Detailed explanations of and justifications for Third Article Theology are becoming more common, as increasing numbers of theologians become familiar with and adopt for themselves this fruitful theological approach.⁷ The explanations often begin by noting that the term Third Article Theology refers to both the methodology of intentionally starting with the Spirit and the theological understanding that emerges when this approach is utilized. They often contrast Third Article Theology with First or Second Article Theology, which respectively prioritizes the Father or the Son.⁸ Explanations also regularly note that while First and Second Article Theologies tend to focus on universals – our universal tendency towards God (as created image bearers of the Father) or our universal rejection of God (as fallen humans in need of Christ’s redemption) – Third Article Theology is intrinsically particular. ‘Third Article Theology begins with the localised claim that in this people, at this time, the Spirit is present and drawing us as a community towards redemption.’⁹ It is precisely this specific and localized aspect that makes Third Article Theology an appealing methodological approach through which to explore the relationship between the church now and the coming kingdom, and how the church is transformed through time towards its ultimate destination.

Justifications for Third Article Theology often note the many compelling biblical, theological, philosophical and contextual reasons for utilizing this methodology. The biblical recognition that God often initiates his work through the Spirit suggests that we can also learn of God this way. Theologically, the realization that our relationship with God implicitly starts with the Spirit who draws us to the Father in Christ justifies the idea of making our explicit theological method match this implicit prioritization. Philosophically, the twin premises that reality is fundamentally relational and that relationality is intrinsically the province of the Spirit lead to the conclusion that pneumatology should be primary in our theological explorations. As McDonnell says, ‘Pneumatology is to theology what epistemology is to philosophy. Pneumatology determines the “rules” for speaking about God.’¹⁰ While all these reasons for adopting a Third Article Theology methodology are valid and important, it is perhaps the contextual imperative that is the most particularly pertinent when considering the relationship between the church and the kingdom, and the church’s transformation towards this coming future. In a world where good and evil dwell side by side, and where discerning the distinction and difference between each is becoming increasingly challenging, a Third Article Theology that focuses on neither universal continuity nor discontinuity can ‘enable the Christian community both to socially and intellectually affirm some and yet contradict other aspects of the age we live’.¹¹ Such nuance is particularly necessary as the church collectively discerns what it means to live faithfully in a world which is rapidly changing and where the collective historical conscience of Christendom is becoming less prevalent.

Emerging several decades ago, Third Article Theology appropriately began with the development of a Spirit Christology.¹² It was in this pivotal doctrinal area that a detailed understanding of how to go about prioritizing pneumatology was first explored and where the first significant insights arising from this approach became evident. Over the course of these Spirit Christological investigations, three key methodological characteristics of Third Article Theology emerged as particularly pertinent.¹³ First, and unsurprisingly, Third Article Theology starts with the Spirit. What this meant for Spirit Christology is that theologians intentionally viewed ‘Christ as an aspect of the Spirit’s mission, instead of (as is more usual) viewing Spirit as a function of Christ’s’.¹⁴ Second, Third Article Theology looks through the Spirit rather than looking at it. In terms of developing a Spirit Christology, that meant Jesus Christ and his work (as opposed to pneumatology) were the core subjects being focused upon. Pneumatology was the lens; Christology was the subject being investigated. Third and most significantly, Third Article Theology complements and does not compete with First and Second Article Theologies.¹⁵ For Christology, what this meant is that theologians utilizing the methodology of Third Article Theology did not endeavour to replace a traditional Logos Christology with the newly emerging Spirit Christology but rather saw the two as complementary.

Applying these methodological theses to the doctrine of Christology led to significant developments in theological understanding. Two primary insights are noted here. The first is the Spirit’s foundational role in understanding Christ’s divinity. If Christ’s divinity is only understood through the Logos, and no reference is made to the Spirit (what is sometimes termed an exclusive Logos Christology), this inevitably leads to a docetic and therefore inadequate Christology. Jesus’ divinity needs to be understood through the twin categories of Logos and Spirit. Overemphasizing one or the other always leads to a deficient Christology.¹⁶ Second, a nuanced comprehension of Christ’s growth as a human also emerged. Emphasizing the role of the Spirit in Christ’s life enabled ‘the humanity of Christ to be considered apart from its once-for-all assumption by the Logos’.¹⁷ Being human intrinsically means change and growth, and the role of the Spirit in gradually conforming Christ’s human will to his divine will as he grew in wisdom and stature was an important development.

Given the profound and significant insights arising from the exploration of Spirit Christology, theologians have more recently begun to utilize the methodology of Third Article Theology to examine other loci. Doctrines explored in this way include the Trinity, ecclesiology, Scripture, anthropology and public theology.¹⁸ A notable exception is the application of a Third Article Theology approach to eschatology, which to date has received very little scholarly attention. The development of some key features of a Spirit eschatology is an early objective of this volume, given that it is necessary to develop a pneumatological understanding of eschatology before the implications of that understanding can be applied to ecclesiology.¹⁹ The question that arises for all of these doctrines, though, is how does one go about extending Third Article Theology beyond Spirit Christology to other doctrines? In a previous work I have argued that the dialogical approach adopted by Nicholas Wolterstorff in his profound and concise masterpiece, Reason within the Bounds of Religion, is eminently suitable for this task.²⁰ Given that this present volume extensively utilizes the terminology and logic of Wolterstorff’s approach, it is necessary to briefly explain it and how it applies to Third Article Theology.²¹

Wolterstorff argues (together with much postmodern thinking) that there is no indubitable, foundational knowledge. He also asserts (against much postmodern understanding) that humans can nevertheless approach a true understanding of an objective and independent reality. This can occur through the interchange of background beliefs, data beliefs and control beliefs. Using the simple illustration of an astronomer measuring a star’s position in the sky, Wolterstorff labels the star’s position as the data belief (the reality being determined), the telescope’s features as the control belief (the basis on which the exploration rests) and everything else that is not within the purview of the experiment (such as Newton’s laws of motion) are labelled as background beliefs. The insightful simplicity of Wolterstorff’s approach is that he recognizes that what scientists and other scholars regularly do is to swap the positions of the data, control and background beliefs. So, in another experiment, the astronomer will assume the workings of the telescope (background) and measure a star’s position (control), in order to test Newton’s laws of motion (data). By regularly swapping background, control and data beliefs, a scientist can ensure that all knowledge is coherent and consistently related to other knowledge. In this way, a true understanding of reality can be approached without any one aspect being considered as indisputable and foundational.

Consider the application of this dialogical approach to Third Article Theology and (to make it even more specific and applicable) to the development of a Third Article Ecclesiology. Applying Wolterstorffian terms to this pursuit, ecclesiology can initially be labelled as the data belief. Even a cursory examination of this data belief of ecclesiology through the lens of the Spirit, however, shows that it cannot be viewed in isolation. For example, it is the Spirit that forms the church as Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12.13). Consequently, the constituent features emerging from applying Third Article Theology to ecclesiology are illuminated best by looking through the lens of the Spirit from the vantage point of other theological loci (or control beliefs). This has three implications. First, a variety of doctrinal vantage points (or control beliefs) are necessary. Ecclesiology should be viewed not just from the perspective of Christology alone but also from other perspectives such as the Trinity, eschatology and other doctrines. Second, analogi...