The Holy Spirit and the Reformation Legacy. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
Spirit is inextricably united with this communicative act. This union is due to his presupposition that it is the Spirit Himself who brings about acceptance of the appearance of Christ.75 Hence, Rahner—alongside Luther and Hegel—believes that it is the Spirit who guides and communicates with humankind, both about God’s being and God’s will.76
As observed with Luther, Rahner’s healthy Christology undergirds a robust pneumatological presentation. For Rahner, this is both possible and necessary due to his equating of the immanent and economical Trinities with one another. Based upon this equivalence, he postulates four Trinitarian acts of communication—Origin/Future, History/Transcendence, Invitation/Acceptance, and Knowledge/Love—that equally elucidate the single (and equal) mission of the Son and Spirit in their mission of declaring the unique God.77 Interestingly, Rahner (like Hegel) understood the Trinity as “a single movement of divine subjectivity” from initial self (in the Father) to recognition and realization of that self through the act of communication (in the Son and Spirit).78 In other words, both in his Trinitarian and Christological commitments, Rahner is squarely situated within Lutheran Hegelianism.
Secondly, as evident above, communication and language play a central role in Rahner’s theology. This is because Rahner—like Luther and Hegel—believed that the mediation of the Spirit occurs linguistically. Of supreme import, this emphasis is explicitly due to Rahner’s direct reading of Luther, where he shrewdly notes Luther’s pneumatology and concept of faith as linguistic, that is, as word-act.79 That said, Rahner departs from Luther (yet remains well-within Hegel’s “radicalization” of Luther) by arguing that the Spirit is not limited to these mediatorial channels. Rather, he claims that the Spirit is universally present and active amongst Christians and non-Christians alike.
Like Hegel, Rahner envisions a universal Spirit that permeates the created order. For Rahner, the one communication act of God occurs on two levels: the presence of the Spirit on the “transcendental” level and the presence of Jesus Christ on the “categorical level.” Of these two levels, Rahner prioritizes the transcendental.80 For Rahner, this transcendental aspect of the Spirit is understood by humankind as grace. Like Hegel, he believes that this grace orients all humans toward God. Thus, he asserts that “the world is drawn to its spiritual fulfillment by the Spirit of God, who directs the whole history of the world in all its length and breadth toward its proper goal”81 V-M.Kärkkäinen notes that it is from this expansive pneumatology that Rahner derives another theological commitment: that of the “anonymous Christian.” For Rahner, the Spirit is efficacious in all religions, albeit to varying degrees. Thus, persons who are aimed toward the transcendent grace of God may be “justified by God’s grace and possess the Holy Spirit82” without faith. This understanding of the Spirit as present in world religions throughout history is classically Hegelian,83 as is the Spirit’s “incarnational” action within the Christian and non-Christian alike.
Conclusion: Areas FOR Future Research and Items for Present Reflection
Where does this exploration leave us? As a cursory study, the above proposition likely created more questions than concrete answers or practical solutions. Additionally, it should be noted that many of the claims regarding these interlocutors are contested; thus, this chapter lays one additional claim upon all of them. Nevertheless, it should be readily evident that at least two divergent pneumatological streams exist in ‘Lutheran’ thought—one found in Luther’s writings and another espoused by Melanchthon and his later followers. In this chapter, a rudimentary outline of the first stream was presented: that is, one extending from Luther’s robust pneumatology through Hegel’s expansion and radicalization; and another to Rahner’s universalization and appropriation of Lutheran Hegelianism in Catholic thought.
Luther, the progenitor of this pneumatological lineage, was a Christocentric, Trinitarian theologian who prioritized the personhood and presence of the Holy Spirit in his theology. It was argued that three major items supported his robust pneumatological framework: (1) he tied the person and work of Christ directly to the testimony of the Spirit, (2) he prioritized the linguistic mediation of the Spirit, and (3) he posited that justification was based upon the Spirit’s unity with the believer instead of being a mere legal transaction. Though Mannermaa has often been credited with retrieving Luther’s pneumatological focus, this chapter traced this ‘retrieval’ back to the philosophical theology of Hegel, an individual who considered himself “more Lutheran than Lutherans,” and, as a result, unearthed this predilection of Luther’s decades earlier. Indeed, Hegel retained Luther’s linguistic mediation, prioritization of the Spirit, and “unity” language. In this sense, one can say that he “radicalized” and expanded Luther’s pneumatology to encompass the structures of the Trinity, human history, and universal metaphysics. Broaching Protestant bounds, this stream expanded into Rahner’s transcendental theology. Like Luther, Rahner retained the personhood of the Spirit in tandem with a strong Christology. Like Hegel, Rahner universalized the Spirit as present and active amongst Christians and non-Christians alike. In consonance with both Luther and Hegel, Rahner affirmed both the linguistic aspect of pneumatological mediation and the unity of the Spirit with/within Christians.
This essay also examined several divergences from Luther that were present in the theology of Melanchthon. These included a weak Trinitarian framework, a neglect of the personhoods of both Christ and the Spirit, and a primarily legalistic formulation of the doctrine of justification. Though space limited the possibility of examining persons within this Melanchthonian stream, future research endeavors should pursue this fruitful line of inquiry—it will likely unearth surprising theological consequences in areas ranging from ecclesiology to eschatology. As previously mentioned, it has been argued that Melanchthon’s divergence from Luther’s robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the early-modern theological shift toward a “general pneumatology.” Hinlicky contends that the most prominent philosopher-theologian to inherit this problematic pneumatological paradigm was Leibniz—a claim that is not without warrant. In Law and Protestantism, John Witte Jr. sheds light on a shared Platonic tendency in the theology of Melanchthon and Leibniz (a tendency that places both of them at-odds with Hegelian idealism). One of Witte’s starkest examples is a quotation from Corpus Reformatorum, wherein Melanchthon asserts that God as the “light of lights” has implanted his divine wisdom in all humans, with this knowledge differing only in quantity.84 This same thought (and near-identical verbiage) is articulated in Leibniz’s Theodicy: “This portion of reason which we possess is a gift of God, and consists in the natural light that has remained with us in the midst of corruption; thus, it is in accordance with the whole, and it differs from that which is in God only as a drop of water differs from the ocean.”85 Due both to their shared philosophical underpinnings and other commonalities (such as their weak Trinitarian formulations), Powell proclaims that Leibniz was squarely situated within Melanchthonian Protestantism.86 Tracing the Melanchthonian pneumatological stream beyond Leibniz, one may also investigate the pneumatology of prominent twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth, whom Hinlicky argues “appropriated the sequenced scheme of ‘imputative justification—effective sanctification’, that, following Melanchthon, became normative also for the Reformed tradition.”87 In fact, though Barth’s theology is explicitly Trinitarian and anti-Platonic, his retention of a Melanchthonian view of justification led him to de-emphasize the Spirit in a manner wholly consistent with what may be considered “general pneumatology.”
Regarding this tendency, Theodora Hawkley underscores Barth’s understanding of the Cross as the “decisive end of history,” which in turn diminishes the present role of the Spirit.88 Joseph L. Mangina similarly notes that Barth’s pneumatology only allows the Spirit to “appear as a predicate of Christ’s reconciling work, a manifestation of the latter rather than an agency of its [sic] own.”89 For these reasons, Hawkley rightly concludes that for Barth (as well as for Melanchthon and Leibniz), “the Spirit ceases to be a salvific entity in its [sic] own right.”90
Despite his generalizing tendencies, Barth once called pneumatology “the future of Christian theology.” In saying so, he joined many others such as Eastern Orthodox theologian Nikolay Berdayev who proclaimed that pneumatology is “the last unexplored theological frontier.”91 In agreement with such luminaries, the broadest purpose of this chapter was to explore