Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:18:09.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pneumatologia Crucis: Reclaiming Theologia Crucis for a Theology of the Spirit Today

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

D. Lyle Dabney
D. Lyle Dabney
Affiliation:
Marquette University, Department of Theology, Coughlin Hall, 100 PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of what are we speaking when we speak of the Holy Spirit? This most fundamental of all the questions asked in the field of Pneumatology has not received an answer widely accepted in the theology of the twentieth century. Karl Barth could write that the ‘Holy Spirit is nothing else than a certain relation of the Word to man’; while to Rudolph Bultmann, the Spirit was ‘the power of futurity,’ and was to be counted among the mythological forms of New Testament speech. Heribert Mühlen, on the other hand, interpreting the Latin pneumatological tradition in terms of the personalism of Ebner and Bubner, calls the Spirit ‘we,’ the unity of T and ‘thou.’ And David Gelpi reflects current feminist concerns when he designates God's Spirit as ‘The Divine Mother,’ the feminine in God. Finally, most recendy, Michael Welker has adopted the language of the natural sciences mediated through process thought and calls the Holy Spirit a ‘force field,’ while Jürgen Moltmann terms God's Spirit ‘the Spirit of Life’; a notion echoed in Mark Wallace's thesis that the Spirit is ‘the power of life-giving breath (r¨ah) within the cosmos who continually works to transform and renew all forms of life—both human and nonhuman.‘

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , November 2000 , pp. 511 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Barth, Karl, Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 138Google Scholar. Cp. idem., CDIV/2, pp. 322f.: [The Holy Spirit] is no other than the presence and action of Jesus Christ Himself: His stretched out arm; He himself in the power of his resurrection, i.e. in the power of His revelation as it begins in and with the power of His resurrection and continues its work from this point.’ See Smail, T. A., ‘The Spirit-Son Relationship. Modern Reductions and New Testament Patterns,’ Irish Biblical Studies 6 (1984), pp. 85–102, 90f.Google Scholar

2 Bultmann, Rudolph, The Theology of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951/1955)Google Scholar, I: 335. Cp. idem. Zur Geschichte der Paulus-Forschung, ThR NF 1 (1929), pp. 29–59. Further, see Schmithals, Walter, An Introduction to the Theology of Rudolph Bultmann (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1968), pp. 259f.Google Scholar

4 Mühlen, Heribert, Der Heilige Geist als Person. In der Trinität bei der Inkarnation und im Gnadenbund, 4. Aufl. (Münster: Asehendorff, 1963)Google Scholar. Further, see Banawiratma, John B., Der Heilige Geist in der Theologie von Heribert Mühlen (Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter D. Lang, 1981).Google Scholar

4 Gelpi, David, The Dinine Mother (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984)Google Scholar. For similar treatments, see Schaup, J., Woman: Image of the Holy Spirit (Denville, New Jersey: Dimension Books, 1975)Google Scholar; Congar, Yves, ‘The Motherhood in God and the Femininity of the Holy Spirit,’ I Believe in the Holy Spirit (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), III, pp. 155–164Google Scholar; Kaltenbrunner, G., ‘1st der Heilige Geist weiblich?,’ UnaS 32 (1977), pp. 273–279Google Scholar; Wurz, E., ‘Das Mütterliche in Gott,’ UnaS 32 (1977), pp. 261–272Google Scholar; and Johnson, Elizabeth A., She Who Is: the Mystery of God -Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), pp. 128–131Google Scholar. Finally, cf. Kinkel, Gary Steven, Our Dear Mother the Spirit: An Investigation of Count Zinzindorf's Theology and Practice (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1990).Google Scholar

5 Welker, Michael, God the Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 239ff.Google Scholar

6 Moltmann, Jürgen, The Spirit of Life. A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).Google Scholar

7 Wallace, Mark I., Fragments of the Spirit, Nature, Violence, and the Renewal of Creation (New York: Continuum, 1996), p. 1.Google Scholar

8 Pannenberg, Wolfhard, ‘Ekstatische Selbstüberschreitung als Teilhabe am göttlichen Geist,’ Heitmann, Claris and Mühlen, Heribert (eds), Erfahrung und Theologie des Heiligen Geistes (München: Kösel-Verlag, 1974), pp. 176–191, 176Google Scholar. Cp. idem. The Apostles'Creed In the Light of Today's Questions (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), p. 128.Google Scholar

9 For a much more extensive account, see my volume Die Kenosis des Gistes: Kontinuität zwischen Schöpfung und Erlösung im Werk des Heiligen Geistes (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997).Google Scholar

10 See von Loewenich, Walther, Luther's Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1976)Google Scholar; McGrath, Alister E., Luther's Theology of the Cross (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985).Google Scholar

11 LW31, 52.

12 LW31, 53.

13 Ibid.

14 Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, Schultz, Robert C. (trans.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 182Google Scholar. Cp. WA 30/1, 192; BC 419, 65.

15 BC, 415.

16 Ibid.

17 For major accounts of Luther's Pneumatology, see Prenter, Regin, Spiritus Creator, Jensen, John M. (trans.) (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Herms, Eilert, Luthers Auslegung des Dritten Artikels (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)), 1987).Google Scholar

18 Berkhof, Hendrikus, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1964), pp. 17ff.Google Scholar

19 To this extent, it must be said that the Reformation continued the main line of Scholastic Pneumatology in stressing the relationship between the Spirit and the Church. Cf. Comblin, José, The Holy Spirit and Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1989), p. 38Google Scholar; Mühlen, Heribert, ‘Soziale Geisterfahrung als Antworraut eine einseitige Gotteslehre,’ Heitmann, Claus and Mühlen, Heribert (eds), Efahrung und Theologie des Heiligen Geistes, pp. 253–272Google Scholar; Watkins-Jones, Howard, The Holy Spirit in the Mediaeval Church (London: Epworth Press, 1922), pp. 249ffGoogle Scholar. And thus questions must be raised about the typical claim of Reformation theology, articulated for instance by B. B. Warfield, Introduction, in Kuyper, A., The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. xxv–xxxixGoogle Scholar, xxxiii: ‘The developed doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is an exclusively Reformation doctrine.’ See, for instance Noesgen, K. F., Geschichte der Lehre vom heiligen Geist (Gütersloh: G. Bertelsmann, 1899), pp. 2f.Google Scholar; Warfield, B. B., Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Macmillan, 1931), pp. 283f.Google Scholar; Doumergue, E., Jean Calvin. Le hommes et les choses de son temps, Bd. IV: La pensée religieuse de Calvin (Lausanne: Bridel, 1910), p. 102.Google Scholar

20 See Berkhof, Hendrikus, Theology of the Holy Spirit, pp. 23fGoogle Scholar. Further, see W. D. Hauschild, Geist/Heiliger Geist/Geistesgaben IV Dogmengeschichtlich, THE, XII, 201, 204, 209.

21 Cp. Blaser, Klaus, Vorstob zur Pneumatologie (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1977), p. 10Google Scholar: ‘So ist es doch gerade das Defizit an bedeutsamer Pneumatologie in den historischen Kirchen und offiziellen Theologien, das solche Bewegungen provoziert und hervorruft.’ Further see Nissiotis, N. A., ‘The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity for Church Life and Theology,’ Philippou, A. J. (ed.), The Orthodox Ethos (Oxford: Holywell, 1964), pp. 32–69, 38.Google Scholar

22 von Loewenich, Walther, ‘Theologia Crucis,’ LThK, X, 61.Google Scholar

23 For an account of the rise and development of the contemporary theology of the cross in systematic theology, see Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Kreuzestheologie Heute,’ idem., Zukunft der Schopfung. GesammelteAufsätze (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1977), pp. 68–88Google Scholar; H.-G. Koch, Kreuzestod und Kreuzestheologie, HerKorr 29(1975), pp. 147–56. See the discussion in EvTh33 (1975), where the whole number is devoted to the theme of the theology of the cross, especially H.-G. Link, Cegenwärtige Probleme einer Kreuzestheologie. Ein Bericht, pp. 337–345. Further see Sundermeier, T., ‘Das Kreuz in japanischer Interpretation,’ EvTh 44 (1984), pp. 417–440Google Scholar; idem., Das Kreuz als Befreiung: Kreuzesinterpretation in Asien und Africa (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1985)Google Scholar; O'Collins, G., Faricy, R. and Flick, M., The Cross Today. An Evaluation of current theological Reflections on the Cross of Christ (New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1977)Google Scholar; McGuckin, Terence, ‘The Eschatology of the Cross,’ New Blackfriars 75 (1994), pp. 364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For this same theme in New Testament theology, see Stuhlmacher, Peter, ‘Achtzehn Thesen zur paulinischen Kreuzestheologie,’ idem., Versöhnung; Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), pp. 192–208, and the bibliography which he offers.Google Scholar

24 Kähler, Martin, ‘Das Kreuz. Grund und MaB der Christologie (1911),’ in Frohnes, H. (ed.), Schriflen zur Christologie und Mission (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), pp. 292–550.Google Scholar

25 Schlatter, Adolf, Jesu Gottheit und das Kreuz, 2. Auf. (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1913).Google Scholar

26 Althaus, Paul, ‘Das Kreuz Christi,’ idem., Theologische Aufsätze (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929), pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

27 Steffen, Bernard, Das Dogma vom Kreuz. Beitragzu einer staurozentrischen Theologie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1920), p. 152.Google Scholar

28 See Klappert, B., Die Auferweckung des Gekreuzigten. Der Ansatz der Christologie Karl Barths im Zusammenhang der Christologie der Gegenwart, 2. Aufl. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974)Google Scholar; Thompson, J., Christ in Perspective. Christological Perspectives in the Theology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1978), pp. 34–60.Google Scholar

29 Barth, Karl, KD II/2, p. 132.Google Scholar

30 Jüngel, Eberhard, Gottes Sein ist im Werden (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986)Google Scholar. Further, see idem., ‘Das dunkle Wort vom Tod Gottes,’ EK 2 (1969), pp. 133–8, 198–202; idem., ‘Vom Tod des Lebendigen Gottes. Ein Plakat,’ idem., Unterwegs zur Sache. Theologische Bemerkungen, 2. Aufl. (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1988), pp. 105–25; idem., God as the Mystery of the World (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983). For a dependable introduction into Jungel's theology, see Webster, J. B., Eberhard füngel: An Introduction to his Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Muhlen, Heribert, Die Veränderlichkeit Gottes als Horizont einer zuhünftigen Christologie. Auf dem Wege zu einer Kreuzestheologie in Auseinanderselzung mit der althirchlichen Christologie, 2. Aufl. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1969).Google Scholar

32 von Balthasar, Hans Urs, ‘Mysterium Paschale,’ Feiner, J. und Löhrer, M. (eds), Mysterium Salutis. Grundris heilsgeschichllicher Dogmalik III/2 (Einsiedeln/Zürich/Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1969), pp. 133–326.Google Scholar

33 Küng, Hans, Menschwerdung Gottes. Eine Einführung in Hegels theologisches Denken als Prologomena zu einer zukuuml;nftiger Christologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1970), pp. 622–631, 637–46.Google Scholar

34 See, above all, Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God (New York: Harper & Row, 1974)Google Scholar. Further, see Momose, Peter F., Kreuzestheologie. Eine Auseinanderselzung mil Jürgen Moltmann (Freiburg/Basel/Wein: Herder, 1978).Google Scholar

35 Kasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ (New York: Paulus Press, 1977); idem., Der Gott Jesu Christi (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1982).Google Scholar

36 Hall, Douglas John, Lighten Our Darkness. Toward an Indigenous Theology of the Cross (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976)Google Scholar; idem., God & Human Suffering. An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986); idem., Thinking the Faith. Christian Theology in a North American Context (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989).

37 Macquarrie, John, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), p. 321.Google Scholar

38 Macquarrie, John, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, p. 323.Google Scholar

38 Moltmann, Jurgen, The Crucified God, p. 201.Google Scholar

40 Moltmann, Jurgen, The Crucified God, p. 206.Google Scholar

41 Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God, p. 244.Google Scholar

42 See Moltmann, Jürgen ‘Theologie der Hoffnung,’ Bauer, J. B. (ed.), Entwürfe der Theologie (Graz/Wien/Köln: Verlag Styria, 1985), pp. 235–257, 246f.Google Scholar

43 Moltmann, Jurgen, The Crucified God, p. 246.Google Scholar

44 Moltmann, Jurgen, The Crucified God, p. 245.Google Scholar

45 See my Kenosis des Geistes, pp. 127ff.

46 Jungel, Eberhard, ‘Zur Lehre vom heiligen Geist,’ Luz, U. and Weder, H. (eds), Die Mitle des Neuen Testaments. Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1983), p. 108.Google Scholar

47 Hooker, Morna D., The Message of Mark (London: Epworth Press, 1983), p. 16.Google Scholar

48 Goppelt, Leonhard, Theology of The New TestamentII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 121.Google Scholar