Third Article Theology

A Pneumatological Dogmatics

Myk Habets

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781451488869
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506416915
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie chrétienne

Third Article Theology (TAT) is the name given to a new movement in constructive theology utilizing a distinctly pneumatological approach to dogmatics. Trinitarian in its foundation, pneumatological in its impetus, and comprehensive in its scope, TAT specifies both a method and a theology. Thinking through the theological loci of the tradition in relation to the Holy Spirit opens up new vistas and a deeper vision of the task of theology, revealing ways of thinking hitherto eclipsed by the tradition. Drawing upon the trinitarianism of the Great Tradition, theologians from across the theological spectrum bring their voices to bear upon central and defining theological issues of today in order to present a new form of systematic theologya pneumatological dogmaticscapable of representing the faith in a contemporary mode. For students, scholars, and clergy, the volume unfolds the classic articles of systematic theology in this new register. Each doctrinal article is written by a leading theologian in the field, with essays from Amos Yong, Eugene Rogers, Veli-Matti Krkkinen, Joel Green, Marc Cortez, Frank Macchia, Myk Habets, and others.

I

Part 1
Theology Proper

3

Pneumatological Insights for the Attributes of the Divine Loving

Andrew K. Gabriel

In an effort to help correct a pneumatological deficiency within the doctrine of the divine attributes, this essay integrates pneumatology into a fully Trinitarian doctrine of the divine attributes. I build on my work in The Lord Is the Spirit by entering into a constructive dialogue with Karl Barth’s doctrine of God and offering pneumatological insights for theology proper as a complement to Barth’s christological emphases. Following Barth’s emphasis that God is the one who loves in freedom, he divides his doctrine of the divine attributes into two primary sections: the perfections (Barth’s preferred term for divine “attributes”) of the divine loving and the perfections of the divine freedom. Recognizing the limitations of this essay, and considering that Barth discusses a total of fourteen attributes in his doctrine of God, I focus on the attributes of divine love.^[1] My aim is not to explicate Barth’s doctrine. Rather, I take Barth as a dialogue partner as I explore what a Trinitarian doctrine of the divine attributes might look like when integrating insights from pneumatology. I aim, then, for this chapter to be exploratory, and this conversation illustrates the fecundity of pneumatological insights for a Trinitarian doctrine of the divine attributes. Nevertheless, I offer a modest thesis statement: pneumatological insights into the doctrine of God complement Karl Barth’s christological emphasis in the doctrine of the divine attributes and confirm that God is the one who loves in freedom.

A Pneumatological Deficiency in Current Trinitarian Theology

Integrating pneumatology into the doctrine of God assists one to be thoroughly Trinitarian within one’s explication of the divine attributes. Beyond the simple fact that God is triune, it is important for a doctrine of the divine attributes to be Trinitarian, because the doctrine of the Trinity provides an explanation regarding the identity of God. It provides the answer to the question “Who is God?” When one asks about the attributes of “God” without exploring the identity of who that God is, there is a latent philosophical presupposition regarding the meaning of “God.”^[2] Rather than starting a doctrine of God with a general concept of divinity in mind, it would be more expedient to begin with the actual identity of God in mind as one seeks to understand the attributes of God. The words of John Calvin provide an important caution in this respect: “Unless we grasp these [three persons], only the bare empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God.”^[3] Hence, each of the divine persons should be considered when formulating a Trinitarian doctrine of the divine attributes, including the Holy Spirit. However, while Trinitarian theologians rightly critique the history of Christian doctrine on the attributes of God for being insufficiently Trinitarian, Trinitarian theologians today have still not developed a thoroughly Trinitarian approach to the doctrine of the divine attributes, inasmuch as they tend to be christologically focused and tend to neglect exploring implications from pneumatology for the doctrine of the divine attributes. This is evidenced in Barth’s doctrine of God where reflection from a pneumatological perspective is relatively lacking.

There is no doubt that Barth takes a Trinitarian approach to the doctrine of the divine perfections. Barth intentionally discusses the doctrine of the Trinity before the doctrine of the divine attributes since, according to him, beginning with “God’s being in general” before a discussion of God’s triune nature constitutes “the fundamental error of the whole earlier doctrine of God.”^[4] Barth wants to build his doctrine based upon God’s revelation, and God has certainly revealed Godself as triune. Hence, one of Barth’s concerns throughout his doctrine of God is to show that the divine perfections are true of God’s eternal triune being (rather than only in relationship to creation).^[5] So, for example, Barth notes how God is not only omnipresent because God is present to all of creation, but God is also eternally omnipresent since, as God is three persons, God is able to be present to another in eternity.^[6]

In addition to observations based on the triune nature of God (in general), since God reveals Godself in Christ, Barth offers many christological insights into the doctrine of God. Similar to comments regarding Barth’s whole theology (for which he is regularly accused of “christomonism”), Don Schweitzer speaks of Barth’s doctrine of God specifically as a “christologically focused Trinitarian doctrine of God.”^[7] In contrast to this emphasis on Christology, one has to search hard to find pneumatological reflections regarding the divine perfections in Barth (below I highlight those that do exist). Certainly, Barth makes numerous blanket statements claiming that in speaking of the being of God one must always be speaking of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.^[8] However, Barth seems not to follow this fully in practice.

The neglect of pneumatology in Barth’s doctrine of the divine attributes might seem strange, given his prominence as a Trinitarian theologian. However, when considered in the light of his wider doctrine, the reason for the absence of the Spirit in his doctrine of God becomes understandable. Throughout the Church Dogmatics, Barth’s pneumatology has a decidedly noetic function.^[9] That is, Barth generally relegates the work of the Holy Spirit to revealing Christ to the believer and enabling the corresponding affirmation (Barth’s “Yes”) that the believer gives to the person and work of Jesus Christ. This view of the Spirit begins at the very beginning of the Church Dogmatics where the Holy Spirit is the “Revealedness” that helps people grasp the “Revelation,” who is Jesus Christ. In this context, the Holy Spirit is the “subjective reality of revelation” and the “subjective possibility of revelation.”^[10] Accordingly, Robert Jenson suggests, “It appears that, for Barth, an act of the Spirit would not transcend the subjectivity of our hearing.” The result, Jenson continues, is that “his doctrine of Trinity, when thus used, often seems rather to be a doctrine of binity,” ignoring the various activities of the Holy Spirit.^[11]

With respect to Trinitarian theology in general, it is no secret that Barth has had an important role in the revival of Trinitarian theology. His importance for thinking about the doctrine of the divine attributes specifically is also apparent since he has had a significant influence on almost all Trinitarian doctrines of the divine attributes written after his. As a result of his influence, those who follow Barth also have a minimal place for pneumatology within their doctrines of God. Among Trinitarian theologians, Wolf Krötke exhibits an overall concern to describe God as a concrete reality who “comes to the world in Jesus Christ.”^[12] Accordingly, in Gottes Klarheiten (God’s Clarities) each of Krötke’s chapters on an attribute of God include a section on “the mystery of the parable of Jesus’ humanity,” but with no corresponding section reflecting on each of the attributes from a pneumatological perspective. Thomas Torrance exhibits a similar christological emphasis in his doctrine of God. He writes that “all authentic knowledge of God is derived and understood in accordance with the incarnate reality of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and is formulated in doctrinal coherence with Christology.”^[13] Eberhard Jüngel, too, clearly displays a christological emphasis, particularly on the passion and death of Christ. Hence, similar to his observations regarding Barth, Colin Gunton senses in Jüngel “a question of the under-determination of the place of the Spirit, and therefore a weakness in conceiving the manner of the presence of God to the world.”^[14] One might expect the situation to be different in Jürgen Moltmann’s doctrine of God, particularly given his critique of Barth’s pneumatology and Moltmann’s own emphasis on the full personhood of the Holy Spirit.^[15] However, in Moltmann’s critique of the doctrine of impassibility in The Crucified God, we again find a christological emphasis and that the Spirit is inconspicuous.^[16]

At this point in time, Trinitarian theologians continue to focus on developing the doctrine of God from a christological perspective. Though Trinitarian theology rightly affirms the divinity of the Spirit, it still has much work to do in considering the implications of the Spirit’s economic activity for the doctrine of the divine attributes.^[17] A pneumatological deficit remains in the doctrine of the divine attributes, as pneumatological insights regarding the attributes of God are infrequent. Heribert Mühlen is correct in his observation that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit “is almost inevitably seen as a pious addition, an edifying ornament, but never as the [or even ‘a’] most basic proposition of the teaching on God.”^[18]

In order to develop a Trinitarian doctrine of God, a doctrine of God must include adequate consideration of pneumatology. In making this assertion I am not suggesting that there are any Spirit-specific attributes. I am also not suggesting that pneumatology will produce radical changes in one’s doctrine of the divine attributes (although it might, depending on one’s theology). Nevertheless, integrating pneumatology into the doctrine of the divine attributes will certainly enrich one’s understanding of God, and possibly even correct some misunderstandings. Certainly, to neglect the Spirit is (to our peril) to neglect one of the ways God exists—to neglect one of God’s “modes of being” (to use Barth’s preferred designation for the divine persons).^[19]

In an effort to overcome Barth’s (and others’) pneumatological deficiency within the doctrine of the divine attributes, I turn now to offer pneumatological insights for the doctrine of the divine loving as a complement to Barth’s christological insights in an effort to move toward a thoroughly Trinitarian doctrine of the divine attributes. Barth himself reached for such pneumatological insights when he wrote (near ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table Of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• List of Contributors
• Abbreviations
• Prolegomenon: On Starting with the Spirit
• The Method of Third Article Theology
• Theology Proper
• Holy Scripture
• Christology
• Anthropology
• Ecclesiology
• Public Theology
• Select Bibliography
• Index