Part One: Theological and Ministry Foundations
1
: Theological Corrective/Ministry Cure
No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.
āActs 19:2
Blank stares, quizzical looks, even indications of frustration: these are some of the ways people have tended to respond when made aware of what this new book is about. āPneumatological realism,ā theyād say. āWhatās that? Is that even a thing?ā
Well, yes, it is a thingāa very important thing. Indeed, Iām convinced that the cultivation of an ecclesial environment thatās earmarked by a realist rather than non-realist understanding and experience of Christās Spirit is one of the most significant endeavors the leaders of local churches can undertake.
The goal of this chapter is to help the reader better understand what I mean when I refer to pneumatological realism and why Iāve become such an outspoken advocate for it. Though Iāve endeavored to make the discussion as accessible as possible, and provide several illustrative figures toward that end, some of the ideas presented here may strike some readers as a bit obscure. Given the academic nature of the chapterās subject matter, this is to be expected. Still, I want to encourage those without formal theological training to hang in there. There is some important foundation-laying going on here, and Iād like to think that once completed, everyone reading this chapter will find that some important theological and ministry dots have been connected.
Pneumatological Realism: The Nature of the Notion
At the risk of oversimplifying things, Iāll begin by indicating that, in theology, pneumatology is the area of study relating to the Holy Spirit. In philosophy, realism is the position which holds that āobjects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind.ā In other words, philosophical realism contends that there is a āthereā there; reality exists independently of our awareness or perception of it. So, the realist answer to the proverbial question about a tree falling in the uninhabited forest is: yes, such an event does indeed create the vibrations necessary for a sound to be heard, regardless of whether thereās an ear nearby to perceive it. Put all this together and a very rudimentary, initial definition for pneumatological realism might go like this: Speaking theologically, pneumatological realism contends that the Holy Spirit is not simply an idea, concept, or abstract theoretical notion. Rather, he is a very real, personal, divine entityāthe third person of the Trinityāwho can be interacted with in a real, interpersonal, phenomenal, existentially-impactful (life-story shaping) manner.
Once again, this is an oversimplification, but itās a beginning that Iāll build on as we go. And, lest you conclude that pneumatological realism is a fanciful notion that only Iām concerned about, Iāll point out straightaway that, while one could probably count on one hand the number of theologians whoāve referred to the concept in an explicit manner, others have done so. Indeed, before I elaborate any further on my understanding of what a pneumatological realism is and why itās so important to the life of the church, Iāll briefly survey here two other representative versions of the notion: one put forward by a German systematic theologian named Wolfhart Pannenberg, and the other proffered by an American spiritual theologian named John Coe. Along with me, both Pannenberg and Coe conceive of pneumatological realism as a necessary corrective to a problem plaguing contemporary Western theology and practice. We differ some, however, in what we consider that problem to be. Thus, my survey of our respective takes will pay special attention to the theological/ministry malady each of us considers pneumatological realism to be an indispensable solution for.
Pneumatological Realism vs. Christian Gnosticism
Though he didnāt use the term extensively, Pannenberg did refer in his systematic theology to a āpneumatological realismāāone that had been previously alluded to by fellow German theologian Otto Weber. Admittedly, the practical ministry implications of pneumatological realism werenāt at the forefront of Pannenbergās treatment of it. Nevertheless, his somewhat controversial take on the notion has proved to be an important development in the history of modern theology.
According to Pannenberg, Weberās concern had been to overcome the ācommon inclinationā of theologians to refer to the Spirit in an overly ethereal/theoretical manner. Weber took issue with the tendency of theologians to āspeak docetically of the Holy Spirit, making him a stopgap that always comes in where questions that are posed remain open.ā
A little background is in order here, even if it is, once again, an oversimplification. Gnosticism refers to a teaching that posed a serious threat to the Christian faith during a critical era of its emergenceāthe second and third centuries AD. A central theme in gnosticism is the notion of saving gnosis or āknowledge.ā Thus, the gnostics viewed Christ as a divine messengerāan angelic bearer of an esoteric knowledgeārather than as an incarnate God-man whose suffering and death on the cross possessed an atoning significance. Coinciding with this take, ā[o]ne of the key doctrines at the heart of Gnosticism was that Jesus only appeared to be human, but really was not. The name for this teaching is Docetism from the Greek words: dokesisāāsemblanceā or āappearance,ā and dokeināāto seem.āā Itās because a docetic view of Jesus, denying as it does Jesusā full humanity, creates huge problems for a biblically-informed and theologically coherent understanding of his twin ministries of revelation and redemption, that the early church fathers felt the need to label it a heresy and to argue against it in a very vociferous manner. What Weber seems to have been concerned about is the tendency of some contemporary theologians to speak docetically of the Holy Spiritāthat is, to refer to the Spirit as if heās simply a useful theoretical concept rather than an ontologically real, personal, divine entity who, himself, plays a critical role in redemption drama.
For his part, Pannenberg too was concerned about an insufficient, reductionist treatment of the Spirit which limited his role in the Christian drama to helping believers arrive at a saving knowledge of Jesus. According to Pannenberg,
Pannenberg was convinced that to speak of the Holy Spirit as ājust an emanation of Jesus Christ,ā and to limit his activity to simply providing ācognitive divine helpā in understanding the Christ-event, was not only much too reminiscent of the Gnostic focus on an esoteric saving knowledge, but was also marginalizing and reductionist. It was in response to this concern that Pannenberg argued for āa much broader and more biblical doctrine that emphasizes the Spiritās all-pervasive, creative presence in creatio...