issues of theological intelligibility today: Interpreting God and the
Postmodern Self (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 158.
46 Vincent Brummer, What Are We Doing When We Pray? A
Philosophical Inquiry (London: SCM Press, 1984); John J.
O‘Donnell, Trinity and Temporality: The Christian Doctrine of God in
the Light of Process Theology and the Theology of Hope (Oxford:
293
Oxford University Press, 1983), and Pinnock et al., Openness of
God.
47 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2/1, trans. T. H. L. Parker
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), p. 656. Barth risks calling theology a
science, despite the connotation of science as a collection of facts.
Hodge’s view of theology as a science fostered neglect of Spirit. In
Barth theology is really more of an art than a science.
48 LaCugna, God for Us, pp. 300-304.
49 Placher, “The Vulnerable God,” chap. 1 in Narratives of a
Vulnerable God.
50 A recurring theme in Boyd, Trinity and Process, pp. 377, 384,
391, 392.
51 O’Donnell, Trinity and Temporality, pp. 23-25, 198-200.
52 On creation as sabbath play, see Jürgen Moltmann, God in
Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), pp. 276-96. On charismatic
theology as picking up on this theme, see Jean-Jacques Suurmond,
Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a Charismatic Theology (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995).
53 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 3/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958), p. 95.
294
54 Frank G. Kirkpatrick, Together Bound: God, History and the
Religious Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp.
175, 177, 179.
55 Developed in Barth, Church Dogmatics 3/1, and considered
central to American theology by Herbert W. Richardson, Toward an
American Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), chap. 5.
56 Consider the “theo-dramatics” of Hans Urs von Balthasar: John J.
O‘Donnell, Hans Urs von Balthasar (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical,
1992), pp. 16-17, 66, 74-75, 108, 142.
57 Martin Smith, The Word Is Very Near You: A Guide to Praying
with Scripture (Cambridge, Mass: Cowley, 1989), pt. 1.
58 On meaning in music see Edward Rothstein, Emblems of the
Mind (New York: Times Books, 1994).
295
Chapter 2: Spirit in Creation
1 Pope John Paul II, On the Holy Spirit, p. 95.
2 H. I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of Spirit-
Baptism in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1988), p. 338.
3 Samuel Rayan, Breath of Life: The Holy Spirit, Heart of the Gospel
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1979), p. 65.
4 This creative function, though largely absent in Western
dogmatics, is prominent in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:76-115, and
Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), and God in Creation: A New Theology
of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1985). See also T. F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (London:
SCM Press, 1965), p. 227. One could overemphasize it, I suppose,
but neglect seems a more pressing danger, despite Gerald F.
Hawthorne, The Presence and the Power: The Significance of the
Holy Spirit in the Life and Ministry of Jesus (Dallas: Word, 1991), p.
20.
5 Larry Christenson, “The Spirit in Creation and Redemption,” in
Welcome, Holy Spirit: A Study of Charismatic Renewal in the
Church, ed. Larry Christenson (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), chap.
8; Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in
296
Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), pp.
125-28.
6 Cornelius A. Buller, The Unity of Nature and History in
Pannenberg’s Theology (Lanham, Md.: Littlefield Adams, 1996), pp.
199-203.
7 On Spirit as God’s creative power in the New Testament, see
Eduard Schweizer, The Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1980), pp.
15-19.
8 Alasdair I. C. Heron, The Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1983), pp. 31-38.
9 W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 187, 196, 201.
10 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 22-42.
11 Catherine M. LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), pp. 353-56.
12 Daniel J. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction
to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), pp.
85-86. 13Gregory A. Boyd, Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation
and Reconstruction of Hartshorne’s Di-polar Theism Towards a
Trinitarian Metaphysics (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), pp. 391-92.
297
14 Pannenberg, “The Creation of the World,” chap. 7 in Systematic
Theology, vol. 2.
15 Suurmond links the sabbath delight of creation with the
charismatic celebration of Easter and Pentecost, bringing creation
and redemption together: Word and Spirit at Play.
16 On creation as benefit to God and humankind: William J. Hill, The
Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1982), pp. 275-
78.
17 In relation to theodicy, see Pannenberg, Systematic Theology,
2:161-74.
18 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), pp. 133-39.
19 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:21-32, 61-76.
20 John J. O‘Donnell, Hans Urs von Balthasar (Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical, 1992), pp. 66-67.
21 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:32-35, 76-79.
22 Ibid., 2:109-15.
23 Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, “Holy Spirit and
the Future,” in We Believe in the Holy Spirit (London: Church House,
298
1991), pp. 170-86.
24 Johnson, She Who Is, p. 213.
25 For Wesley’s theme of prevenient, restoring grace, see Randy L.
Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology
(Nashville: Kingswood, 1994), pp. 83-93.
26 Basil On the Holy Spirit 38.
27 In opposition to this idea, see Bruce C. Demarest, General
Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), pp. 44, 54, 56,
69, 183, 246, 251, and Jack W. Cottrell, What the Bible Says About
God the Creator (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1983), pp. 340, 342,
346.
28 Demarest (General Revelation) sees a degree of continuity when
he says that God is known as a loving God by general revelation (p.
250) and admits that it might happen that a sinner could cast himself
on God for mercy and be forgiven (p. 260) as happened in Old
Testament times (p. 261). He leaves the door only narrowly open,
but progress is occurring in the work of evangelicals in this area. R.
Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips also grant that God is known to
be benevolent via general revelation in More Than One Way? Four
Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and
Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), p. 217.
29 Wolfhart Pannenberg, An Introduction to Svstematic Theology
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 37-52.
299
30 Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1990), chap. 1; John Polkinghorne, Serious Talk:
Science and Religion in Dialogue (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press
International, 1995); and Clark H. Pinnock, “Scripture and Science:
An Interactive Theory,” McMaster Journal of Theology 3 (1993): 82-
93. John M. Templeton is leading a movement to integrate the new
fruits of science with religious insight: The Humble Approach:
Scientists Discover God (New York: Continuum, 1995).
31 Leading the charge against naturalism posing as unvarnished
truth is Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against
Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1995).
32 Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga,
Science Held Hostage: What’s Wrong with Creation Science and
Evolutionism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).
33 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:115-36. The “creationomic”
perspective was named by Howard J. Van Till in The Fourth Day
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), chap. 12. See also R. J.
Berry, God and Evolution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988);
Charles Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts
Between Science and the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1986); Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
Scripture (London: Paternoster, 1955), pp. 73-79, 155-56. The
discussion continues in a theme issue, “Creation, Evolution and
Christian Faith,” Christian Scholar’s Review 24 (1995): 380-493.
34 On the dialogue of theology and science, see Stanley J. Grenz,
Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfart Pannenberg
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 102-3; Wolfhart
Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Theology of Nature: Essays on
Science and Faith (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993).
300
35 Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, “Spirit and
Creativity,” chap. 9 in We Believe in the Holy Spirit (London: Church
House, 1991).
36 Ted Peters, “God and the Continuing Creation,” chap. 4 in God—
the World’s Future (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
37 Langdon Gilkey, Nature, Reality and the Sacred: The Nexus of
Science and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); David R. Griffin,
ed., The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988); Lindon Eaves
and Lora Gross, “Exploring the Concept of Spirit as a Model for the
God-World Relationship in the Age of Genetics,” Zygon 27 (1992):
261-85; K. Helmut Reich, “The Doctrine of the Trinity as a Model for
Structuring the Relations Between Science and Theology,” Zygon 30
(1995): 383-405.
38 On the interpretation of creation texts, see Gerhard F. Hasel, “The
Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly
46 (1974): 81-102; Bruce K. Waltke, “The Literary Genre of Genesis
Chapter One,” Crux 27 (1991): 2-10; Clark H. Pinnock, “Climbing out
of the Swamp: The Evangelical Struggle to Understand the Creation
Texts,” Interpretation 43 (1989): 143-55.
39 Philip J. Rosato, The Spirit as Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl
Barth (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981), pp. 148-55.
40 On the debate about the significance of the big bang, see William
L. Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang
Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).
301
41 Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, “The Spirit and
Creation,” chap. 8 in We Believe in the Holy Spirit (London: Church
House, 1991).
42 We need more theologians with backgrounds in science like Ted
Peters: see God—the World’s Future, pp. 122-39.
43 Gordon D. Kaufman, In Face of Mystery: A Constructive Theology
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), chaps. 19-20.
44 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:76-136.
45 Moltmann, God in Creation, p. 100. Interestingly, this idea does
not make its appearance in his book on the Spirit, Spirit of Life.
46 M. A. Corey, God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design
Argument (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993); Hugh
Montefiore, The Probability of God (London: SCM Press, 1985). On
the design parameters, see J. P. Moreland, ed., The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), pp. 160-72; Hugh Ross, The
Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1993).
47 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The
Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. (Dallas: Haughton,
1993).
48 So Arthur R. Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1990), pp. 113-14, 157-59, 175-76; Robert C.
Neville, Eternity and Time’s Flow (Albany: State University of New
302
York Press, 1993); Alan G. Padgett, God, Eternity and the Nature of
Time (New York: St. Martin’s, 1992).
49 On the work of the Spirit in continuing creation, see Moltmann,
God in Creation, chap. 8. A parallel reflection in the process
framework is Sallie McFague, “God and the World,” chap. 5 in The
Body of God: An Ecological Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
For the proleptic concept of creation see Peters, God—the World’s
Future, pp. 134-39.
50 Peter C. Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian
Theology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994), pp. 179-
82; John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1989), pp. 91-95.
51 Richard Swinburne, The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1986), and The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon,
1979), chap. 9; Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the
Difference It Makes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).
On language, see John W. Oller Jr. and John L. Omdahl, “Origin of
the Human Language Capacity: In Whose Image?” in The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, ed. J. P.
Moreland (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), pp. 235-69.
52 Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational
World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 232; Barbour,
Religion in an Age of Science, pp. 135-36; Ross, The Creator and
the Cosmos, pp. 86, 114-17, 120; Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology, 2:74, 115.
53 Karl Rahner, On the Theology of Death (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1972), pt. 2. David H. Lane resists rethinking issues in this
303
manner: “Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 150 (1994): 155-74.
54 Rosato, Spirit as Lord, pp. 141-48.
55 Heron, Holy Spirit, chap. 9; Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit, pp. 179-
80, 279-80, 284-87; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:1-2.
56 Johnson, She Who Is, p. 125.
57 On chaos and order in the Hebrew Bible see Jon D. Levenson,
Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine
Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985).
58 Correlating insights of anthropology and theology, see
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:202-31, and Grenz, Theology
for the Community of God, pp. 169-73. On the yes God longs to
hear, see Henri J. M. Nouwen, Life of the Beloved (New York:
Crossroad, 1995), pp. 106-7.
59 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:166-67.
60 Peters, God—the World’s Future, pp. 155-68. His reflections on
sin’s dynamics are more fully developed in Sin: Radical Evil in Soul
and Society (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994).
61 E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of
the Compassion of God (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press,
1995), pp. 330-31; Douglas J. Hall, God and Human Suffering: An
304
Exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1986); Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:161-74.
62 H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous
Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985); Roger E. Olson, “Resurrection, Cosmic Liberation and
Christian Earth Keeping,” ExAuditu 9 (1993): 123-32; Michael
Cromartie, ed., Creation at Risk? Religion, Science and
Environmentalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995).
63 Henri Boulad, All Is Grace: God and the Mystery of Time (New
York: Crossroad, 1991), pp. 114-18. Yves Congar has admitted
neglect of the Creator Spirit in his work: “The Holy Spirit and the
Cosmos,” chap. 8 in The Word and the Spirit (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1986).
305
Chapter 3: Spirit & Christology
1 On “Messiah” as a title see Richard N. Longenecker, The
Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1970),
pp. 63-82. The only book given over to a study of the Spirit in the
ministry of Jesus is Gerald F. Hawthorne, The Presence and the
Power. The Significance of the Holy Spirit in the Life and Ministry of
Jesus (Dallas: Word, 1991). James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit
(London: SCM Press, 1975), does not in fact make Spirit Christology
the sole focus, despite its title.
2 Roger Haight, “The Case for Spirit Christology,” Theological
Studies 53 (1992): 257-87; Ralph Del Colle, “Spirit Christology:
Dogmatic Foundations for Pentecostal-Charismatic Spirituality,”
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3 (1993): 91-112. Edward Irving
focused on the work of the Spirit in the humanity of Jesus; see
Gordon Strachan, The Pentecostal Theology of Edward Irving
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988).
3 Jean-Jacques Suurmond, Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a
Charismatic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), pp.
46-47.
4 Yves Congar, “The Place of the Holy Spirit in Christology,” chap. 6
in The Word and the Spirit (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986);
Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1975), 1:106-49.
306
5 Lewis B. Smedes, Union with Christ: A Biblical View of the New
Life in Jesus Christ, rev. ed.(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983);
Trevor A. Hart, “Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption,”
in Christ in Our Place, ed. Trevor A. Hart and Daniel P. Thimell
(Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1989), pp. 152-81.
6 On salvation through union with Christ see Robert Letham, The
Work of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), pp.
75-87.
7 “The Joint Mission of the Son and the Spirit,” in Catechism of the
Catholic Church, pp. 181-82. The addition of the filiogue to the
Nicene Creed seems to subordinate the Spirit to the Son, and for this
reason I do not favor it. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A
Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 71-73, 306-
9.
8 Greek church father Irenaeus in Against Heresies stresses the
continuity of creation and redemption against the Gnostics, who saw
the world as inherently evil and refused to identify the God of
creation with the God of Jesus Christ. Against them, he emphasizes
that God is both Creator and Redeemer and that the Spirit is active
in both realms. Alasdair I. C. Heron, The Holy Spirit (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 64-67.
9 Stuart C. Hackett, The Reconstruction of the Christian Truth Claim:
A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1984), pp. 166-76.
10 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Reality of God and the Gods in the
Experience of the Religions,” chap. 3 in Systematic Theology, vol. 1
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).
307
11 Discussion of the filioque awaits chapter six, but it is evident
already that I regard it as an impediment to a recognition of Spirit
operations apart from and prior to Christ.
12 A fine exposition of Rembrandt’s painting and the parable is
found in Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son (New
York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 44, 78.
13 Michael Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), chap. 2.
14 David Ewert, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (Scottdale,
Penn.: Herald, 1983), pp. 27-32; Welker, God the Spirit, chap. 3;
Moltmann, Spirit of Life, pp. 51-57.
15 Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation
of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), pp. 76-85;
Hawthorne, “The Spirit in the Conception and Birth of Jesus,” chap. 2
in The Presence and the Power; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology,
2:168-74.
16 I will assume the reliability of the Gospel records. As a theologian,
I think with assent—that is, as a believer in Jesus Christ, I think in
the context of God’s revelation. However, this is not an unwarranted
leap but a reasonably well-founded assumption. On the current
debate about Jesus, see Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds.,
Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), and
Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic, Sage or Son of God? (Wheaton, Ill: Victor,
1995).
17 James D. G. Dunn, “The Spirit of Jesus” and “The Spirit and the
Body of Christ,” in The Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering
308
Presence, ed. George Vandervelde (Winfield, B.C.: Wood Lake
Books, 1988), pp. 11-12, 17-18; Heribert Muhlen, A Charismatic
Theology: Initiation in the Spirit (London: Burns and Oates, 1978),
pp. 105-9.
18 James B. Shelton, Mighty in Word and Deed (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 119-20. On the self-emptying of the Son see
Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad,
1986), pp. 189-97.
19 On his reticence to speak about the Spirit, see Eduard Schweizer,
The Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1980), pp. 47-50.
20 C . K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London:
SPCK, 1947), pp. 5-24; Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ:
Christology in Messianic Dimensions (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1990), pp. 78-87; Shelton, “Holy Spirit and the Infancy Witnesses,”
chap. 2 in Mighty in Word and Deed.
21 Hawthorne, “The Spirit in the Boyhood and Youth of Jesus,” chap.
3 in The Presence and the Power.
22 Dunn, “Jesus’ Experience of God—Sonship,” chap. 2 in Jesus
and the Spirit; John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God
(New York: Paulist, 1989), chap. 3; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ,
pp. 87-94.
23 James D. G. Dunn drives a wedge between water baptism and
Spirit baptism, making water unimportant: Baptism in the Holy Spirit
(London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 32-37. This move is typical of free
church Protestants but strains the text. See Shelton, Mighty in Word
and Deed, chap. 4; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, pp. 87-94.
309
24 Hawthorne, “The Spirit at the Baptism and Temptation of Jesus,”
chap. 4 in The Presence and the Power; Thomas A. Smail, Reflected
Glory: The Spirit in Christ and Christians (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 90-103.
25 On the human nature of Christ in the thought of Edward Irving,
see Strachan, Pentecostal Theology of Edward Irving.
26 Shelton, “The Holy Spirit and Jesus’ Temptation,” chap. 5 in
Mighty in Word and Deed; Ewert, Holy Spirit in the New Testament,
pp. 54-57.
27 Hawthorne, “The Spirit as the Key to the Kenosis,” chap. 7 in The
Presence and the Power.
28 Welker, God the Spirit, pp. 195-203; Hawthorne, “The Spirit in the
Ministry of Jesus,” chap. 5 in The Presence and the Power; Shelton,
Mighty in Word and Deed, chap. 6; Roger Stronstad, The
Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1984), pp. 42-46; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, pp. 94-136.
29 Welker, God the Spirit, pp. 211-19. The text identifies the truly
impenitent who will be excluded from the kingdom. Such people
know the truth and stand against it. About no one else should we be
certain that they are outside.
30 Rene Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of
Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988), pp. 257-62; Shelton, Mighty in
Word and Deed, chap. 7.
310
31 O‘Donnell, “Trinity and the Paschal Mystery,” chap. 4 in Mystery
of the Triune God; Moltmann, Spirit of Life, pp. 62-65; Hawthorne,
“The Spirit in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus,” chap. 6 in The
Presence and the Power; Richard Foster, “The Prayer of
Relinquishment,” chap. 5 in Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
32 Moltmann, Spirit of Life, pp. 65-66; Hendrikus Berkhof, The
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1964), pp. 104-
8; Richard B. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in
Paul’s Soteriology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978),
pp. 66-70; Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the
Resurrection (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), chap. 9.
33 Del Colle, “Spirit Christology,” p. 97; Berkhof, Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, pp. 20-21. Kasper, God of Jesus Chirst, pp. 184-89; Grillmeier,
Christ in Christian Tradition, 1:108-9, 167-69. In Barth, Logos
Christology also marginalizes Spirit-oriented understanding; see
Philip J. Rosato, “Christology in a Pneumatic Framework,” chap. 8 in
The Spirit as Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1981).
34 O’Donnell, Mystery of the Triune God, pp. 80-84.
35 Paul W. Newman, A Spirit Christology: Recovering the Biblical
Paradigm of Christian Faith (Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 1987); John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate:
Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox, 1993).
36 Ralph Del Colle, “Pneumatological Christology in the Orthodox
Tradition,” chap. 1 in Christ and the Spirit: Spirit Christology in
Trinitarian Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994);
311
Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, 3 vols. (New York: Seabury,
1983), 3:165-73.
37 This idea, which goes back to Irenaeus, understands the
incarnation as God himself recapitulating the human journey. Christ,
the representative of humanity, sums up, transforms, consummates
and restores all aspects of our condition. For exposition see Jean
Danielou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1973), pp. 166-83; Aidan Nicholls, The Art of God
Incarnate: Theology and Image in Christian Tradition (London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980).
38 T. F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (London: SCM Press,
1965), p. 248.
39 Few authors give attention to the meaning of Christ’s
representation. Dorothee Solle is an exception: Christ Our
Representative (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967).
40 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of
Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), pp. 467-68, 549.
41 Douglas Farrow, “St. Irenaeus of Lyons,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995):
333-55. On the subjective genitive see Richard N. Longenecker,
Galatians (Dallas: Word, 1990), p. 87.
42 Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 518.
43 Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three
Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (London: SPCK, 1953), chap.
2; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:403-4.
312
44 Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Is Victor: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of
Salvation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), chaps. 3-4. Morna Hooker
finds the motif of salvation through the representative journey of
Jesus throughout the New Testament: Not Ashamed of the Gospel:
New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994). Kenneth Grayston also finds participatory
atonement in the New Testament: Dying We Love: A New Enquiry
into the Death of Christ in the New Testament (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990).
45 Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption, pp. 114-27; Christian D.
Kettler, The Vicarious Humanity of Christ and the Reality of Salvation
(New York: University Press of America, 1991).
46 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:429-37.
47 On the rationality of solidarity see Walter Kasper, Jesus the
Christ, trans. V. Green (New York: Paulist, 1976), pp. 204-5, 215-25;
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:419-21, 429-30.
48 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury,
1978), p. 200.
49 On Christ as last Adam see James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the
Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of
the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), chap. 4;
Russell P. Shedd, Man in Community: A Study of Paul’s Application
of Old Testament and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity
(London: Epworth, 1958); C. Marvin Pate, Adam Christology as the
Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7—5:21
(New York: University Press of America, 1991), pp. 97-98, 144-47.
313
50 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study
of the Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1986), pp. 319-20.
51 Clark H. Pinnock, “Salvation by Resurrection,” Ex Auditu 9
(1993): 1-11; Anthony J. Tambasco, A Theology of Atonement and
Paul’s Vision of Christianity (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991), pp.
76-81.
52 Smail, “His Life-Giving Body,” chap. 9 in Reflected Glory; Keith
Ward, Religion and Revelation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 299-
302; Stephen T. Davis, “Resurrection and Meaning,” chap. 10 in
Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993).
53 Tambasco, Theology of Atonement, pp. 85-93.
54 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 297-98.
55 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:136, 389-96.
56 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), pp. 157-210.
57 The image of the father giving up the beloved son roots in
Abraham’s binding of Isaac: Jon D. Levenson, The Death and
Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child
Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1993).
314
58 John V. Dahm, “Dying with Christ,” Journal of the Evangelical
Society 36 (1993): 15-23. Colin E. Gunton, “Christ the Sacrifice: A
Dead Metaphor?” chap. 5 in The Actuality of Atonement (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989). Compare Leon Morris, The
Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1983); Hooker, Not Ashamed of the Gospel, pp. 43-
44.
59 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:449-54.
60 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Collins, 1952), pp. 53-58,
153, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (London: Penguin,
1959), p. 148; Richard L. Purtill, C. S. Lewis’ Case for the Christian
Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), pp. 49-52; Richard B.
Cunningham, C. S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith (Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1967), pp. 115-16.
61 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1983), pp. 815-16; Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1994), pp. 574-79; James I. Packer, “What Did the Cross
Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution,” Tyndale Bulletin 25
(1974): 3-45.
62 John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 7-12.
63 Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church, Its Thought and Life
(New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 43-47; Daniel B. Clendenin,
Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand
315
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994), pp. 120-25; Timothy Ware,
The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin, 1963), p. 234.
64 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:403-16.
65 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2/1, trans. T. H. L. Parker
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), pp. 351-406, and 4/1, pp. 211-83.
Donald G. Bloesch, “Re-interpreting the Atonement,” chap. 4 in
Jesus Is Victor.
66 Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/1, pp. 253-54.
67 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (London: SCM Press,
1974), pp. 292, 145-53, 178-96; E. Frank Tupper, A Scandalous
Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of God (Macon,
Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995), pp. 371-89.
68 On atonement as a participatory journey see Tambasco,
Theology of Atonement.
69 Clark H. Pinnock and Robert C. Brow, Unbounded Love: A Good
News Theology for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1994), chap. 9. On interpreting Paul in
noncommercial terms see Douglas Campbell, “The Atonement in
Paul,” Anvil 11 (1994): 237-50; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology,
2:425-29.
70 On the Trinity in the paschal mystery, see O‘Donnell, Mystery of
the Triune God, chap. 4.
316
71 Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/1, p. 253, from “The Judge Judged in
Our Place” (pp. 211-83).
317
Chapter 4: Spirit & Church
1 Paul S. Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960); Avery Dulles, Models of the
Church (New York: Doubleday, 1974).
2 Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), pp.
150-203; William R. Barr and Rena M. Yocum, eds., The Church in
the Movement of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994).
Unfortunately Spirit ecclesiology is not one of the five models in
Dulles, Models of the Church.
3 John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (New York:
Paulist, 1989), pp. 84-88.
4 Tom Smail, Andrew Walker and Nigel Wright, The Love of Power
or the Power of Love (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1994), pp. 23-
24.
5 Yves Congar, “The Spirit Animates the Church,” chap. 1 in I
Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 2 (New York: Seabury, 1983). On the
ecclesial nature of Christianity see Karl Rahner, Foundations of
Christian Faith (New York: Seabury, 1978), chap. 7.
6 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), p. 636.
318
7 Jürgen Moltmann, “The Fellowship of the Spirit,” chap. 11 in The
Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
8 Ted Peters, God—the World’s Future (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992), pp. 261-63; Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon,
Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon,
1989).
9 Heribert Muhlen, A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit
(London: Burnes & Oates, 1978), pp. 117-18.
10 Michael Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 235.
11 Sally Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into
the Presence of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995).
12 Charles H. Kraft explains why churches are powerless due to the
modern worldview in Christianity with Power (Ann Arbor, Mich:
Servant, 1989). Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton focus on
this dualism in The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1984), pt. 3. Also see Peter E. Gillquist, The
Physical Side of Being Spiritual (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1979).
13 On the early church as sacramental and charismatic, see Kilian
McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Inititation and
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries
(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991). On the importance of fire
burning in the fireplaces of historic churches, see Charles E.
Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Charismatic Renewal in the Nineties
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993). Robert Webber also
319
looks for the confluence of sacramental and charismatic in Signs of
Wonder (Nashville: Abbott Martyn, 1992).
14 Barr and Yocum, “The Spirit in the Worship and Liturgy of the
Church,” chap. 3 in Church in the Movement of the Spirit. On the
nature of the sacred liturgy and its importance in the church’s life,
see Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, pars. 5-13.
15 Neville Clark, An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments
(London: SCM Press, 1956).
16 On Jesus as the primordial sacrament see Herbert Vorgrimler,
Sacramental Theology (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992), pp. 30-
32.
17 Dulles, “The Church as Sacrament,” chap. 4 in Models of the
Church. At the end of this chapter Dulles remarks that this notion of
the church has found little by way of response from Protestant
thought. Perhaps so, but it finds a positive response from me.
18 For the larger sense of sacrament see Hendrikus Berkhof,
Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, trans. Sierd
Woudstra (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 345-92. On
sacraments as means of growing into union with Christ, see
Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory
Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1984), chap. 2.
19 Calling for a recovery of richness in worship is Barry Liesch,
People in the Presence of God: Models and Directions, for Worship
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1988), chap. 8.
320
20 On the importance of ritual see Delwin Brown, Boundaries of Our
Habitations: Tradition and Theological Construction (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1994), pp. 91-109.
21 G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London:
Macmillan, 1963), pp. 275-79; McDonnell and Montague, Christian
Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp. 76-80, 316-42.
22 Dunn grants that water baptism is an occasion for the coming of
the Spirit but balks at calling it a sacrament. This is odd, since
acknowledging the former sounds like granting the latter. The
explanation may be that he defines sacrament as an ex opere
operato action apart from faith, while I do not. James D. G. Dunn,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 224-29.
23 One sees the dualism in Dunn, Baptism, pp. 219, 227-28, and in
Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the
Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 860-63.
For a more integrative interpretation see H. I. Lederle, Treasures Old
and New: Interpretations of Spirit-Baptism in the Charismatic
Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), pp. 66-
73, 104-43; Frederick D. Bruner and William Hordern, “Of Water and
the Spirit,” chap. 2 in The Holy Spirit—Shy Member of the Trinity
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984); Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/4,
trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969).
24 On baptism in the Reformers and the role of Zwingli, see Jack W.
Cottrell, “Baptism According to the Reformed Tradition,” in Baptism
and the Remission of Sins, ed. David W. Fletcher (Joplin, Mo:
College, 1990), pp. 39-80.
25 Muhlen understands the sacrament as an expression of the
charismatic self-surrender of Jesus: Charismatic Theology, pp. 124-
321
25.
26 Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), p. 167; Congar, I Believe in
the Holy Spirit, 3:250-74.
27 Peters, God—the World’s Future, pp. 275-92; F. X. Durrwell, Holy
Spirit of God (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986), pp. 91-107.
28 Ernst Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church, Its Thought and Life
(New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 36-38.
29 On the relation of faith to sacrament see Vorgrimler, Sacramental
Theology, pp. 82-86.
30 Kraft exposes the modern bias against belief in the miraculous in
Christianity with Power, and Langdon Gilkey exposes the bias
against it in the area of sacraments in Catholicism Confronts
Modernity: A Protestant View (New York: Seabury, 1975), chaps. 1-
2.
31 Robert E. Webber, Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why
Evangelicals Are Attracted to the Liturgical Church (Wilton, Conn.:
Morehouse-Barlow, 1985).
32 Grenz sees a greater willingness to accept the sacramental
principle in the free churches: Theology for the Community of God,
pp. 67-172.
322
33 Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984).
34 Siegfried Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology of Charismata
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987).
35 Philip J. Rosato, The Spirit as Lord: The Pneumatology of Karl
Barth (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981), pp. 160-66.
36 The need of wise oversight is regularly tested where the “Toronto
Blessing” is active: Dave Roberts, The Toronto Blessing
(Eastbourne, U.K.: Kingsway, 1994), chap. 10.
37 Küng, The Church, pp. 173-79.
38 Ibid., pp. 179-91.
39 Welker, God the Spirit, chaps. 2-3.
40 Rene Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of
Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988), pp. 258-62; Jon Ruthven, On the
Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical
Miracles (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 195-
97, 202-5.
41 Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata, chaps. 2-3. Jack
Deere believes that a deficit in experience best explains the
cessationist position: Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993), chap. 5. Also see Gary S. Greig
323
and Kevin N. Springer, eds., The Kingdom and the Power (Ventura,
Calif.: Regal, 1993).
42 Moltmann, “The Charismatic Powers of Life,” chap. 9 in Spirit of
Life.
43 On the meaning of Pentecost see Harry R. Boer, Pentecost and
Missions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1961), chap. 5; Dunn,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit, chap. 4. On the transference of power see
Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984), chap. 4; James B. Shelton, Mighty in
Word and Deed (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), chap. 11.
44 Opposed to this openness is Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on
Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979), p. 117.
Welcoming it was A. B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and
Missionary Alliance, a forerunner of charismatic renewal; see
Charles W. Nienkirchen, A. B. Simpson and the Pentecostal
Movement: A Study in Continuity, Crisis and Change (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992).
45 George T. Montague, The Spirit and His Gifts (New York: Paulist,
1974), chap. 3.
46 The case of the Kansas City prophets should give us pause; see
James A. Beverley, Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), chap. 8. Jim is now researching
the career of Paul Cain in regard to testing prophecy.
47 Tom Harpur calls on churches to recover ministries of healing:
The Uncommon Touch: An Investigation of Spiritual Healing
324
(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994).
48 On healing as anticipatory of the coming kingdom, see Oscar
Cullmann, “The Proleptic Deliverance of the Body According to the
New Testament,” chap. 7 in The Early Church (London: SCM Press,
1956); Richard L. Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1979), pp. 237-39. The desire for miracles can lead to
dishonesty in claims: Beverley, Holy Laughter and the Toronto
Blessing, chap. 7.
49 Jan Veenhof, “Charismata—Supernatural or Natural?” in The
Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence, ed. George
Vandervelde (Winfield, B.C.: Wood Lake Books, 1988), pp. 73-91;
Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace, pp. 280-82. James D. G. Dunn takes
the opposite point of view, though even he admits a gift may “chime
in with an individual disposition and temperament”: Jesus and the
Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1975), pp. 255-56.
50 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (New York: Viking,
1966), p. 92; John White, When the Spirit Comes in Power (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985), on what happens in revivals.
51 On the effects of the Western worldview on openness, see Kraft,
Christianity with Power. What is needed is a spirituality of openness
to God: Joyce Huggett, Open to God (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1989).
52 Moltmann, Spirit of Life, p. 188.
53 The Malines Document (1974): “Theological and Pastoral
Orientations on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal,” pp. 17-18.
325
54 There are dangers inherent in charismatic religion and many
warnings about them: Doctrine Commission of the Church of
England, “The Spirit and Power,” chap. 6 in We Believe in the Holy
Spirit (London: Church House, 1991); Peter Hocken, “Addressing the
Shame,” chap. 24 in The Glory and the Shame (Guildford, Surrey,
U.K.: Eagle, 1994); Smail, Walker and Wright, Love of Power;
Edward D. O‘Connor, The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic
Church (Notre Dame, Ind.: Ave Maria Press, 1971), chap. 8. It is
remarkable how Pentecostalism can be a truly great movement of
revival and be so awash with abuses at the same time.
55 The image is used by Hummel in Fire in the Fireplace, pp. 20-21.
56 On charism and office see Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, pp. 298-
99, and on diaconal structure, Küng, The Church, pp. 393-444.
57 Karl Rahner, The Dynamic Element in the Church (New York:
Herder and Herder, 1964); “The Church—an Ordered Body,” in
Welcome, Holy Spirit: A Study of Charismatic Renewal in the
Church, ed. Larry Christenson (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), chap.
47; Yves Congar, The Word and the Spirit (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1986), pp. 58-62, 78-83.
58 Lederle, Treasures Old and New, p. 234.
59 Theology has neglected the mission of the church. An exception
is Karl Barth: “Holy Spirit and the Sending of the Christian
Community,” in Church Dogmatics 4/3 (2) trans. G. W. Bromiley
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1962), as noted by Hendrikus Berkhof, The
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1964), chap. 2.
326
60 John Fuellenbach, “The Kingdom and the Holy Spirit,” in The
Kingdom of God: The Message of Jesus Today (Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis, 1995), pp. 236-47.
61 Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, p. 171.
62 In addition to Barth and Berkhof, see Boer, Pentecost and
Missions, chaps. 5-7.
63 Nicholas Lash, His Presence in the World: A Study of Eucharistic
Worship and Theology (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968), pp. 155-
63; Ronald J. Sider, One-Sided Christianity? Uniting the Church to
Heal a Lost and Broken World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1993).
64 William J. Abraham, The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989); David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission:
Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis,
1991).
65 Peters, “Proleptic Ethics,” chap. 12 in God—the World’s Future.
66 Welker relates intimacy with God to costly discipleship: God the
Spirit, pp. 331-41.
67 Richard J. Mouw, “Life in the Spirit in an Unjust World,” in The
Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence, ed. George
Vandervelde (Winfield, B.C.: Wood Lake Books, 1988), pp. 119-40.
327
68 Cardinal Suenens and Dom Helder Camara, Charismatic
Renewal and Social Action: A Dialogue, Malines Document III (Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1979). On Luke’s mission paradigm see
Bosch, Transforming Mission, chap. 3.
69 Larry Christenson, A Charismatic Approach to Social Action
(Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1974).
70 Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992),
chap. 16; Richard J. Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), chap. 21.
71 Beverly R. Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of
Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986);
Berkhof, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp. 100-104, and Christian Faith,
pp. 507-12. Pannenberg on church and society: Stanley J. Grenz,
Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfart pannenberg
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 178-82.
72 Welker, God the Spirit, pp. 124-34; John Howard Yoder, The
Original Revolution (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1972), chap. 1.
328
Chapter 5: Spirit & Union
1 Bernard of Clairvaux On the Song of Songs 1 (Kalamazoo, Mich.:
Cistercian Publications, 1976), pp. 45-52. There is a plurality of
salvations, not just one model in Christianity and in world religions:
S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995); J. A. DiNoia, The Diversity of
Religions: A Christian Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press, 1992); Harold A. Netland, Dissonant
Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).
2 Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in
the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 362-
65, 693-97.
3 T. F. Torrance pleads for a recovery of the notion of theosis in
Theology in Reconstruction (London: SCM Press, 1965), p. 243.
4 A. M. Allchin, Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican
Tradition (Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1988); Robert V.
Rakestraw, “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of
Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,
forthcoming; Philip E. Hughes, “The Deification of Man in Christ,”
chap. 24 in The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989); Daniel B. Clendenin, “The
Deification of Humanity: Theosis,” chap. 6 in Eastern Orthodox
Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1994). It is not absent from the Reformation: Tuomo
Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro
329
Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48. It is found to be central in Calvin by
Leanne Van Dyk, who cites many scholars in support: The Desire of
Divine Love: John McLeod Campbell’s Doctrine of the Atonement
(New York: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 151.
5 Al Wolters, “Partners of the Deity: A Covenantal Reading of 2
Peter 1:4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44.
6 Neil Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul
(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957); Paul’s category of “in Christ”
supports the idea of salvation as union and communion, according to
Richard N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper
& Row, 1964), pp. 160-70. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the
Lord, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982); Francis K. Nemick and
Marie T. Coombs, The Way of Spiritual Direction (Collegeville, Minn.:
Liturgical, 1985).
7 Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (New York: Random House,
1995), p. 4; John J. O‘Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (New
York: Paulist, 1989), pp. 163-67.
8 Fee, in a book on Paul’s theology of Spirit, acknowledges that the
apostle places the community before the individual in his thinking (p.
846) but still arranges his chapters in the opposite order: see God’s
Empowering Presence, chaps. 14-15.
9 On this theme in Orthodoxy see Christoforos Stavropoulos,
Partakers of Divine Nature (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1976).
10 Ernst Benz, “Liturgy and Sacraments,” chap. 2 in The Eastern
Orthodox Church, Its Thought and Life (New York: Doubleday, 1963).
330
11 Vladimir Lossky, “Redemption and Deification,” chap. 5 in In the
Image and Likeness of God (London: Mowbrays, 1975).
12 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin, 1963),
pp. 236-42. In opposition to Stace, Nelson Pike claims that no
Christian mystics ever meant to erase the Creator-creature
distinction in their discussion of union: Pike, Mystic Union: An Essay
on the Phenomenology of Mysticism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1992), pp. 208-13.
13 Keith Ward, Religion and Revelation: A Theology of Revelation in
the World’s Religions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 134-56.
14 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Collins, 1952), p. 138;
Georgios I. Mantzaridis, “The Mystical Experience of Deification,”
chap. 4 in The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and the
Orthodox Tradition (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1984).
15 This is the theme of H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The
Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985), pp. 217-18.
16 Millard J. Erickson makes it the primary dimension of salvation:
Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983),
pp. 904-5.
17 Thomas N. Finger rethinks justification in Christian Theology: An
Eschatological Approach, vol. 2 (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1987),
chap. 7. Ronald J. Sider protests exaggeration in the way
evangelicals speak of it in One-Sided Christianity? Uniting the
Church to Heal a Lost and Broken World (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
331
Zondervan, 1993), p. 222. Alister McGrath complains that the
Catechism of the Catholic Church does not deal with the sixteenth-
century disputes over justification, but I think this was wise; see First
Things 51 (March 1995): 68-69.
18 Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1976).
19 James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate, The Justice of God: A
Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), pt. 1. On justification in Orthodoxy
see Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, pp. 120-25. Donald G.
Bloesch balances justification and deification too: God the Almighty:
Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1995), pp. 234-36. Justification is just not the dividing issue it
used to be between Catholics and Protestants; see Charles Colson
and Richard J. Neuhaus, Evangelicals and Catholics Together:
Toward a Common Mission (Dallas: Word, 1995), pp. 168-69, 199-
200.
20 Protestants can be remarkably self-righteous on this point, in
asking whether Rome has finally gotten its doctrine of justification
right. We need to ask, Have we gotten it right yet? Rome has
acknowledged Luther’s strengths; when will we acknowledge his
weaknesses? A sad book is R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The
Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1995)—sad because it refuses to credit Catholic and
Protestant developments since the Reformation or to offer any hope
of Christian unity.
21 Stanley J. Grenz, “The Dynamic of Conversion,” chap. 15 in
Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1994).
332
22 John Paul II, Gospel of Life, p. 15.
23 On Wesley’s doctrine of prevenient and restoring grace, see
Randy L. Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical
Theology (Nashville: Kingswood, 1994), pp. 83-93. Hans Urs von
Balthasar views the relationship of finite and infinite freedom in the
context of a “theo-drama”: Edward T. Oakes, Pattern of Redemption:
The Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar (New York: Continuum,
1995), chap. 8.
24 On the mode of God’s activity in the world, see E. Frank Tupper,
A Scandalous Providence: The Jesus Story of the Compassion of
God (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1995), pp. 30-38.
25 Rene Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of
Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988), pp. 316-18.
26 Leon Joseph Suenens, “The Holy Spirit and Mary,” chap. 11 in A
New Pentecost? (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975).
27 John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 109-29; Michael Norton,
Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1994); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1994), chaps. 32-35.
28 Fee appears to fudge in God’s Empowering Presence, p. 853.
29 Harry R. Boer, “The Responding Imago,” chap. 5 in An Ember
Still Glowing (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990); Ware,
333
Orthodox Church, pp. 226-30.
30 Harry J. McSorley, Luther Right or Wrong: An Ecumenical-
Theological Study of Luther’s Major Work (New York: Newman,
1969), pp. 359-66.
31 Vincent Brummer, “Can We Resist the Grace of God?” chap. 3 in
Speaking of a Personal God (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992); H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, Mo.:
Beacon Hill, 1952), 2:356-57.
32 C. Stephen Evans, “Salvation, Sin and Human Freedom in
Kierkegaard,” in The Grace of God, the Will of Man, ed. Clark H.
Pinnock (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 181-89;
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1991), 2:48, 52.
33 Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 41-42.
34 This and other sayings like it from the fathers are found in Ware,
Orthodox Church, pp. 234-36.
35 Fee, “The Spirit as Eschatological Fulfillment,” chap. 12 in God’s
Empowering Presence.
36 Receiving the Spirit is a topic in Grudem’s soterioloigy but not
Erickson’s: Grudem, Systematic Theology, chap. 39; Erickson,
Christian Theology, pt. 10.
334
37 Jonathan Edwards discusses how God impacts us in Religious
Affections, ed. John E. Smith (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 1959), pp. 91-124.
38 Jürgen Moltmann, “Rebirth to Life,” chap. 7 in The Spirit of Life: A
Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Beverly R.
Gaventa, “Imagery of New Birth and New Life,” chap. 4 in From
Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament
(Philadlphia: Fortress, 1986).
39 Michael Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 331-41; James D. G. Dunn,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 225-26;
Fee, “The Soteriological Spirit,” chap. 14 in God’s Empowering
Presence; Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the
Kingdom (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
40 Jon Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The
Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993), pp. 195-205.
41 Frederick D. Bruner and William Hordern, “Of Water and the
Spirit,” chap. 2 in The Holy Spirit—Shy Member of the Trinity
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984); Jack W. Cottrell, Baptism: A Biblical
Study (Joplin, Mo.: College, 1989); George T. Montague, The Spirit
and His Gifts (New York: Paulist, 1974), pp. 10-14. Dunn’s statement
that baptism is not “a channel of grace” is puzzling, since he has also
said it is “the expression of faith to which God gives the Spirit”
(Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp. 227-28). Fee also loosens the
connection between water and Spirit baptism (God’s Empowering
Presence, pp. 860-64).
335
42 On the early church as sacramental and charismatic, see Kilian
McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism
in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries
(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991), pp. 76-80, 308-10, 316-42.
43 Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), pp. 58-61, 197. Roger
Stronstad notes Luke’s emphasis on power for vocation as distinct
from Paul’s emphasis, and concludes that receiving power may well
appear to be a second blessing both in Acts and today: The
Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1984). Frederick D. Bruner is insensitive to pastoral realities and
attacks Pentecostals rather than crediting them for being aware of
pastoral concerns: A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal
Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1970).
44 No one makes this point better than Charles H. Kraft, Christianity
with Power (Ann Arbor, Mich: Servant, 1989).
45 H. I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of Spirit-
Baptism in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1988), pp. 66-73, 238-39; Gordon D. Fee, “Baptism in
the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence,” chap. 7
in Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991). Fee, though he criticizes the
Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence, credits the movement for
calling the church back to the experience of Pentecost.
46 Gordon D. Fee, “Toward a Pauline Theology of Glossolalia,” Crux
31 (1995): 22-31.
336
47 Larry W. Hurtado, “Normal but Not a Norm: Initial Evidence and
the New Testament,” in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical
Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary
B. McGee (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 189-201. In
agreement is Thomas A. Smail, Reflected Glory: The Spirit in Christ
and Christians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 43.
48 Montague, The Spirit and His Gifts, chap. 2.
49 Frank D. Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental
Understanding of Pentecostal Experience,” Pneuma 15 (1993): 61-
76.
50 J. I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Old Tappan, N.J.:
Revell, 1984).
51 Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (Crestwood,
N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), pp. 119-37, and In the
Image and Likeness of God (London: Mowbrays, 1975); Jürgen
Moltmann, “God’s Image in Creation,” chap. 9 in God in Creation: A
New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1985).
52 Smail, “Into His Likeness,” chap. 2 in Reflected Glory.
53 Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon,
1979), chap. 11; John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York:
Harper & Row, 1966), pts. 3-4.
54 Few authors surpass Henri J. M. Nowen in writing about the
nature of Christian living; see Life of the Beloved (New York:
337
Crossroad, 1995).
55 Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, pp. 133-34.
56 Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “On the Holy Spirit” puts strong
emphasis on the sanctifying work of the Spirit, which frees us from
sin’s domination. Growth, not perfection, was Wesley’s emphasis:
Maddox, Responsible Grace, pp. 177-90.
57 The likeness of Christ consists of his placing God’s cause and
humankind’s cause first in his life by the Spirit: Hans Küng, On Being
a Christian (London: Collins, 1974), pp. 214-77.
58 On Wesley see Maddox, Responsible Grace, p. 191. For this
view see Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the
Study of the Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 482-90; C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm:
Chiefly on Prayer (San Diego, Calif.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1973), pp. 108-9; Clark H. Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four
Views of Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1992), pp. 129-31; Hick, Evil and the God of love, pp.
381-85.
59 Moltmann, Spirit of Life, pp. 73-77.
60 On the intractability of sin see Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the
Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1995), and Ted Peters, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and
Society (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994). Pentecostal
experience, because of its liquid ecstasy, can sometimes be a
partially trodden mystical way: Jean-Jacques Suurmond, Word and
Spirit at Play: Towards a Charismatic Theology (Grand Rapids,
338
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 151-60; Donald L. Gelpi, “The
Theological Challenge of Charismatic Spirituality,” Pneuma 14
(1992): 185-97.
61 John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1994), p. 194; John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), pt. 5 (I wish Hick
did not make it the only criterion).
62 Berkhof, Christian Faith, p. 540.
63 Nouwen, life of the Beloved, p. 92.
64 John J. O’Donnell, “Faith as an Aesthetic Act,” chap. 3 in Hans
Urs von Balthasar (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992).
65 Thomas R. Kelly, A Testament of Devotion (San Franscisco:
HarperCollins, 1992), p. 9.
339
Chapter 6: Spirit & Universality
1 Richard H. Drummond traces the movement of opinion toward
greater universality of outlook in Toward a New Age in Christian
Theology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985). One of the most remarkable
things about the Second Vatican Council was its broad vision of a
world renewed: George A. Lindbeck, The Future of Roman Catholic
Theology (London: SPCK, 1970), chap. 1.
2 Quoted phrases are taken from Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is:
The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York:
Crossroad, 1992), p. 128; Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom: St.
Hildegaard’s Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1987).
3 A theme of this book is to recognize a unity in all God’s works.
Grace did not begin as a result of the fall into sin. Creation itself was
a gift. Every good and perfect gift comes from God (Jas 1:17).
4 It was formulated at the Council of Florence (1438-1445) but can
be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian and Augustine. It was given radical
expression by Fulgentius, a disciple of Augustine, who said, “Of this
you can be certain and convinced beyond any doubt: not only all
pagans but all Jews, all heretics and schismatics, who die outside
the present Catholic church, will go into the everlasting fire which
has been prepared for the devil and his angels.” The sources are
listed Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967),
pp. 313-14. Its development and interpretation are examined in
340
Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the
History of the Catholic Response (New York: Paulist, 1992).
5 The literature on this set of issues continues to grow; see Dennis
L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., More Than One Way? Four
Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1995).
6 It is remarkable how John’s Revelation is so often read as a
document of gloom and doom, when it ends on such a note of hope
and universality. Compare G. B. Caird’s hopeful reading, “The
Theology of the Book of Revelation,” in A Commentary on the
Revelation of St. John the Divine (London: Adam & Charles Black,
1966).
7 Neal Punt, Unconditional Good News (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1980), p. 5; similarly Clark H. Pinnock, “Optimism of
Salvation,” chap. 1 in A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1992).
8 William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (1899; reprint Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1969), 2:712.
9 E. P. Sanders speaks of the fatal objection to universalism in Paul
—his mentioning of those who will perish and be destoyed on the
day of the Lord: Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of
Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), p. 473.
10 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2/2, trans. G. W. Bromiley
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), pp. 417-18. On universalism see
John Sanders, No Other Name? An Investigation into the Destiny of
the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 81-
341
115. Attempts to defend universal salvation biblically can be found in
W. Sibley Towner, How God Deals with Evil (Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1976), and Thomas Talbott, “The New
Testament and Universal Reconciliation,” Christian Scholar’s Review
21 (1992): 376-94. I. Howard Marshall says no to the question “Does
the New Testament Teach Universal Salvation?” in Christ in Our
Place, ed. Trevor A. Hart and Daniel P. Thimell (Exeter, U.K.:
Paternoster, 1989), pp. 313-28.
11 Eastern Orthodoxy, to its credit, has not been as preoccupied with
damnation as the Western church: Ernst Benz, The Eastern
Orthodox Church, Its Thought and Life (New York: Doubleday, 1963),
pp. 43-53.
12 For a discussion of restrictivism see Sanders, No Other Name?
pp. 37-79. This is the best discussion of it, even though the author is
in opposition. It seems as if the proponents are reluctant to spell out
their own view and its consequences.
13 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 684-85.
William W. Klein contests this way of thinking in The New Chosen
People: A Corporate View of Election (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1990).
14 For this trinitarian solution see Gavin D‘Costa, ed., Christian
Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), chap. 2;
similarly Raimundo Panikkar, “The Jordan, the Tiber and the
Ganges,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, ed. John Hick and
Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), pp. 109-10. Panikkar
does not seem to belong to the company of religious pluralists,
though he is associated with them in the volume.
342
15 John V. Taylor, “The Universal Spirit and the Meeting of Faiths,”
chap. 9 in The Go-Between God: The Holy Spirit and the Christian
Mission (London: SCM Press, 1972). On gifts to those outside the
church see Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 38-42.
16 One might expect the Pentecostals to develop a Spirit-oriented
theology of mission and world religions, because of their openness
to religious experience, their sensitivity to the oppressed of the Third
World where they have experienced much of their growth, and their
awareness of the ways of the Spirit as well as dogma.
17 This generous approach to non-Christian peoples is found in The
Mystery of Salvation: The Story of God’s Gift, an official report of the
Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, chaired by Alec
Graham (London: Church House, 1995).
18 On the double mission of Spirit and Son, see Walter Kasper, The
God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 198-229, and
Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (New York: Paulist, 1976), pp. 266-
68.
19 Yves Congar, “Christomonism and the Filioque, ”chap. 7 in The
Word and the Spirit (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986).
20 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin, 1963), p.
222.
21 Jürgen Moltmann finds the filioque superfluous (The Spirit of Life:
A Universal Affirmation [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], pp. 306-9),
and so did John Wesley, according to Randy L. Maddox
343
(Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology [Nashville:
Kingswood, 1994], p. 137).
22 Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (New York: Seabury,
1983), 3:214.
23 Jack W. Cottrell, What the Bible Says About God the Creator
(Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1983), pp. 340-47; Bruce C. Demarest,
General Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), pp. 44,
54, 56, 69.
24 Demarest grants (General Revelation) that God’s love is
disclosed in general revelation (p. 250) and that some pagan might
cast himself on God’s mercy (p. 260), as happened in the Old
Testament (p. 261), and be saved—though, he adds, “in exceptional
circumstances” (p. 260). He opens the door of opportunity a crack,
but it would be opened wider if it were recognized that
unevangelized people are all in exceptional circumstances as
regards salvation. Compare John Sanders, No Other Name? pp.
224-36.
25 The text is in Zwingli and Bullinger, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 275-76.
26 H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith and Holiness: A Wesleyan
Systematic Theology (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1988), pp. 158,
338, 431-36.
27 On the possibility of the salvation of non-Christians in Wesley, see
Maddox, Responsible Grace, pp. 32-34, and Randy L. Maddox,
“Wesley and the Question of Truth or Salvation Through Other
Religions,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 27 (1992): 7-29.
344
28 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury,
1978), pp. 126-37, 147,176.
29 On total depravity and the rise of the category of common grace,
see Harry R. Boer, An Ember Still Glowing (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1990), chaps. 3-4.
30 Critics of this position agree that God’s grace might be inclusive
in this way but deny that the Bible supports so hopeful an
understanding: see R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips in More
Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed.
Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1995), pp. 133-40. I beg to differ.
31 Consider the positive spirit that characterizes the “Declaration on
the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” at the
Second Vatican Council.
32 Dunn goes too far when he writes, “Romans 8:9 rules out the
possibility of a non-Christian possessing the Spirit” (Baptism in the
Holy Spirit [London: SCM Press, 1970], p. 95). We have to assume
that the Spirit was at work in Cornelius preparatory to conversion.
33 Wollhart Pannenberg, “The Religions from the Perspective of
Christian Theology and the Self-Interpretation of Christianity in
Relation to the Non-Christian Religions,” Modern Theology 11
(1995): 285-97. George Lindbeck would accept, I think, that
Christians could be stimulated by encountering all sorts of people,
but his emphasis would be more on maintaining one’s own identity. I
focus more on the benefits that can arise from an open and mutually
transformative dialogue. See George Lindbeck, The Nature of
345
Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1984), chap. 3.
34 This is Keith Ward’s theme in Religion and Revelation: A
Theology of Revelation in the World’s Religions (Oxford: Clarendon,
1994).
35 In the light of Romans 5:17 and 11:32, I am not ready to concede
that Romans actually is pessimistic. See John Sanders, “Mercy to
All: Romans 1-3 and the Destiny of the Unevangelized,” in The
Challenge of Religious Pluralism: An Evangelical Analysis and
Response (Wheaton, Ill.: Wheaton Theology Conference, 1992), pp.
216-28.
36 For documentation see Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the
Church: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (New York:
Paulist, 1992). On the mainline Protestant model see Paul F. Knitter,
No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the
World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), pp. 97-119.
37 Karl Barth voices such fears in “The Revelation of God as the
Abolition of Religion,” in Church Dogmatics ½, trans. G. T.
Thompson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), pp. 280-361. Later
comments about “lesser lights” outside the church do not change his
negative attitude to other religions (Church Dogmatics 4/3, trans. G.
W. Bromiley [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961], pp. 3-367).
38 For more along this line see Pinnock, Wideness in God’s Mercy,
chap. 3, and Kenneth Cracknell, Towards a New Relationship:
Chrisitans and People of Other Faith (London: Epworth, 1986),
chaps. 2-3, 5.
346
39 Thomas F. O’Meara, “A History of Grace,” in A World of Grace:
An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner’s
Theology, ed. Leo J. O‘Donovan (New York: Seabury, 1980).
Regarding redemptive bridges see Don Richardson, Eternity in Their
Hearts (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1984).
40 Taylor, Go-Between God, p. 191.
41 “On the Holy Spirit,” p. 76. On such papal teachings after Vatican
II see Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church, chap. 11.
Pneumatological inclusivism is the path taken by Jacques Dupuis in
Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis, 1991), chap. 7.
42 C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle (London: Penguin, 1956), p. 149.
43 On the baptism of desire see Sacramentum Mundi: An
Encyclopedia of Theology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968),
1:144-46.
44 Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World
Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), especially chap. 7,
“Economy of the Spirit” (pp. 152-77).
45 Lucas Lamadrid, “Anonymous or Analogous Christians? Rahner
and von Balthasar on Naming the Non-Christian,” Modern Theology
11 (1995): 363-84.
46 Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), pp. 77-117.
347
47 J. A. DiNoia, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1992);
Mark S. Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995).
48 Stuart C. Hackett, The Reconstruction of the Christian Truth
Claim: A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 249-53.
49 Paul J. Griffiths, “Modalizing the Theology of Religions,” Journal
of Religion 73 (1993): 382-89. For my discussion of modal
inclusivism, see Clark H. Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” in More
Than One Way: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed.
Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1995). In his odyssey Paul F. Knitter has taken many
moves beyond this: One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue
and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995), chap. 1.
50 Gavin D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations: Discerning God in
Other Religions—Beyond a Static Valuation,” Modern Theology 10
(1994): 165-83.
51 Charismatics are often more sensitive to these realities because
they take gifting and spiritual warfare seriously: see H. I. Lederle,
“Life in the Spirit and World View,” in Spirit and Renewal: Essays in
Honor of J. Rodman Williams, ed. Mark W. Wilson (Sheffield, U.K.:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 22-33.
52 T. J. Gorringe, “The Criterion,” chap. 3 in Discerning Spirit: A
Theology of Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1990); Christopher
Morse, Not Every Spirit: A Dogmatics of Christian Disbelief (Valley
Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1994), pp. 179-80, 196.
348
53 Pannenberg, “Religions from the Perspective of Christian
Theology,” p. 293. Beginning with dogma does not get us very far in
dialogue, but beginning with God’s presence in other modes can be
fruitful. Let us be sensitive to the presence and goodness of God and
only afterward move to conceptual issues. There is merit in the
appeal of Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ
(New York: Riverhead, 1995).
54 Küng, The Church, pp. 191-209.
55 The note of reckless grace is sounded in Robert F. Capon, The
Parables of Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988).
56 John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pp. 185-87; Clark
H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent Wicked,”
Criswell Theological Review 4 (1990): 243-59.
349
Chapter 7: Spirit & Truth
1 This is discussed in Clark H. Pinnnock, “Word and Spirit,” chap. 7
in The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984).
2 On theological reflection see Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of
Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1993), pp. 65-70. On cruciality in
theology see Christopher Morse, Not Every Spirit. A Dogmatics of
Christian Disbelief (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International,
1994), pp. 65-66.
3 Kenneth Cracknell, “God and the Nations,” chap. 3 in Toward a
New Relationship: Christians the People of Other Faith (London:
Epworth, 1986); Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations
(London: SCM Press, 1958).
4 Keith Ward, Religion and Revelation: A Theology of Revelation in
the World’s Religions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), p. 191.
5 Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, “Spirit of Truth,”
chap. 7 in We Believe in the Holy Spirit (London: Church House,
1991). See John Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and
the One Body of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,
1991), and Rex A. Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for
Cross-Denomination Renewal (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1993).
6 This is evident in Clendenin’s loving interpretation of Eastern
Orthodoxy: Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A
350
Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,
1994), chap. 7. The same spirit is noticeable in John Paul II’s
encyclical “Christian Unity” (Rome: Vatican Library, 1995). Its
fruitfulness is explained by Langdon Gilkey, Catholicism Confronts
Modernity: A Protestant View (New York: Seabury, 1975), pp. 80-83.
7 I appreciate John M. Templeton’s insistence on this theme in The
Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God (New York: Continuum,
1995).
8 An exception to this neglect among evangelicals is Peter Toon,
The Development of Doctrine in the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1979). Toon is Anglican and therefore less prone to
ignore the topic than, say, a Baptist.
9 On the church as a pilgrim people see “Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church,” par. 48, and Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (New
York: Doubleday, 1974), chap. 7.
10 Consider the developmental hermeneutic found in Richard N.
Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethicsfor Today (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 16-28. “Helpful is Hans Küng’s
distinction between infallibility and indefectability in Infallible? An
Inquiry (New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 173-240.
12 Regarding the challenge of “enthusiasm,” see Hans Küng, The
Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967), pp. 191-203.
13 On the place of cruciality in theological method see Morse, Not
Every Spirit, pp. 65-66.
351
14 Küng, Infallible? pp. 178-81.
15 For a debate concerning progress in history and in
understanding, see Patrick Glynn and Glenn Tinder, ”Time for
Utopia? An Exchange,” First Things 51 (March 1995): 27-35.
16 Michael Welker, God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 219-27.
17 On theology as second-order language reflecting on the narrative
of salvation, see Clark H. Pinnock, Tracking the Maze: Finding our
Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), chaps. 10-15.
18 Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity? trans. Thomas Bailey
Saunders (New York: Putnam, 1904); Toon, Development of
Doctrine, pp. 55-62; Jan Walgrave, Unfolding Revelation
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), pp. 232-35. On revelation
as inner experience amd new awareness, see Avery Dulles, Models
of Revelation (New York: Doubleday, 1983), chaps. 5, 7.
19 Compare Sallie McFague, “An Epilogue: The Christian
Paradigm,” in Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions
and Tasks, ed. Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1982), pp. 323-36. On transformist theory of the
development of doctrine see Walgrave, Unfolding Revelation, chap.
8.
20 On revelation and the Trinity see John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery
of the Triune God (New York: Paulist, 1989), chap. 2.
352
21 Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh
Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1993), pp. 65-72; Dulles, Models of Revelation, chap. 3. An early
book of mine adopts this approach: Biblical Revelation: The
Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).
22 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (London: James Clarke,
1960), 1:116-18.
23 Küng, Infallible? pp. 215-16; John Goldingay, Models for Scripture
(Grand Rapids, ich.: Eerdmans, 1994), and Models for Interpretation
of Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995).
24 Daniel J. Migliore, ”The Meaning of Revelation,” chap. 2 in Faith
Seeking Understanding: A Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991).
25 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), pp. 510-16.
26 Walgrave, Unfolding Revelation, chap. 9.
27 Welker, God the Spirit, pp. 272-78. Although inspiration is of
central importance for evangelicals, there is no agreed-upon
definition. The difficulty is how to avoid the dictation required for
inerrancy; see Louis I. Hodges, ”Evangelical Definitions of
Inspiration: Critiques and a Suggested Definition,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 37 (1994): 99-114; Clark H. Pinnock,
The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984);
Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration and
Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), chap.
4.
353
28 Ward, Religion and Revelation, pp. 212-17; James D. G. Dunn,
”The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture,” chap. 5 in The
Living Word (London: SCM Press, 1987); Dulles, Models of
Revelation, chap. 12.
29 Delwin Brown, Boundaries of Our Habitations: Tradition and
Theological Construction (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1994), pp. 75-83.
30 Gordon D. Fee, ”Exegesis and Spirituality: Reflections on
Completing the Exegetical Circle,” Crux 31 (1995): 29-35.
31 Clark H. Pinnock, ”The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,”
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (1993): 3-23, and ”The Work of
the Spirit in Interpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 36 (1993): 491-97.
32 Scripture itself illustrates how texts are opened up to fresh
significance: Pinnock, Scripture Principle, chap. 8. Also Dunn, ”The
Authority of Scripture According to Scripture,” chap. 5 in Living Word.
33 Orthodoxy takes a mystical approach toward the subject: Ernst
Benz, The Eastern Orthodox Church, Its Thought and Life (New
York: Doubleday, 1963), chap. 3; Nicolas Berdyaev, Freedom and
the Spirit (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1935), p. 143; John Meyendorff,
”Light from the East: Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox
Perspective,” in Doing Theology in Today’s World, ed. John D.
Woodbridge and Thomas E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1991), pp. 339-58; Clendenin, ”The Witness of the Spirit:
Scripture and Tradition,” chap. 5 in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
354
34 Toon, Development of Doctrine, pp. 120-24.
35 John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (London: Longman,
Green, 1864), on the magisterium and in a letter to the Duke of
Norfolk concerning papal infallibility; Ian Ker, Newman the
Theologian: A Reader (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1990), chaps. 6-7.
36 Dulles, ”The church and Revelation,” chap. 11 in Models of the
Church.
37 John Paul II, ”Christian Unity,” p. 98; Küng, The Church, pp. 444-
80; Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, pp. 99-102; Benz,
Eastern Orthodox Church, pp. 43-53.
38 Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, pp. 102-6, 109-16.
39 Walgrave, Unfolding Revelation, pp. 179-89.
40 Hans Küng speaks of method in this way in Theology for the
Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View (New York: Doubleday, 1988),
pp. 164-69.
41 John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of
Christian Doctrine, 6th ed. (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989). Of comparable scholarship today is Jaroslav
Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of
Doctrine, 5 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971-1989).
355
42 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury,
1978), pp. 359-69; Charles Colson and Richard J. Neuhaus,
Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission
(Dallas: Word, 1995).
43 O’Donnell, Mystery of the Triune God, pp. 94-97. The reader may
have noticed that I found relatively fewer gifts of insight in high
Calvinist orthodoxy. For a defense of this rendering see Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, The Grace of God, the Bondage of
the Will, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1995).
44 David A. S. Fergusson, ”Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,”
Scottish Journal of Theology 46 (1993): 457-78. This article shows
that not all Reformed theology today espouses what I call high
Calvinist orthodoxy. Because of the influence of Barth in particular,
Reformed theologians like Migliore, Brummer, Berkhof, Konig, Boer,
Moltmann, Torrance et al. sound more like what would have formerly
been called Arminian.
45 Ronald J. Sider, One-Sided Christianity? Uniting the Church to
Heal a Lost and Broken World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1993). On the convergance see Robert E. Webber, The Church in
the World: Opposition, Tension or Opposition (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1986).
46 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), p. 528.
47 Küng, The Church, pp. 201-2; and Jean-Jacques Suurmond,
Word and Spirit at Play: Towards a Charismatic Theology (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 194-98.
356
48 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM Press,
1975), pp. 271-97.
49 Küng, The Church, pp. 444-80.
50 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study
of the Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1986), p. 96.
51 Reinhard Hutter, ”The Church as Public: Dogma, Practice and the
Holy Spirit,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 357-61; Cecil M. Robeck,
”Discerning the Spirit in the Life of the Church,” in The Church in the
Movement of the Spirit, ed. William R. Barr and Rena M. Yocum
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 29-49.
52 Philip Schaff, Christ and Christianity (New York: Scribner, 1885),
p. 16.
357
Names Index
358
Anselm
Aphrahat
Aquinas, Thomas
Aristotle
Athanasius
Augustine
359
Baillie, John
Balthasar, Hans Urs von
Barth, Karl
Basil, St.
Berkhof, Hendrikus
Bernard of Clairvaux
Boer, Harry R.
Boyd, Gregory A.
Bracken, Joseph
Brummer, Vincent
Bruner, Frederick D.
Buber, Martin
360
Calvin, John
Carey, William
Clement of Alexandria
Clendenin, Daniel B.
Congar, Yves
Cyprian
361
Davies, Paul
Deere, Jack
Demarest, Bruce C.
Descartes, R.
Donne, John
Drummond, Richard H.
Dulles, Avery
Dunn, James D. G.
362
Edwards, Jonathan
Einstein, Albert
Erickson, Millard J.
363
Fee, Gordon D.
Finger, Thomas N.
Fulgentius
364
Gaffin, Richard B.
Geivett, R. Douglas
Gilkey, Langdon
Grayston, Kenneth
Gregory of Nanzianzus
Gregory of Nyssa
Grenz, Stanley
Grudem, Wayne
Gunton, Colin
365
Handel, G. F.
Harnack, Adolf von
Harpur, Tom
Hawthorne, Gerald F.
Hegel, G. W. F.
Heron, Alasdair I. C.
Hick, John
Hilary of Poitiers
Hildegard of Bingen
Hill, William J.
Hodge, Charles
Hodgson, Leonard
Hooker, Morna
366
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus
Irving, Edward
367
Jensen, Robert
John of the Cross
John Paul II, Pope
John XXIII, Pope
Johnson, Phillip E.
368
Kasper, Walter
King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Klein, William W.
König, Adriö
Knitter, Pauf F.
Kraft, Charles H.
Küng, Hans
Kuyper, Abraham
369
LaCugna, Catherine M.
Lampe, Geoffrey W. H.
Lederle, H. I.
Lewis, C. S.
Lindbeck, George
Luther, Martin
370
McGrath, Alister
Marcion
Marshall. Howard
Melanchthon, Philipp
Middleton, Richard
Migliore, Daniel J.
Moltmann, Jürgen
Muhlen, Heribert
371
Newman, John Henry Cardinal
Nietzsche, Friedrich
Noll, Mark
Nouwen, Henri J. M.
372
Origen
373
Panikker, Raimundo
Pannenberg, Wolfhart
Pelagius
Peters, Ted
Phillips, W. Gary
Pike, Nelson
Plantinga, Cornelius
Plato
Punt, Neal
374
Rahner, Karl
Richard of St. Victor
375
Sagan, Carl
Sanders, E. P.
Sanders, John
Schaff, Philip
Seraphim of Sarov
Sider, Ronald J.
Simeon the New Theologian
Simpson, A. B.
Smail, Tom
Stronstad, Roger
Suurmond, Jean-Jacques
376
Taylor, John V.
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre
Templeton, John M.
Teresa, St.
Tertullian
Thiselton, Anthony C.
Thomas, W. H. Griffith
Toon, Peter
Torrance, Thomas F.
377
Van Till, Howard J.
378
Walsh, Brian J.
Ward, Keith
Ware, Kallistos
Warfield, B. B.
Webber, Robert
Welker, Michael
Wesley, Charles
Wesley, John
Williams, J. Rodman
379
Zizioulas, John D.
380
Zwingli
381
Subject Index
382
accommodation
actualization of gifts
Adamic solidarity
adoption
adoptionism
affections
Anglican
annointing by the Spirit
apostolicity principle
argument from design
Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church
Arminianism
Athanasian Creed
atheism
atonement
Augsburg Confession
authoritarianism
authority
383
baptism
beatific vision
believers’ baptism
Bible
big bang
blasphemy against the Spirit
breath
Buddhism
384
Calvinism
Cappadocian fathers
Catechism of the Catholic Church
cessationism
chance
change
chaos
charism. See spiritual gifts
Charismatics
Christian life
Christlikeness
Christogenesis
Christology. See also Jesus Christ
Christomonism
church
as community
growth of
as institution
mission of
power of
as sacrament
and salvation
and Spirit
clericalism
comfort zones
common grace
community
confirmation
conformity to Christ
Constitution on Revelation
consummation
conversion
Council of Florence
Council of Trent
covenant
covenant of works
385
creation
creation out of nothing
creationists
creeds
cross. See also atonement; Jesus, death
386
damnation
dance
Darwinism
death
desire for God
determinism
development. See doctrinal development; spiritual growth
dharma
dialogue. See interreligious dialogue
dictation
Didache
discernment
discipleship
disorder
doctrinal development
dogma
double predestination
double sending. See God, “two hands”
dove
387
Easter
Eastern Orthodoxy
ecstasy
ecumenism
election
Enlightenment
Eucharist
evangelicalism
evangelism
evil
evolution
exorcism
experience
388
faith
fall
Father, relation to Son
federal theology
fellowship with God
feminism
filiation
filioque
fire
First Vatican Council
freedom
of church
of God
human
of Spirit
fruit of the Spirit
future
389
general revelation
Gentiles
gifts of the Spirit. See spiritual gifts
global theology
glorification
Gnostics
God
as beautiful
and change
freedom of
as ideal community
immanence
immobility in classical theism
inner life of
love of
plurality of
as pure ecstasy
relationality of
self-limitation of
simplicity of
“two hands”
will of
wrath of
Godforsakenness
good works
grace
not irresistible
universality of
Greek Fathers
Greek thought
guilt
390
healing the sick
heart
hell
heresy
Hinduism
history
hope
human responsibility
humanity
as goal of creation
restoration of
and spirit
humility
hypostatic union
391
iconoclasm
illumination
image of God
immaculate conception
indefectability
individualism
infallibility
infant baptism
initiation
inspiration
intelligibility
Inter-Varsity Fellowship (UK)
interpretation
interreligious dialogue
intersubjectivity
intimacy
Islam
Israel
392
Jesus Christ
adoption
anointing
baptism
communion with Father
as criterion of salvation
death
incarnation
as new Adam
reliance on Spirit
resurrection
self-emptying
sonship
suffering
temptations
Jews
joy
justice
justification
393
Kansas City Prophets
kingdom
394
laity
“lawful” religion
laying on of hands
leadership
liberal theology
liberation
likeness of God
limited atonement
liturgy
Logos
Logos Christology
Lord’s Supper
love
Lutheran Church
395
marriage
martyrdom
Mary
matter-spirit dualism
maturity
means of grace
mechanistic order
medicine
Methodist Church
Middle Ages
mind of Christ
miracles
mission
modal inclusivism
modalism
modernity
monergism
monotheism
Muslims
mutuality
mystics
396
nations, salvation of
naturalism
nature
new birth
new creation
new Jerusalem
Nicene Creed
Nirvana
non-Christian religions
nondeterministic theology
397
objectivity
office
openness
order
Orthodoxy
398
pantheism
papal infallibility
Paraclete
participatory atonement
particularity of Christ
penal theory of atonement
Pentecost
Pentecostalism
person and relationality
pilgrim community
play
powers
prayer
predestination
prevenient grace
process philosophy
prodigal son
progress
prophecy
propitiation
propositional truth
Protestant theology, on Spirit
providence
purgatory
399
Quakers
quenching the Spirit
400
reason
recapitulation
“receiving” Christ
receiving Spirit
reciprocity
reconciliation
reconciliation (as sacrament)
redemption
Reformation
Reformed theology
regeneration
religious pluralism
renewal
representation
restrictivism
resurrection
revelation
in other religions
revivals
righteousness
ritual
Roman Catholic Church
401
sabbath rest
sacraments
sacrifice
salvation
salvation history
sanctification
Sankara
Satan
science
second blessing
Second Vatican Council
sensus fidelium
serendipity
sermons
Shakers
signs and wonders
silence
sin
social sanctification
social Trinity
sola gratia
solidarity
Spirit
and baptism
in creation
as dancer
and ecclesiology
as ecologist
as ecstasy
in Eucharist
and experience
gender of
gifts of
global ministry of
guiding church into truth
identity of
402
and love
as mediator
mission of
mysteriousness
and natural processes
outpouring of
as person
power of
presence of
relation to Christ
and revelation
and salvation
suffering of
universality of
in Western traditions
Spirit baptism
Spirit Christology
spiritual body
spiritual gifts
spiritual growth
spiritual warfare
spirituality
story
Student Christian Movement
subjectivity
suffering
temptation
“theo-drama”
theology
and science
as secondary language
403
theosis
timeliness
tongues
Toronto Blessing
tradition
transformation
of world
Trinity
economic
mutuality and reciprocity
spiral action
unity and complexity
see also social Trinity
tritheism
truth
404
unction
union with Christ
union with God
unitarianism
unity among Christians
universalism
universality
of God
of gospel
of grace
of Spirit
“Ut Unum Sint”
vocation
water
water baptism
wedding banquet
western culture
Westminster Confession
Wilberforce, William
will
wind
wisdom
witness
women’s ministries
world
World Council of Churches
worship
405
Scripture Index
406
Old Testament
Genesis
1:2
1:26-27
2:3
2:7
3:8
4:7
14:17-24
15:6
20
Exodus
15:8
Leviticus
17:11
Numbers
11:29
407
1 Kings
19:11-12
Job
12:10
33:4
34:14-15
Psalms
22:27-28
32:8
33:6
48:14
65:5
67:1-2
68:34
71:6
78:22
84:1-2
90:1
95:7
102:15
102:22
104:30
139:7
139:13-14
Proverbs
408
1:20
8:1-4
8:24
8:29-31
8:30-31
Ecclesiastes
3:2
Song of Solomon
2:14
5:2
6:9
Isaiah
11:2
19:25
25:6
31:3
32:15
35:5-6
42:1
42:2-3
58:11
59:16
64:1
409
Jeremiah
18:7
23:16
30:21
31:33-34
37:17
Ezekiel
37:1-6
37:5
37:13-14
Hosea
11:8-10
11:9
Joel
2:28
Amos
9:7
410
Zephaniah
3:17
Zechariah
14:9
411
Apocrypha
Wisdom of Solomon
1:4-8
7:21-30
412
New Testament
Matthew
5:3-10
7:21
7:21-23
8:11-12
8:15
9:37
10:7-8
10:20
11:27
12:28
12:32
18:20
19:28
20:15
21:42
22:3
22:8-9
22:9
23:23
23:37
24:14
25:35
28:10
Mark
413
1:11
1:15
1:41
3:22
3:23
5:28
6:5
10:45
13:11
14:36
15:34
15:39
16:16
16:17-18
16:18
Luke
1:35
1:42
1:47
2:19
2:40-52
2:51
3:15-16
3:21-22
3:38
4:18
5:13
7:16
7:30
9:51
10:21
12:49-50
13:34
414
14:15
14:23
15:25-32
22:42
23:46
24:35
24:49
John
1:9
1:14
1:18
1:29
1:33
2:23
3:5
3:7
3:8
3:18
3:34
4:10
4:14
4:24
4:24-25
5:17
6:35
6:63
7:37-39
10:10
10:16
12:19
12:32
14:3
14:9
415
14:16-17
14:17
14:19
14:23
14:26
15:9
15:26
15:26-27
16:7
16:13
16:13-14
17:3
17:21
17:22-23
17:24
17:26
20:21
20:21-22
20:22
Acts
1:8
2:4
2:11
2:12
2:17
2:17-18
2:22
2:24
2:37
2:38
2:39
2:43-45
2:46
416
4:8-12
4:13
4:20
4:29-30
4:31
4:32-35
7:30
7:51
8:14-15
8:17
9:4
9:17
10:1-8
10:2
10:34-35
10:35
10:38
10:44
10:44-48
10:46
13:1-3
13:52
14:5-6
14:17,
15
15:28
16:31
17:22-31
17:25
17:27
17:28
19:5-6
19:6
20:28
26:19
417
Romans
1:4
1:11
3:25
4:17
4:25
5-6
5:1-2
5:5
5:10
5:11
5:12
5:17n. 35
5:18
5:19
5:20
6:4
6:9
6:10
6:11
6:23
7:24-25
8:3
8:9n. 32
8:9-11
8:11
8:15
8:16
8:16-17
8:18
8:19
8:21
8:22
8:23
8:29
8:32
418
11:32n. 35
12:1
12:2
13:14
14:8
14:17
15:13
216 15:18-19
1 Corinthians
1:4-9
1:5-7
1:10
1:30
2:4
2:4-5
2:6-8
2:11
2:14
2:16
3:3
3:16
4:20
6:11
6:14
6:15-19
6:19
7:7
9:19-23
10:4
12:1-2
12:7
12:9
12:10-11
419
12:12-13
12:13
12:28
13:1
13:1-3
13:1-4
13:3
13:4-8
13:7
14:1
14:2
14:3
14:4
14:24-25
14:25
14:29
14:30
14:40
15:1-5
15:10
15:17
15:28
15:29
15:44
15:45
15:49
2 Corinthians
1:20
1:21
1:21-22
3:6
3:16-18
3:18
420
4:16
5:14
5:17
5:19
6:1
6:16
7:1
8:9
10:4
11:14
13:13
Galatians
2:16
2:20
3:2
3:4
3:26
4:1-6
4:4
4:4-7
4:6
4:6-7
4:19
5:1
5:5
5:17
5:19-21
5:22
5:25
Ephesians
421
1:10
1:13
2:1
2:2
2:4-7
2:8
2:15
2:18
2:22
3:9
3:16-17
3:16-19
3:20
4:2
4:30
5:17
5:18-19
5:27
5:31
6:12
6:17
Philippians
1:19
2:1
2:5
2:6
2:7-8
2:12-13
3:3
3:10
3:21
422
Colossians
1:15
1:19
1:24
1:27
1:29
2:6
2:9
2:9-10
2:12
3:14
1 Thessalonians
1:5
1:6
4:19
5:9
5:12
5:19-20
5:19-21
5:21
1 Timothy
1:12
2:4
2:5-6
3:15
3:16
4:10
4:14
6:16
423
2 Timothy
1:6
1:7
1:10
3:5
4:6
Titus
2:12
3:4
3:5-6
3:6
Hebrews
1:1-2
1:3
2:3-4
2:4
2:10-13
2:11
2:14-18
4:11
4:12-13
4:14-16
5:7-10
6:4
6:4-5
6:19-20
9:14
10:7
424
10:9
11:6
12:2
12:7
James
1:17n. 3
5:14
1 Peter
1:3
1:8
2:5
2:9
3:21
4:10-11
2 Peter
1:4
1 John
1:3
1:3-4
1:6
2:27
425
3:1-2
3:8
3:16
4:1
4:2-3
4:7
4:8
4:12
Revelation
2:7
3:20
4:2-3
8:1
11:15
19:7
19:9
21:1
21:2
21:3
21:5
21:8
21:9
21:22
21:24
21:26
21:27
22:4
22:17
426
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Epigraph
Dedication
Introduction
ONE – SPIRIT& TRINITY
Why Begin Here?
God as Spirit
God Also Has Spirit
God Is Love
Both-And
A Struggle to Understand
Identifying the Spirit
Spirit and Communion
Not Just a Bond
God’s Fair Beauty
TWO – SPIRIT IN CREATION
Spirit and Creation
Trinitarian Creation
The Two Hands of God
Creation by the Spirit
Useful Implications
Science and Theology
Spirit and Origins
The Anthropic Principle
The Human Spirit
The Risk of Freedom
THREE – SPIRIT & CHRISTOLOGY
Universal Preparation
Preparation in Israel
Jesus and the Spirit
Recovering Spirit Christology
Salvation by Recapitulation
Saved by His Life
427
Salvation by the Cross
Is God Satisfied?
Theological Reconstruction
FOUR – SPIRIT & CHURCH
Power and Presence
Baptism and Eucharist
Charismatic Presence
The New Dimension
Openness to the Spirit
Office and Charism
Transforming Mission
Empowered Mission
FIVE – SPIRIT & UNION
Union with God
Justification and Theosis
Awakening to Love
Depravity and Responsibility
Event of the Spirit
Receiving and Actualizing
The Significance of Glossolalia
From Image to Likeness
A Dynamic Process
The Direction
The Spiritual Journey
From Corruption to Incorruption
SIX – SPIRIT & UNIVERSALITY
Two Errors to Avoid
Universality and Particularity
“And the Son”
The Larger Framework
Spirit in Other Religions?
The Criterion
Spirit and Universality
SEVEN – SPIRIT & TRUTH
Growing as Hearers
What Is Revelation?
Inspiration and Illumination
428
A Theory of Development
Criteria of Development
Applying the Criteria
Discerning Valid Developments
Conclusion
Notes
Names Index
Subject Index
Scripture Index
Title Page
Copyright Page
Epigraph
Dedication
Introduction
ONE – SPIRIT& TRINITY
Why Begin Here?
God as Spirit
God Also Has Spirit
God Is Love
Both-And
A Struggle to Understand
Identifying the Spirit
Spirit and Communion
Not Just a Bond
God’s Fair Beauty
TWO – SPIRIT IN CREATION
Spirit and Creation
Trinitarian Creation
The Two Hands of God
Creation by the Spirit
Useful Implications
Science and Theology
Spirit and Origins
The Anthropic Principle
The Human Spirit
The Risk of Freedom
THREE – SPIRIT & CHRISTOLOGY
Universal Preparation
Preparation in Israel
Jesus and the Spirit
Recovering Spirit Christology
Salvation by Recapitulation
Saved by His Life
Salvation by the Cross
Is God Satisfied?
Theological Reconstruction
FOUR – SPIRIT & CHURCH
Power and Presence
Baptism and Eucharist
Charismatic Presence
The New Dimension
Openness to the Spirit
Office and Charism
Transforming Mission
Empowered Mission
FIVE – SPIRIT & UNION
Union with God
Justification and Theosis
Awakening to Love
Depravity and Responsibility
Event of the Spirit
Receiving and Actualizing
The Significance of Glossolalia
From Image to Likeness
A Dynamic Process
The Direction
The Spiritual Journey
From Corruption to Incorruption
SIX – SPIRIT & UNIVERSALITY
Two Errors to Avoid
Universality and Particularity
“And the Son”
The Larger Framework
Spirit in Other Religions?
The Criterion
Spirit and Universality
SEVEN – SPIRIT & TRUTH
Growing as Hearers
What Is Revelation?
Inspiration and Illumination
A Theory of Development
Criteria of Development
Applying the Criteria
Discerning Valid Developments
Conclusion
Notes
Names Index
Subject Index
Scripture Index