Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
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 Theology, 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
