Pneumatology
As I understand, Gregory describes the Holy Spirit as a separate entity from both the Father and Son, because each has their "own role to play." For example, the Father is the only Creator, the Son is the only begotten and the Holy Spirit would necessarily follow as a separate identity, because otherwise the Son and Father would be "lacking" in some manner. This lacking cannot be the case, because a deity is both complete and perfect. In a sense, this argument concludes that the Holy Spirit is whole (almost) by default (i.e. by virtue of the Father's wholeness and the Son’s). Additionally, Gregory adds that if the Father and Son each hold wisdom, power, mercy, grace, etc. then it follows that the Holy Spirit is also a whole being with those similar yet separate attributes. This thinking is consistent with what I have found so far in Karakkainen who is much more detailed in his exploration of the Holy Spirit's identity. Karakkainen speaks of a specific preparation in the Roman Catholic Church that I personally remember participating in as a Catechist. Basically, specific years were set to honor each Person of the Holy Trinity (12). This allowed for theological (and spiritual) familiarity on a focused level with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I vividly remember the year of the Father and Son, because the Western church tends to focus on Christology whereas the Eastern is much more comfortable with Pneumatology (18). Specifically, Karakkaien speaks of the theological groundwork for filioque (Ibid.) The traditional Treatise on the Holy Spirit reads: Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Whereas the Eastern treatise reads: Glory to the Father, with the Son, with the Holy Spirit (44). Consistent with my Roman Catholic indoctrination, I immediately related to the traditional treatise. I didn't realize where my resistance to call the Holy Spirit "God" originated, but now I know! I simply wasn't taught to. The theology that I grew up with doesn't explicitly state that the Spirit is lesser than the Father and Son, but it is implied since the focus of the Trinity almost seems hierarchical in nature. Gregory also touches on this when he describes the Trinity as "the lamp that communicates its light to another lamp and through that lamp a third one." Again, Karkkainen explains that the Eastern view of the Trinity emphasizes the unity as opposed to the individuality within the Godhead, while at the same time recognizes the reciprocal nature of the trinitarian persons" (44). Having studied at Regent for two years now, I have shifted from the traditional mind set to ignore the work of the Spirit as absolute and separate to maintaining the Father as the Source, the Son as the open door to the Father, and the Spirit which provides mankind with the necessary knowledge of reconciliation and the sanctification process that is part of our salvation. These are three united functions, the Trinity is incomplete with the absence of one, and at the same time, it's three different Persons of the Godhead that make up this union. In other words, salvation cannot occur if all three Persons are not present. Karkkainen further adds to this argument by reminding the reader that "faith does not occur without hearing" (84). And again, there needs to be a Gospel (Christ as the Word; a need for this Gospel (reconciliation to the Father after the Fall); and the Spirit which makes it all possible by providing the essential faith necessary to recognize a state of sin (88).
I think theologians are like puzzle pieces to a greater picture. They "fit together" and the edges have to match up. Each is endowed with an image that cannot be seen in its entirety without the other puzzle pieces. That said, theology really is a smorgasboard! There is a variety of elements when discussing the Trinity that is central to our faith (the same can be said about other religions who do not believe in Christ.) The section on "contemporary theologians" was my favorite. Karkkainen began with a somewhat conservative theologian and moved into a liberal scope of pneumatology. Also, I think the author was trying to make a point, each theologian belonged to a different religion and yet all were concerned with "the doctrine and theology of the Holy Spirit" (105). In other words, no one person holds all of God's truth except the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11).
Karkkainen begins with Zizioulas, the Eastern Orthodox theologian. Zizioulas is concerned with "communion ecclesiology is based on an integral relationship between Christology and pneumatology" (107). Basically, he distinguishes Christ "as an individual" and Christ "the corporate personality" (the Church) (108). In the first instance, "the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who actually realizes in history that which we call Christ"; and in the second, "the corporate personality comes into being pneumatologically" (Ibid.) Zizioulas is not suggesting that "the work of the Spirit is subordinate to the Son, nor is Pentecost a continuation of the incarnation but rather it's sequel" (109). I agree with Zizioulas that the work of the Spirit is not subordinate, however, a sequel by definition is a continuation. But upon closer examination, a sequel is also an extension that follows a pre-existing work (i.e. the resurrection of Christ.) In conclusion, Zizioulas contends that "it is not enough to speak of the Spirit in relation to the Church but rather to make pneumatology (along with eschatology) constitutive in regard to ecclesiology; in other words, pneumatology must qualify the very ontology of the church" (110).
Eschatology
I had some difficulty grasping post and pre millennialism; and post and pre tribulation. I found similarities between post tribulation and pre millennialism, which seemingly make the most sense to me. I've always wondered why the church believed that we would be "taken up" (or raptured) during the hardest times in history on this earth? I would imagine (as Erickson stated) that we would be adequately equipped to survive the tribulation if that was God's will. Also, I had difficulty understanding the "second coming" because if the argument of pre-tribulation is true, then it looks like Christ comes to earth twice and not just one time. Thus making it a second and third coming. After reading Erickson, I was finally able to see why some of these theories were not making sense! I was particularly struck with Erickson's chapter 39, where he emphasizes the reality of death. He distinguishes death as something to be feared for unbelievers, and "the purpose of the eschatological truths in God's Word is to comfort and assure believers" (374). I think I took the inevitable experience of dying and was focused on my existence on earth-(skip dying entirely)-and the afterlife. While we are supposed to be comforted by the grand plan of the eschatological process, there will also come a time when our bodies on this earth will expire. And while we hope in the promises of Christ and His return as written in scripture, there is a time when we really won't know what happens during the "intermediate state" of death (378-382). It sounds like we will have "an absence or presence of God" (381), but specifics were not offered or found in scripture. I think this is where the ultimate state of hope lies, truly believing in our hearts that God won't leave us in a state of death but will resurrect us to be with Him in due time. I think that's the ultimate test of faith.
So far, as I understand there was a liberal tendency to think of "God's imminent return" as something that would happen in the future and "not now." Both Weiss and Schweitzer did not believe that the "eschatology" was taking place "now" in the completed work of Christ (105). In other words, it seems that the time between the cross and "the end" had nothing to do with present life. In contrast, Barth believed that the "eschaton was God's revelation of what He wanted to do in Christ" (106). Here, Barth distinguishes between our current life and eternity. He acknowledges Christ's salvation "that will stand before the eternal God for all time" (Ibid). Barth basically brings the work of the cross into the picture of how the past affects eternity.
Bultmann takes the analysis further and de-temporalizes the eschaton. He brings the living progressive work of the Christian forward through the "faith that brings man into a world of freedom in this present reality" (110). "In Bultmann's theology the mythical elements are not eliminated but existentialized. All is focused on the eschatological "now" and the future disappears behind the horizon" (Ibid.) Bultmann references Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17). Here, there is a direct connection with the work of Christ on the cross which is relevant now and eternal. As Christians, our progressive Christianity is ongoing and will continue until the return of Christ. The connection between this "sanctification" and the eschaton is that the "less sin there is, the closer we draw to God" (Dr. Vondey's lecture). Bultmann states: "The coming of Christ is an eternal event, hap- pening again and again in the inner self of each Christian, in whose soul Christ is born, suffers, dies and is risen to eternal life" (110) Bultmann's observations are significant, because he brings "the end" to "the present" as if eternity were taking place right now. And while we are not fully reconciled to God now, the eschaton directly affects us today as was referenced in Matt. 25, 2 Thess. 1 and Rev. 6-22 (i.e. we must remain awake and be prepared for His return).
I think all of our readings have touched on the hope of eschatology. "On one side have stood the theologians who view eschatology as the delineation of the sequence of events marking the end of life as we know it and inaugurating eternity, thereby focusing on the eschata rather than the eschaton...While other theologians have tended to "spiritualize" the expectations of an end of the age found in the biblical texts and see its message of the kingdom of God as referring to the Church on earth or to the ethical task of God's people in the world" (339). To both ends hope is required. There is the end of this world and the beginning of eternity; and the spiritual affect that this has on believers who have faith in God's promise of everlasting life through His Son. I seemingly cannot separate the two because the visual effects of our decaying earth serve as a "sign" that our world is also bound by the curse of sin. "Christian theology speaks of the specific hope Christians anticipate (or ought to anticipate), which hope is articulated in the Bible. Like human experiences of hope, hope in the Bible is always specific. Biblical hope is always directed toward, anticipates and draws its life from a particular vision of the future" (339). In this instance we have a specific measure of hope, a clear descriptive and even the expectations on us as believers to "await" this coming of the Lord. I don't think it is humanely possible to conceive the return of Christ on our own. Scripture clearly shows us that God opens our hearts to Christ and matters which concern His Kingdom. If this hope is of God, and we're granted the stamina to undergo the challenges in this life until the time of the eschaton, then it follows that this is a foundational principle to our Christian beliefs. Without hope, eternity might not be feasible for those of us who know we are sinners. And without the promise of God for a resurrection and eternal life, then there is nothing to hope in. Death would become a matter of nothingness. "In the end, then, the object of Christian hope is not the future itself but the God of the future; not our creaturely destiny but the God who destines; not the telos of our existence but the God who is leading us toward that glorious goal. In short, Christian hope rests in the God who declares, "I am making all things new" (Rev 21:5) and thereby promises to speak a final "No" to evil and "Yes" to creation so as to accomplish what from the human perspective is impossible, namely, through resurrection to bring life from the dead" (341). Our hope is to know Him, walk with Him and spend an eternity with Him. Our spiritual eschatology results in growth as Christians, but of more significance is our ongoing relationship with Christ.
Ecclesiology
I think of the Church as an olive tree as is referenced in Romans 11:17-18: “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.”
The olive tree is referenced many times in the bible, including:
Fertility of the Land: In the Old Testament, scripture references Olive trees where “fertile land” is concerned (Deut. 8:8; 24:20; 28:40). Similarly, the Church is alive, abundant and fruitful.
Noah: The sign of a new beginning was represented by the Olive branch the dove brought back: “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth” (Genesis 8:11). The Church brings the Good News to others with the message of a new beginning in Christ.
Mount of Olives: It’s where Jesus prayed (Luke 11:39). The Olive Tree also marked Jesus’ joyful entrance (Matt. 21: 1-11) and exit when He was arrested (Matt. 26:47-51). I think it’s striking that Christ chose the Olive tree to pray. It’s where He took His disciples to teach them, where he prayed the night before His crucifixion and where His ministry came to an end when He was arrested. Jesus almost used the Olive Tree as His “church” to disciple those He had chosen.
Revelation: There are Olive Trees next to the lamp stands in the Kingdom of God (Rev. 11:4) perhaps denoting everlasting life. Similarly, the Word of God is life through the Church.
The Olive tree is referenced in both the Old and New Testament thereby associating the Old and New Covenant of Jews and Gentiles. Paul spoke of the wild olive branches that would be “grafted” in with the cultivated olive tree. Similarly, the cultivated tree represents the Jews that God has planted, plowed and prepared for His ultimate plan of salvation. If you’re familiar with wild plants, like the ones growing on the side of the road, they’re almost there by grace. Natural elements provide for the wild plant, but there is little if any management that is required to fertilize and encourage these plants to grow. A cultivated plant on the other hand requires specific measures of water, sunlight and attention to maintain their health! The combination of the wild and cultivated (or lawful) plants result in the Church, founded on God’s laws and purified by the grace of God.
A regular tree is generally associated with wisdom, strength and life. An Olive tree, like the Church, holds those similar characteristics in a sanctified manner anointed and set apart for God’s purpose. As the “Head” of the Church, Christ is the caretaker and life of the Olive Tree: “So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Cor. 3:7). It makes sense that the Olive Tree would have a caretaker, because it is not the “wild plant” that grows without a specific “path” or “way.” An well cared for plant will sprout new leaves, like the Church should in terms of increased Holiness and “branches.”
I followed the example Vondey provided in "People of Bread." I think Vondey took the significance of "bread" in general to a completely different level. In fact, I wasn't sure how the church could be viewed as "bread" until Vondey began to explain "fellowship and communion" during the breaking of bread in chapter three. I could easily see how as individuals we are "people of bread" (i.e. the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist) but I didn't make the connection between church and bread until Vondey provided a history of what bread represented to individuals during biblical times. In my mind, I never stopped to consider that the references in the Old Testament of bread as a key symbol for the Israelites' dependence on God for everything and especially the element necessary for their survival. I was particularly struck when Vondey speaks of the "manna" that God sent the Israelites from heaven. First, I did not know that "manna" means "what is it"-it made me chuckle, because those would have been the exact words out of my mouth too! However, in terms of how this provision relates to the church, it's awesome to imagine that God literally sent His people bread from heaven. Similarly, it's easy for me to imagine a vine to represent the church, because my mom has a green thumb for plants. I've watched her graft plants together and successfully grow them. With that image in my mind, the need for a "cultured plant" (or a foundation) is necessary for the grafting of gentiles or a wild plant. Reading about how important and foundational bread was to the Israelites, I began to connect how the bread drew in God's people in all aspects of life. Vondey also mentions how the bread should literally bring Christians together for "the breaking of bread" and how we simply lack in this practice. I have been to several Church events where as Vondey mentions, "church people" separate themselves from others (like the homeless in Vondey’s example) and I must agree that it was never intended to be this way.
Comments