Trinity As Communion In The Spirit Koinonia, Trinity, And Filioque In The Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue

Trinity As Communion In The Spirit Koinonia, Trinity, And Filioque In The Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected


Trinity as Communion Koinonia, Trinity, and Catholic-Pentecostal Filioque Veli-Matti Kärkäinnen According to Ralph Del Colle, ologian, “the Pentecostal-charismatic ly trinitarian in structure.” pneumatic effusion of Spirit-baptism He contends in their spirituality in the Spirit: in the Roman Dialogue a Catholic trinitarian the- experience is intrinsical- that through “the the Christian is empow- Pentecostals, Pentecostals, who are known Oneness Pentecostals, Pentecostals-since they baptize adhere to a trinitarian understanding, ered with the Holy Spirit in the mission of Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father.” 1 That all Pentecostals are trinitarian and faith2 is a fact without much dispute, even when we take into account a fairly large number of in a conservative estimate about one-fourth of all as “Oneness Pentecostals.” sometimes also known as “Jesus Only” in the name of Jesus only-do albeit on the economic the economic level of the New means giving up the economic Testament and succumbing level only. They argue that to go beyond language to philosophical “Trinity theology speculations.3 , Del Colle, “Oneness and Trinity: A Preliminary Proposal for Dialogue with Oneness Pentecostalism” 1 Ralph (paper read at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 9-13 March 1996, Toronto, Canada) 2. See also and Temporality: A Pentecostal/Charismatic Perspective,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8 ( 1 996) : 101,111, 1 1 2 . 2 The order is intended (“spirituality and faith”), since it is spirituality rather than which distinguishes Pentecostalism from other traditions. 3 A good introduction to Oneness Pentecostalism is David A. Reed, “Oneness in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 644-51. The most comprehensive treatment is David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983). Pentecostalism,” Stanley 209 ========1========that until recently Pentecostals the Trinity in cohesive this is understandable It has to be admitted, however, have not bothered to formulate their doctrine of theological since Pentecostalism roots level movement of charismatic rather than discursive enthusiasm,”4 hand, one might have expected define their trinitarian Trinity of the movement questioned the Godhead and resulted terms. On the one hand, represents a grass- spirituality, “pneumatic theology. On the other a more concentrated effort to because the issue of the The “New years view of opposed Ironically, Pentecostals an understanding as expressed toward creeds and creedal tive or superficial. understanding, arose in the early years of the movement.5 Issue” raised by Oneness Pentecostals in the formative the traditional trinitarian in both groups being diametrically to and historically suspicious have affirmed of each other.6 the classical trinitari- in creeds, but their attitude formulations has been either pejora- “When we ‘came out’ for Pentecost,” the well-known British Pentecostal for a theory, out for a burning, living, mighty experience “we came out not merely ized our lives.”7 This emphasis wrote spokesperson Donald Gee, or a doctrine: we came that revolution- on experience rather than on Lf- Gerald T. Sheppard, “Nicean Creed, Filioque, and Pentecostal Movements in the United States,” Greek Orthodox Theological Revierv 3 1, nos. 3-4 ( 1 986): 402. See Donald W. Dayton, “Pneumatological Issues in the Holiness Movement,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31, nos. 3-4 ( 1 986): 361-88. also Publishing House, 1989), Clanton, United Pentecostal Publishing House, 1970), Implications 5 For the history of this issue, consult Edith L. Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Chapter of American Pentecostalism, vol. 1, To 1941 (Springfield, MO: Gospel 217-47 (from a trinitarian viewpoint) and Arthur L. We Stand: A History of Oneness Organizations (Hazelwood, MO: 13-26 (from a Oneness viewpoint). 6 Amos Yong, “Oneness and Trinity: The Theological and Ecumenical of Creation Ex Nihilo for an Intra-Pentecostal Dispute,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 19, no. I ( 1997): 81. In the of God Statement of Faith a lengthy statement on “The Adorable was added in 1916 in response to the “Jesus Only controversy” (to be later in the present article). 7 D. Gee, “Tests for Fuller Revelations,” The Pentecostal Evangel, 14 February Assemblies Godhead” quoted 1925. 210 ========2========creeds is expressed men or churches, but seeking in a statement from the the dead forms and even more clearly first years of the Azusa Street Mission: “We are not fighting to replace creeds with living, practical Christianity.”8 creeds indicated a departure For most Pentecostals, apostolic faith for two reasons: concern with practical Christianity, origin in and support of believers and the idea of church of “believers.”9 were in principle opposed would occasionally for an episcopacy from (a) because of their lack of and (b) because of their alien to the priesthood as a voluntary community of doctrine; they This criticism did not mean that Pentecostals to statements admit that there is some value in creeds The result has been a mixture of formulae and phrases Christian in relation to questions that creeds and a variety raised of by “trickle down” from standard ad hoc statements, especially Oneness Pentecostals. I Like most Western traditions, approached Godhead and then emphasizing distinctions within the divine the doctrine of God by discussing essence. 8 Tlle Apostolic Faith 1:1 1 ( 1906): 2. Churches, trinitarian Pentecostals have the unity of the the three eternal and personal 2 Proof-texting rather 9 Sheppard, “Nicean Creed,” 405. For a detailed discussion of the Pentecostal atti- tude toward creeds, see Cecil M. Robeck, “A Pentecostal Perspective on Apostolicity” (Faith and Order, NCCC [USA] Consultation on American Bom March 1982, manuscript); see also Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat: Pneumatology in Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue 1972-1989, Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft 42 (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1998), 350-58. Gospel Publishing House, 1937), 71, textbooks among Pentecostal students. 10 See, e.g., Myer Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible (Springfield, MO: which has been one of the most widely read , 11 Sheppard, “Nicean Creed,” 410. 12 See, e.g., Ernest Swing Williams, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Springfield, MO: the section is titled “The Unity of God- The Trinity.” So also Juhani Kuosmanen, Raamatun opetuksia (Doctrines of the Gospel Publishing House, 1953), 199ff.; Bible) (Vantaa,: RV-Kirjat, 1988). 211 ========3========than philosophical or dogmatic acteristic of Pentecostal treatments.13 argumentation has been char- The emphasis of both and unitarian) on the economic accords well with the Pentecostal groups’ (trinitarian rather than on the immanent dominant theological aspect of the Trinity dialogue with the Catholic going on, has helped Pentecostals Trinity orientation of our days. The pro nobis is at the forefront. 14 In recent Church, terms what they have believed. This process only to trinitarian Pentecostals, The purpose points on the Trinity especially meaning of the filioque The dialogue between years, the started in 1972 and still formulate in theological applies, however, since Oneness Pentecostals into the main view- from that dialogue, (koinonia) and the perspective. 15 as this is not a the agenda of the dia- have not been part of the dialogue. of this essay is to inquire that have emerged in the light of ecclesiology from an ecclesiological Catholics and Pentecostals did not devote much space to the topic of the Trinity, In that sense, from most other discussions between the Roman and other communities. It is also noteworthy significant perspective, which the discussion on the Trinity of koinonia. The third quinquennium was devoted to the topic of koinonia, major issue of contention. logue differs Catholic Church as an ecumenically namely, the meaning (1985-1989) here that the issues of the Trinity Koinonia is in fact the proper that the context in surfaced was ecclesiology, and it was andfilioque were treated. context for the discussion, since not in philosophical spec- it anchors the doctrine of the Trinity life of communion between God ulation, but in the concrete “Trinity chap. 13 Yong, “Oneness and Trinity,” 83. 14 A clear indication of this is Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1 99 1 ). See also Del Colle, and Temporality,” 103ff. 15 For a detailed treatment and sources, see further my Spiritus ubi vult spirat, 6. 212 ========4========and God’s people. This orientation is helpful also since it guards against the development of pneumatology and pneuma- tological ecclesiology “independent” from christological and theological ramifications. We will begin by discussing the issue of the Trinity in the context of koinonia, and then we will inquire into the meaning offilioque from an ecclesiologi- cal point of view. Spirit and Trinity Koinonia as Rooted in the Trinitarian Communion The Final Report ( 1985- 1 989 ) 16 section titled “The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia,” with the subtitle “Koinonia with the Triune God,” opens with an – important mutual affirmation: Both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics believe that the koinonia between Christians is rooted in the life of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, they believe that this trinitarian life is the highest expres- sion of the unity to which we together aspire: “that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ ( I Jn 1:3).” (# 29) . , With this affirmation, koinonia is inseparably linked doctrine of the Trinity. 17 It is an ecumenical consensus with the that the 16 The Final Reports of the International Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue are to be found in PNEUMA 12, no. 2 (1990), and in the Information Service 32 ( 1 976), 32-37; 55 (! 984/11-111), 72-80; 75 ( 1 990), 1 79-9 respectively. The Final Reports will be abbreviated hereafter as: FR I = Final Report 1972–1976; FR Il = Final Report 1977–1982; FR III = Final Report 1985–1989. 17 FR III, 72. As is well known, the texts of Vatican II are a sort of mixture of two kinds of ecclesiologies, “older” and “newer,” that of “society” and “communion;” this has been pointed out in detail in the classic study by Antonio Acerbi, Due ecclesiologie. Ecclesiologia giuridica ed ecclesiologia di communio nella Lumen Gentium (Bologn, 1975). 213 ========5========communion the koinonia between among Christians divine in the church(es) g is based on of persons. At the same time, the unity/communion is the highest expression of the divine Gentium,20 of the persons of unity for Christians. persons is the “deepest Report 1985-1989 (# 70) sayings of Un ita tis as well as the from the Final Report 1985- the Trinity This unity/communion meaning of koinonia,” the Final states, echoing the foundational Redintegratiol9 and Lumen Pentecostal of Faith.2 t The above quoted paragraph 1989 (# 29) emphasizes dimensional concept, comprising aspects: communion Since koinonia share in the eternal also the fact that koinonia is a two- both vertical and horizontal God’s people. God, believers have “a in the Holy Spirit whom God’s with God and among is rooted in the Triune life which is koinonia with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 1:2-3), and a communion Son, Jesus Christ, them (cf. 1 Jn 3.24; 2 Cor 13:14).”22 Holy Spirit, Trinity, and Communion Catholics and Pentecostals has given to agree unanimously that “the 18 For a recent treatment, see, e.g., Miroslav Volf, After Our Likenes.s: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 191ff. Spirit, vol.l, Chan, “Sharing to Fuller Koinonia, 19 FR III, 70. Unitatis Redintegratio, # 2. 20 There is an explicit trinitarian structure in the first paragraphs of Lumen Gentium (# 2 Father, # 3 Son, # 4 Spirit). Yves Congar (I Believe in the Holy The Experience of the Spirit [New YorkALondon: Seabury/Chapman, 1983],168ff.), among others, has drawn attention to the contribution of Vatican II to the development of a trinitarian perspective, something that was missing at Vatican I. 21 For a recent Pentecostal exposition of the meaning of trinitarian life, see Simon the Trinitarian Life, John 17:29-26; 1 John. 1:1-4,” in On the Way ed. T. Best and G. Gassman (Geneva: WCC, 1993), 85-90, his presentation at the Canberra 1991 Assembly of the WCC. 22 FR 111, 70. 214 ========6========Holy Spirit is the source church has been gathered 13:13).”23 confess the Lordship The focus since no one can in the Holy Spirit.24 In OP, who gave a reading of basic New of koinonia or communion. in the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor There is also a christological of Jesus except his theological position paper, Herve Legrand, short outline of a Catholic trinitarian that there is a “comparatively large between Catholics and Pentecostalists as to the of the New Testament data referring God.25 Ecumenically toward to the commun- this is an extremely a common ground for Testament texts, argued agreement” reading ion with the Triune important result in that it points developing ties take their point of departure God. a more consensual view of koinonia as both par- According to Legrand, Christians, united among from the written Word of (I John 3 : 1 ; 2:24). dwell in the love of the and the Son are dwell ing the Father is he who brings us com- munion with his Son and with himself themselves, Father and of the Son, as the Father them one (John. 14:20; 15:4; 17 :20- 23 ; 1 John 4:12). Communion with the Son is accomplished within each other, making especially through the Eucharist 6:56). The relationship more complex; ( Cor. 10:16; 1:9; John by baptism is is received through tized become the temple Consequently, Christian with Christ introduced there the role of the Holy Spirit in the com- munion with God is much more explicit, the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; the Spirit of God ( Cor. of the Holy Spirit ( Cor. the Holy Spirit animates the life of every as well as the whole church.26 23 FR III, 30. 24 FR III, 36. ‘ since the baptism in 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:11 ) 6:11 ). The bap- 8:19). ‘ , 25 Herve Legrand, “Koinonia, Church and Sacrament” (Catholic position paper at the 13th dialogue session at Venice, Italy, 1-8, August 1987), 5. 26 Ibid., 2-3. 215 ========7========Legrand argues his task by pouring community (Acts 2:33); ing of the messianic a deep communion between they equally begins the gather- (Acts 2 :5- (I up of the Temple of God at work for the unity of the body of Christ Furthermore, Legrand Testament tological reality, oscillating Of course, this eschatological visible and historical munion with God, the Father, not only eschatological: that in the New Testament Christ achieves forth the Holy Spirit upon the apostolic thus at Pentecost community open to all nations 11). “The gifts of the Spirit to all Christians do not only set up them (II Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1 ) but contribute to the construction of the Church Cor. 12:7; 14:4) and to the building (I Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:22). The Spirit is always (I Cor. 12:13).” reminds us that in the New the communion initiated in the church is an escha- between dimension of the community: . it gives birth to a church which ible and has a mission and a responsibility Another Catholic team member, oped his idea of “The Trinity from an explicitly pneumatological pneumatological ecclesiology28 Mystica Persona ( 1 968).29 Mühlen 27 Ibid., 3-4. “already” and “not yet.” dimension does not negate the “The com- the Son and the Holy Spirit, is is vis- within history.”27 Heribert Muhlen, devel- as Communion in the Spirit” viewpoint. His idea of a developed from his Una notes that Lumen Gentium 28 See further Paul D. Lee, Pneumatological Ecclesiology in Roman Catholic– Pentecostal Dialogue. Catholic Reading of the Third Quinquennium (1985–1989). Dissertatio d Lauream in Facultate S. Theologiae pud Pontificiam Universitatem Thomae in Urbe (Rome, 1994). position paper 29Heribert Muhlen, Una Mystica Persona. Die Kirche als das Mysterium der Identitdt des Heiligen Geistes in Christus und den Christen: eine Person in vielen Personen (Paderbom, Germany: Ferdinand Schbning, 1967). See also H. Mlhlen, “Charismatic and Sacramental Understanding of the Church: Dogmatic Aspects on Charismatic Renewal,” One in Christ 12 (1976), 334 (the published version of his read at the first quinquennium meeting in 1974). As is well known, the earlier Catholic theology of the church operated with the concept of the church as continuation of Christ’s incarnation; this view was based on the highly influen- 216 ========8========(# 8) speaks of an “analogy” church: “For this reason, is compared to the mystery assumed nature inseparably him as a living instrument Spirit, who vivifies 4:16).” Spirit or “communion Lumen Gentium between incarnation and the analogy, this reality so, in a similar way, of the Holy by an excellent of the incarnate Word. Just as the united to the divine Word serves of salvation, does the communal structure of the Church serve Christ’s it by way of building up the body (cf. Eph. The Church is thus defined as the mystery in the Spirit.”3o (# 7) stresses also the fact that the Spirit is one and the same (unus et idem) in Christ and Christians. means to say that the church of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.3 1 to hear from Catholics of Vatican II about the church is the contin- that “the By this the Council uation of the anointing Pentecostals are delighted central statements light its basically pneumatological closely following 12:1-13, one of the cardinal an importance for ecclesiology St Paul in this matter.” texts for Pentecostals, John 1 : 14 and Phil 2.5-11 for Christology,” the Holy Spirit, “dwelling It is therefore Principle of Tiibingen clearly high- structure, the Council And, therefore 1 Cor. “assumes that is similar to that of, say, Mühlen argues.3’- in those who tial ecc1esiology of Johann Adam Mohler in the ninteenth century (especially on his later writings in contradistinction to his earlier emphasis on the pneumatologi- cal constitution of the church as explicated in his Unity in the Church or the Catholicism [ 1825]). For this see: B.E. Hinze, “The Holy Spirit and the Catholic Tradition: The Legacy of Johann Adam Mohler,” in The Legacy of the School: The Relevance of Nineteenth Century Theology for the Twenty- First Century, ed. Donald J. Dietrich and Michael J. Himes (New York, NY: Crossroad Herder, 1997), 75-94, and Michael Himes, Ongoing Incarnation: Johann Adam Mdhler and the Beginning of Modern Ecclesiology (New York, NY: Crossroad Herder, 1997). added); 30 Miihlen, “Charismatic and Sacramental Understanding,” 333-34 (emphasis “The Holy Spirit and the NT View of Communion” (Catholic position paper read at the l2th dialogue session, Pasadena, CA, 24-30 May 1986), 1-2. 31 Ibid., 334; Muhler, Una Mystica Persona, 380-85; “The Holy Spirit,” 29. 32 Muhlen, “Charismatic and Sacramental Understanding,” 335 (emphasis added). 217 ========9========and ruling over the entire about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together believe and pervading brings munionem fidelis] Christ that he is the principle sacred mystery through Christ, functions.”33 Using his somewhat of the unity of the church, with the Holy Spirit energizing church, who [com- so intimately in of the church’s unity. This is the in Christ and its various language, Muhlen notes out of and in two per- about the church as a idiosyncratic that since the Holy Spirit is one person the Spirit brings In the “we” of the witnesses of the life the Holy Spirit makes his appearance so that “the effectiveness when one gains access to the communion of these witnesses.” On the basis of this “we,” Mihlen can sons, the divine “we,” “relational structure.” of Jesus, of salvation, be experienced regard the Spirit as very crucial the Holy Spirit.” beings perceive While both Legrand in the history of the Spirit is and can to his view of the church: perceivable form of “The church is the visible and sensorially When we see and hear how other human abandon themselves to God, Muhlen the Holy Spirit or, better, the Spirit’s and Miihlen role of the Spirit in the creation of church there are also differences underlined the sacramental in fact, comes of the church. In Miihlen the lan- seems to go so far toward the pneu- tical and horizontal), Legrand Mfhlen’s language, Pentecostal understanding guage of sacramentality matological that the distinction “charismatic/pneumatological” states, then we acts.34 accentuated the critical koinonia (both ver- of emphasis: perspective whereas extremely close to the between “sacramental” and is hard to detect. 33 Unitatis Redintegratio, 2; Mühlen, “The Holy Spirit,” 1. 34 Miihlen, “The Holy Spirit,” 14-15. 218 ========10========Trinity, Fellowship, and Experience The Pentecostal cochair, the trinitarian perspective seen in his exegesis koinonia, Jr., accentuated which can be to . Cecil M. Robeck, in his position paper, of some crucial NT passages relating such as 2 Cor. 13:13: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship Spirit be with you all.” From this and similar 1:9; Phil. 2:1 etc.), “we can conclude of God which comes relationship to God mediated tive by the Holy Spirit.”35 cites an extremely relates directly from God. It is descriptive through In the beginning meaningful passage to the concerns of Pentecostal fellowship of the Holy passages ( Cor. that koinonia is a work of a unique the Son and made effec- of his paper he from Emil Brunner that ecclesiology: . The Body of Christ is nothing other than a fellowship of persons. It is ‘the fellowship of Jesus Christ’ or ‘fellowship of the Holy Ghost’ where or koinonia signities a common participation, a togetherness, a community life. The faithful are bound to each other through their com- mon sharing in Christ and in the Holy Ghost, but that which they have in common is precisely no “thing,” no “it,” but a “he,” Christ and His Holy Spirit.36 could have been written of Pentecostal , by a Pentecostal. It teaching on the second, insistence on the and third, the primacy given This passage betrays several emphases church: first, the “body” language; fellowship-nature of the church; to the Holy Spirit. These are the emphases Testament ecclesiology. that Robeck also finds in the New Two basic texts that explicitly (Pentecostal position paper connect 35 Cecil M. Robeck, “The Holy Spirit and the NT Vision of Koinonia,” read at the l2th dialogue session, Pasadena, CA, 24-30 May 1986), 7. 36 Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church, trans. Harold Knight PA: Westminster Press, 1953), 10-11; quoted in Robeck, “The Holy 1. (Philadelphia, Spirit,” 219 ========11========are Phil. 2:1 and 2 Cor. 13:13, but of others that imply the same: 1 Cor. 1 :9 ; the Spirit and koinonia there is a plethora Rom. 11:17; and 1 John 1:3, 6-7, passages that comes ship to God mediated through Robeck concludes that koinonia from God: “It is descriptive which may be distinguished something among others. From these is a work of God of a unique relation- the Son and made effective by and horizontal dimensions Koinonia is not to do, it is something the doctrine Ervin, insistence Spirit takes seriously a personal with the Holy Spirit.”3s that the twentieth-century churches have led to a renewed simply on a speculative experience of the immediacy the Holy Spirit. It has both vertical but not separated. which the church undertakes which God calls sinners to experience. “37 In fact, the most important point for Pentecostals is not per se, but the experience in his position paper, contends that the “Pentecostal upon the new birth and the baptism Ervin also regards Pentecostal tical tradition of the church, ence of the whole people of the Trinity. Howard in the Holy koinonia with the Son and it to be significant renewals of the Western emphasis upon the Trinity, not in a renewed be gainsaid, have taken . Catholics and Pentecostals koinonia in the Spirit, except level, but existentially of the vertical as well as the hor- izontal dimensions of koinonia. “It may hardly that the Pentecostal revivals of the present century the koinonia of/with the Holy Spirit out of the cloistered and made it the common of God.”39 In sum, it can be said that there is no contention concerning for the way it is manifested: for Pentecostals this takes place in the individual, paper mys- experi- . between the trinitarian basis of for Catholics it 37 Robeck, “The Holy Spirit,” 4, 7. 38 Howard M. Ervin, “Koinonia, Church and Sacraments” (Pentecostal read at the l3th position dialogue session, Venice, Italy, 1-8 August 1987), 8. 39 Ibid., 8-9. 220 ========12========is through the church. Toward a Trinitarian Pneumatology and Ecclesiology To deepen our analysis of the trinitarian basis of ecclesiol- ogy, we will refer briefly to an important, widely acclaimed essay by the Catholic cochair, Kilian McDonnell, OSB, enti- tled “A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit,”4° before moving to the question of the filioqase. McDonnell contends that the Spirit sets the rules for speaking of God and the Trinity,41 and that the Trinity sets the control for a healthy pneumatology, and thus for a pneumatological ecclesiology. While he does not downplay the christological concentration of pneumatology,42 he does insist that the first location of both Christology and pneumatology is the Trinity.43 Trinitarian ori- entation safeguards pneumatology from the danger of either ignoring christological orientation or becoming overly “Pentecost”-centered, although Pentecost is to ecclesiology what Easter is to Christology.44 The Spirit as experienced in history is the point of entry into the christological and trinitar- ian mystery. Pneumatology, according to McDonnell, is there- fore the universal horizon determining the interpretation of 40 Kilian McDonnell, “A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit,” Theological Studies 46 ( 1 985 ): 191-227.. 41 Ibid., 214-18. ° 42 Kilian McDonnell (“The Determinative Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Theology Today 39 [ 1 982]: 1 59) notes that the New Testament established the reciprocity of “in Christ” and “in the Spirit.” 43 Kilian McDonnell, “Pneumatology Overview: Trinitarian Guidelines for Speaking about the Holy Spirit,” in Proceedings of the Fifty-first Annual Convention, ed. E. Dwyer. The Catholic Theological Society of America 51 1 ( 1 996): 189. 44 Kilian McDonnell, “Vatican II ( 1 962– 1 965), Puebla ( 1 979). Synod ( 1 985): Koinonia/Communion as an Integrating Ecclesiology,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 25 (1988): 403. 221 ========13========Christ and the Trinity. look like this :45 In a diagram, this hermeneutic would Ecclesiology Pneumatology Christology Trinity a contact func- and the church through The Spirit exercises tion.46 The Father touches Christ movement trolling the movement.47 mutuality through history in the Spirit. The Spirit is also the point of entry into a back to the Father. In all of this, the Trinity Filioque is con- and and the Question of Deficient Pneumatology Ecclesiology . the Trinity, attention. If Pentecostals have paid little attention to the doctrine the issue of thefilioque According to filioque, of has received even less the Spirit proceeds from the by the Father Nevertheless, many of controversy over Father and the Son, but the Son is not begotten Thus the Father and the Son constitute of the Godhead from which the by definition. issues at stake in the historic have been of great interest to most Pentecostals have yet to real- of course, Creed and the Holy Spirit. twin principles or sources Holy Spirit is excluded the underlying the filioque question Pentecostals, even though ize that fact. Most Pentecostals, confessing, according formulations, filioque, to the Nicene but one needs to ask seriously found themselves and other Western if it is 45 McDonnell, “The Determinative Doctrine,” 148, 159. 46 McDonnell, “A Trinitarian Theology,” 209-210. 47 Ibid., 193ff. For a recent attempt to construct a trinitarian based pneumatologi- concerns of which come close to this dialogue, see Michael J. Shanahan, Church: A Spirited Communion (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1995). ‘ cal ecclesiology, many Lawler and Thomas 222 ========14========anything other than repeating A definitive interpretation from a Pentecostal viewpoint what others have said earlier. of the doctrine of the Trinity is subjoined Assemblies of God “Statement of Fundamental Truths.” It is entitled “The Adorable Godhead,” (d) “Identity and Co-Operation the Trinity in a traditionally ioqcce-clause: Latin way with an explicit fil- nor confused opposed the Son as Son to Article 2 of the and the relevant section in the Godhead. “48 It defines is . The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are never identical as to Person; as to relation; nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor as to cooperation. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in to relationship. The Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son, as to fellowship. The Father is not from the Son, but the is from the Father, as to authority. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son proceeding, as to nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence neither Person in the Godhead either exists or works or independently of the others. John 5 :17-30, 32, 37; John 18. separately 8:17, With regard interesting to note that the Final does not address Final Report, for that matter). discussion in both the Catholic to the Catholic-Pentecostal the issue of filioque There papers. Ironically, the Pentecostal team member Howard Ervin devoted the most space to the discussion lem, noting that most Pentecostals, nuances of creedal formulations, inconsistent with regard Pentecostal manuals would dialogue, it is Report ( 1 985-1 989) itself (nor does any other is, however, an extensive and Pentecostal position M. of this prob- not familiar with the are often found to be rather Most . to the issue of filioque,. likely endorse the Western addi- tion that “the Holy Spirit, then, proceeds (as the creeds 48 Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, 13, in Minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, St. Louis, MO, 1-7, October 1916. For a helpful discussion, see Sheppard “Nicean Creed,” 409ff. 223 ========15========declare) Pentecostal textbooks (as ceeding stated in the creeds) day of Pentecost,50 others ceeds eternally from the Father from the Father and the Son.”49 While some are ambiguous of the Spirit (John 15:26) is an eternal or a proceeding affirm that the Holy Spirit “pro- about whether the pro- relationship into the church on the and from the Son.”5 1 cession is eternal ceeds from the Father” alone. suppositions of a Pentecostal procession Ervin’s own stand is clear on this issue: “Whether the pro- or in time, in John Pentecostalist Raymond 15:26 the Spirit “pro- Biblically and within the pre- theology this is decisive; the only to the Father,-never to According of the Spirit is attributed to the Father and the Son.”52 He makes reference Pruitt who has addressed the question of the subordination of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Pruitt makes an unwarranted that “it is a subordination of functional “for convenience’s sake” sees it to Ervin, essence.” Pruitt, though, advisable to use the traditional nal.”53 While Ervin rightly thinking “disturbing”54 to note the fact that Pentecostal sees the implications to Christology activity, comment not of . (creedal) terms, like “eter- of such and the Trinity, one has theology operates here at a theology is popular, nonanalytic temporal departing from the classical level. To confuse eternal relations and mission does not mean that Pentecostal canons. Ervin, “Koinonia,” 2, quoting G. P. Duffield and N. M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, CA L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 109. 50 This noncommittal view is implied in Duffield and Van Cleave, Foundations, 109. In reference to John 15:26, it has to be noted, though, that the text obviously is about the economy of the Spirit rather than theology. 51 Raymond M. Pruitt, Fundamentals of Faith (Cleveland, TN: White Wing House and Press, 198 1 ), 284; quoted in Ervin, “Koinonia,” 3. 52 Ervin, “Koinonia,” 3. Publishing 53 Pruitt, Fundamentals of Faith, 102. 54 Ervin, “Koinonia,” 4. ‘ 224 ========16========We can no longer Pentecostalists “koinonia was applied mon salvation through Jesus Chist.”55 cast doubt upon the orthodoxy Duffield and Van Cleave, to the church as those having a common of when they state that a com- faith in God and in His Son the Holy Spirit “lingering filioque in the Pentecostal too much of a theology To see here in the absence of mentioning echoes of the subordinationism of the witness to koinonia”56 is to require that until our decades has been mostly in oral form.57 What this absense shows is that we are still lacking a coherent Pentecostal systematic theology. that the question of subor- it as functional and procession are of But Ervin is correct in claiming by characterizing Since generation this exclusion of the Holy Spirit from as posited by the filioque, argues for subordination of the Holy Spirit. dination is not answered rather than ontological. necessity ontological, the source of the Godhead, filioque is open to the charge Implications of Filioque Even if the charge tion of filioque, according Thus, Ervin concludes, of ditheism.58 the inser- has serious effects on the neglect of the is all too obvious. Even trinitarian, all too often, when their theologies life and praxis Pentecostals, that despite been subjected, they continue of ditheism could be avoided, to Ervin, notion of koinonia and church: “The general Holy Spirit in the life of the churches are formally are crypto unitarian. It is to the credit of the opprobrium to which to bear uncompromising they have witness 55 Duffield and Van Cleave, Foundations, 447: 56 Ervin, “Koinonia,” 12. ing specific 57 Ervin concedes, however, that this omission of the Spirit might “represent noth- more than the strictures of theological method, i.e., a verbal accomodation to texts of Scripture.” 58 Ervin, “Koinonia,” 4-5. 225 ========17========to the koinonia Ervin contends mon ground with the Orthodox of the Holy Spirit.”59 that many Pentecostals would find com- “subordination the unity of popular there are two negative consequences of the Holy Spirit, Surprisingly, sentiment of the Greek Orthodox ioqLCe.61 He sums up: “The objections introduces a distortion distortion in the koinonia of the theologians who argue that of the filioque, namely, [and an] overemphasis on Ervin very much echoes the critique of fil- raised have this in com- in the koinonia of ‘ mon, that the filioque the Trinity, and a consequent Church.”62 Catholic Herve Legrand assessment of the implications causal link betweenfilioque to it seems doubtful. is much more moderate in his and the ecclesial If it were the direct forced to claim that Protestant churches liberty subject of the filioque: to him such a effects attributed cause, we would be make “charism sub- to imposed to the juridical, the mystique to the clergy, the hierarchy.”63 although he contends that in the ject to the institution, interior authority, the prophetic subject subject to the scholastic, universal priesthood subject This Legrand we must recognize a certain Latin church, sis, the absence ciencies the laity subject to the ministerial is not ready to admit, pneumatological deficiency which is seen in the weak attention to the epicle- of a developed synodality, autonomy given to the clergy.64 These are some of the defi- spirituality that Pentecostal 59 Ibid., 6. and a certain and theology-perhaps 60 Ibid., 4, quoting Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 235. 61 Ervin, “Koinonia,” 6-7. 62 Ibid., 7. 63 Legrand, “Koinonia,” 13-14, quoting from Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical ‘ the Eastern Church (London: J. Clarke, 1957), 155-156, 163, 166, Theology of 185. 64 Legrand, “Koinonia,” 14. 226 ========18========using a less sacramental help correct in the future. and less liturgical language-could Spirit and Filioque Mfhlen’s and McDonnell’s insights might help us sharpen our view of the relationship of the Spirit to the Son and the Father. Muhlen points out that it forms part of the stock of the church’s traditional understanding that the Holy Spirit emerges from the Father and the Son, or through the Son, in a single, joint act. Father and Son, then, are not two principles but rather one principle of the Holy Spirit. From all eternity, the Holy Spirit emerges out of the Father and the Son, “not as the result of two breaths, but by means of a single breath” (unica spiratione).65 The emergence of the Holy Spirit can therefore be described as the joint “we” act of Father and Son. In Mihlen’s scenario the mutual relationship between the Father and the Son has a completely different structure from the mutual relationship that exists between the Father and the Son on the one hand and the Holy Spirit on the other. “The Father is constituted as a person only by means of his relation- ship to the Son, while the Son is constituted as a person only by virtue of his reverse relationship to the Father. The ‘breath- ing’ of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, has its origin in the two persons who merge into a single act. The Holy Spirit is one person out of and in two persons, the divine ‘we’ in per- son.”66 McDonnell notes that, alongside the distinction of two “missions,” there is in the New Testament a radical relating of the one to the other. The Father sends the Spirit in the name of the Son (John 14:26), and the Son sends the Spirit from the ‘ . ‘ 65 Muhlen, “The Holy Spirit,” 10, quoting from Enchiridion Symbolorum, ed. H. Denzinger and A. Schonmetzer (1963), 460. 66 Muhlen, “The Holy Spirit,” 13. – 227 ========19========Father (John 15:26). The source of both is the Father. Luke also has this mutuality of the Spirit and Son (Luke 24:49; Acts 2:22). In a different perspective Paul reaches the point where the mutuality expressed in “Lord” and “Spirit” becomes almost interchangeable (Rom. 12:5, 11; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18). If, then, both missions go out from the Father, McDonnell concludes, both lead to the Father: a Patre ad Patrem. He reminds us that building on the biblical witness, the patristic tradition developed the theology of the movement from the Father through Christ in the Spirit, . and back by the same movement to the Father. Since the filioque clause has not been graced with univer- sal approval and it devalues the unity of the church, an increasing number of Western churches are considering the suppression of the insertion.68 The joint study conducted by Faith and Order (WCC) has suggested several alternative for- mulations worthy of consideration: the Spirit proceeds the Spirit proceeds Son; the Spirit proceeds from the Son; the Spirit proceeds Son; the Spirit proceeds through the Son.69 from the Father from the Father of the Son; through the from the Father and receives from the Father and rests on the from the Father and shines out . 67 McDonnell, A Trinitarian Theology, 210-211. 68 Faith and Order, Confessing the One Faith: An Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as It Is Confessed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 ) (Geneva: WCC, 1991 ). 69 Faith and Order, “The Filioque Clause in Ecumenical Perspective ( 1 979),” in Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963-1993, ed. G3nther Gassman (Geneva: WCC, 1993), 188. See also Lee, Pneumatological Ecclesiology, 1 88ff, concerning the dialogue and its treatment of thefilioque. 228 ========20========though, It has to be noted, the creeds the doctrine! that exclusion of the filioque does not by itself, of course, . Conclusion mean taking from it out of in the context of ecclesiology on the pro nobis and Pentecostals to operate been characteristic of Pentecostalism of recent Catholic Catholics and Pentecostals theology, too. agree on the neces- Together they say that between Christians/churches is a reflection of the In this trinitarian is still in the making. context, there is a com- Pentecostalism rather than discursive theol- over the years has about their theology and what The discussion on the Trinity helps Catholics level, which has always and increasingly Furthermore, sary trinitarian basis of koinonia. koinonia divine communion. munion of the Spirit. Pentecostal theology represents charismatic spirituality ogizing helped of the Trinity and filioqice. distinctively directions it might about the Spirit. The dialogue Pentecostals to think more clearly It is yet to be seen if there is any Pentecostal contribution to these issues, take. It is safe to say that one should not necessarily posit a need for distinctive Pentecostal doctrine. What one could say, however, be able to sharpen the perception trinitarian ing the role of the Spirit in the Trinity. is that Pentecostalism might of other traditions concern- Even if it is wise not to for alleged pneumatological Pentecostals blame too hastily the filioque deficit in Western theology, bearing with Eastern Orthodox to correct pneumatological it has to be admitted that it has a upon how the role of the Spirit is conceived. theologians, “forgetfulness. “70 Together might be able See Sheppard, “Nicean Creed,” 412-13. 229 ========21========The distinctive Pentecostal contribution could be the accent on the baptism in the Holy Spirit with accompanying charismatic manifestations (speaking in tongues, prophecy, word of knowledge, etc.), which, as was stated in the begin- ning of the essay, brings the doctrine of the Trinity into expe- riential dimension;71 which is more in tune with the New Testament emphasis. 7 ‘ For a theological analysis of the trinitarian nature of Pentecostal spirituality and affections see Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 125ff. 230 ========22========

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.