reason which we possess is a gift of God, and consists in the natural light that has remained with us in the midst of corruption; thus, it is in accordance with the whole, and it differs from that which is in God only as a drop of water differs from the ocean.”85 Due both to their shared philosophical underpinnings and other commonalities (such as their weak Trinitarian formulations), Powell proclaims that Leibniz was squarely situated within Melanchthonian Protestantism.86 Tracing the Melanchthonian pneumatological stream beyond Leibniz, one may also investigate the pneumatology of prominent twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth, whom Hinlicky argues “appropriated the sequenced scheme of ‘imputative justification—effective sanctification’, that, following Melanchthon, became normative also for the Reformed tradition.”87 In fact, though Barth’s theology is explicitly Trinitarian and anti-Platonic, his retention of a Melanchthonian view of justification led him to de-emphasize the Spirit in a manner wholly consistent with what may be considered “general pneumatology.”
Regarding this tendency, Theodora Hawkley underscores Barth’s understanding of the Cross as the “decisive end of history,” which in turn diminishes the present role of the Spirit.88 Joseph L. Mangina similarly notes that Barth’s pneumatology only allows the Spirit to “appear as a predicate of Christ’s reconciling work, a manifestation of the latter rather than an agency of its [sic] own.”89 For these reasons, Hawkley rightly concludes that for Barth (as well as for Melanchthon and Leibniz), “the Spirit ceases to be a salvific entity in its [sic] own right.”90
Despite his generalizing tendencies, Barth once called pneumatology “the future of Christian theology.” In saying so, he joined many others such as Eastern Orthodox theologian Nikolay Berdayev who proclaimed that pneumatology is “the last unexplored theological frontier.”91 In agreement with such luminaries, the broadest purpose of this chapter was to explore this future, this unexplored frontier; whether this was done successfully or not is another matter. To do so, an inchoate articulation of a posited pneumatological stream—admittedly elementary—was offered to serve as an entry-point for readers to consider what theological commitments and metaphysical outlooks may be necessary to support a robust pneumatology. However, this is not merely an academic exercise. My hope is that a reinvigorated theology of the Holy Spirit may offer a more successful approach to some of the exigent issues of the present era, such as the increasing interest in ‘mystical’ or ‘inward’ spirituality against traditional Christendom; the growth of third-world Christianity (bolstered largely by Pentecostalism) in contrast to decreasing numbers in the West; and the desire for ecclesial unity to address the visible brokenness of the Body of Christ. These issues (and many more) provide a practical impetus and rationale for this study.
This chapter does not claim that the ‘fruits’ of the Luther-Hegel-Rahner pneumatological stream are entirely positive or biblically sound; nor does it claim that the above crises may only be remedied within a pneumatological sphere. I believe that troubling theological developments occurred within this stream, and thus, Iam apprehensive to offer this pneumatological stream (at least, in its portions that are untethered from Scripture) as a panacea for all ills of the present Christian faith, whether related to praxis or doctrinal concerns.
Additionally, one might argue that the Melanchthonian theological stream, with its resultant “general pneumatology,” is not so different from the stream originating with Luther that results in the “universalized pneumatology” of Hegel and Rahner. Yet, I contend that there is a key difference. Within the latter pneumatological stream there is an implicit honor, dignity, and priority assigned to the Holy Spirit, with a strong impulse to secure his personhood; indeed, a central focus that saves the Spirit from becoming theos agraptos—the God about whom no one writes—or whom V-M. Kärkkäinen playfully terms the “Cinderella of the Trinity; when the two other ‘sisters’ went to the ball, Cinderella was left at home.”92 If only for this reason, the robustly pneumatological stream of Luther-Hegel-Rahner is worthy of consideration and careful study.
Lastly, this chapter should not be viewed as an attempt to castigate or discredit the theological contributions of Melanchthon, nor should it be used as a vehicle to transform him into the “whipping boy” of all Reformation or Lutheran maladies.93 Rather, it aims to delineate common theological elements that have undergirded a robust pneumatology across denominational and philosophical frameworks. Moreover, within the context of this collection of essays, this chapter serves to elucidate the expansive effects of the Reformation’s legacy—spanning well beyond Protestantism to idealist philosophy and modern Catholic thought. Most important, a final description of this chapter is that it aims to function as a hortatory: a desperate call both to scholars and to faithful Christians to reflect upon how their theological commitments can be brought into dialogue with the ecclesial realities of the twenty-first century, a period oft-called the “post-Christian era.”
Five centuries have passed since Luther penned and subsequently nailed 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg. Yet, we remain tethered to our earthly existence. Hence, all Christians must consider the following questions: If the Lord were to delay His return for additional time, what forces will be shaping future generations of Christians? Will the Reformation be a mere footnote in history? Will the Christian faith be assimilated into secular, political, or ideological arenas? Or will a future class of theologians hold Reformation 600, 700, or 1000 conferences, all proclaiming a robust and faithful presentation of the mysteries bequeathed to all Christians once and for all? Though perhaps speculative, it appears to me that the path from our present-day ambiguities to such future certainties (at least, the certainty that the future will soon become our present reality!) is necessarily bound up with the espousal of the Holy Spirit as the gathering, renewing, and sanctifying Divine Person. With this in mind, I humbly ask each reader to allow the Spirit to flow as rivers of living water (John 7:38), both personally and theologically—as that water will continue to do in the New Jerusalem for eternity (Rev 22:1).
Bibliography
Bradley, Denis J M. “Rahner’s ‘Spirit in the World’: Aquinas or Hegel?’ The Thomist 41 (1977) 167–99.
Burke, Patrick. Reinterpreting Rahner: A Critical Study of His Major Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002.
De Nys, Martin J. Hegel and Theology. Philosophy and Theology. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009.
Fritzman, J.M. Hegel. PCTS–Polity Classic Thinkers. Cambridge: Polity, 2014.
Hawksley, Theodora. “The Freedom of the Spirit: The Pneumatological Point of Barth’s Ecclesiological Minimalism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 64 (2011) 180–94.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Freidrich. Phänomenologie Des Geistes. Norderstedt: Verlag Der Wissenschaften, 2015.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Edited by Walter Jaeschke. Hamburg: Meiner, 1993.
Hinlicky, Paul R. Paths not Taken: Fates of Theology from Luther through Leibniz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Hodgson, Peter Crafts. Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Jamros, Daniel P. 1995. “Hegel on the Incarnation: Unique or Universal?” Theological Studies 56 (1995) 276–300.
Kärkkäinen, Pekka. Luther’s trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes. Mainz: von Zabern, 2005.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
__________. “The Holy Spirit and Justification: The Ecumenical Significance of Luther’s Doctrine of Salvation.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Studies 24 (2002) 26–39.
__________. “Karl Barth and the Theology
