(PDF) Thy Kingdom Come: Frank Macchia and Jürgen Moltmann on the Spirit and the Kingdom

This paper surveys Jurgen Moltmann's theology with a special reference to his pneumatology and how this doctrine locates and dislocates him with the Pentecostals. His ecumenical and trinitarian theological dictums make Moltmann a theologian who speaks to the modern challenges. The doctrine of pneumatology and ecclesiology are inseparable for Moltmann. The paper briefly highlights Moltmann's dictums of the church and the Spirit, human and Spirit nature, the Spirit and soteriology as these are crucial for his dialogue with the Pentecostals. The second part of the paper points out the divergences and convergences between the Pentecostals and Moltmann, especially regarding the Holy Spirit. The first convergence point is Moltmann's insistence on the charismatic structure of the church, followed by the interpretation of sanctification. The third convergence point is his locating the church in the trinitarian history of God and, more specifically, in the history of the Spirit-something that the Pentecostals are fully endorse. Moltmann's final agreement with the Pentecostals is his reference to the experience of the Spirit. Then divergences include facts like Moltmann's struggles with the Pentecostals obliviousness to social justice. This is through his understanding of the role of charismata, which differs from that of the Pentecostals. Secondly, Moltmann sees the Holy Spirit as the universal gift to the world, while Pentecostals see the Holy Spirit as a special gift liberally given to the elect, the church. Thirdly, Moltmann struggles with elitism among the Pentecostals, which seems to be in contrast with the character of the Spirit they claim to possess. Finally, Pentecostals disagree with Moltmann's omission of the Lukan material regarding pneumatological narratives

It has become de rigeur in writing about a theologian's work to provide not only a theological context for his or her work, but also to begin with some sort of sociopoliti-cal framework which sheds light on the situation and milieu within which the theologian works. In the case of Jurgen Moltmann, such a sociopolitical prolegomena is absolutely necessary for two reasons: first Moltmann's work is intimately tied in with the social and political upheaval in post-World War II German culture; second, Moltmann' s theology is deliberately and decidedly political in character, demanding that one always look to the political sources and results of his theology. This introductory essay will provide a framework, both sociopolitical and theological, for understanding the various twists and turns that Moltmann' s theology has taken over the last thirty years. It will hopefully provide guideposts for understanding the subsequent articles in the volume which deal with specific aspects of Moltmann' s thought Moltrnann is a member of the first post World War II generation of Protestant theologians in Germany. The challenges that this generation faced were manifold. In the first place, all institutions, political, religious, social, and economic, were either destroyed or severely damaged either by Nazi totalitarianism or by the war itself. Because the churches still maintained some structural integrity, it fell to them to help provide the most basic of human services to the German people: food was distributed , shelter provided, and the rebuilding of the physical infrastructure of the country was begun. A more knotty problem remained, however: what was to be made of the atrocities caused by the Nazi regime over the previous decade, and what direction was the New Germany to take. There was the sense that the latter could not proceed without coming to grips with the former.

Jurgen Moltmann stands as one of the most important and influential theologians of the 20th century. After providing a brief biographical sketch and discussion of the philosophical commitment to a distinctly eschatological theology, the paper explores the key features of Moltmann's theological method and his doctrine of God. Special attention is paid to his proposal of dynamic relatiionality (or perichoresis), his identification of the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity, his view of divine passibility, and his conception of God in terms of panentheism. The paper concludes with a critique of Moltmann's views, paying close attention to his strengths and ongoing revelation while also showing why many of his controversial proposals remain unconvincing.

Thy Kingdom come Frank Macchia and Jürgen Moltmann on the Spirit and the Kingdom Marinus de Jong July 2013 Supervisor: Dr Benno van den Toren Wycliﬀe Hall, University of Oxford Contents Contents 1 Introduction 3 1 Frank Macchia 1.1 Framework: Spirit Baptism 1.2 The Baptising Spirit . . . . . 1.3 The Pentecostal Kingdom . 1.4 The Spirit as the Kingdom . . . . . 5 5 6 9 11 2 Jürgen Moltmann 2.1 Framework: The Future Kingdom . . . 2.2 The Kingdom of Hope . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Spirit of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The Spirit as Deposit of the Kingdom . . . . . 13 13 14 18 21 3 Macchia and Moltmann 3.1 Similar Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Diverging Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Fruitful encounter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 23 24 26 . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1 Introduction This essay aims to compare two theologians, Frank Macchia and Jürgen Moltmann, on how they relate the Kingdom of God and the holy Spirit. The reason for this comparison is Frank Macchia’s book Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. In this book Macchia, a charismatic theologian, wants to reach two goals by connecting the holy Spirit and the Kingdom. First, he wants to establish a distinctive charismatic theology with Spirit baptism as its ‘organising principle’ instead of “simply to borrow a neo-evangelical theology with a Reformed ﬂavor and add chapters on Spirit baptism and healing”. 1 Secondly, and this cannot be seen apart from the ﬁrst objective, Macchia wants to do Pentecostal theology with an ecumenical perspective, therefore widely engaging in debate with theologians from many traditions, mainstream and orthodox, catholic and Protestant. Macchia believes that “Spirit baptism has the greatest potential for connecting to other traditions towards the formation of an ecumenical pneumatology” 2 In order to reach this goal Macchia widens the scope of the distinctive Pentecostal Spirit baptism to the kingdom of God. Spirit baptism, Macchia claims, is to be identiﬁed with the coming kingdom of God. The second theologian, Jürgen Moltmann, has a completely diﬀerent background. Macchia is an American Pentecostal born in the sixties, Moltmann a German Protestant born a forty years earlier. A comparison between the two lies at hand nonetheless. The most cited author in Macchia’s book is Jürgen Moltmann. Especially in his chapters on the Trinity and on the church, Macchia relies heavily on Moltmann. Macchia admits, “Jürgen Moltmann’s theology has been enormously important to my own thinking over the years (as the numerous references to his work in my book indicates)”. 3 Macchia has a global and ecumenical perspective with his book and Moltmann is one of his most important conversation partners. On the other hand, Moltmann’s theology has become more and more pneumatological in the course of its development. And in his similarly ecumenical scope Moltmann has given attention to Pentecostal theology increasingly, especially in his pneumatology. 4 He has published in the Pentecostal academic journals, Pneuma and the Journal for Pentecostal Theology, several times. He has even been one of the respondents to Macchia’s book in its discussion in the Journal for Pentecostal Theology. 5 Next to the pneumatological scope of Moltmann’s theology, the kingdom of God has always been a central feature of his theology even to the point of calling his own theology kingdom-of-God theology 1 Knight III, “Reﬂections”, p. 5. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 22. 3 Macchia, “Response”, p. 14. 4 Moltmann, SL, pp. 3-5 and Moltmann, KKG, p. 25. 5 Moltmann, “Remarks”, pp. 9-13. 2 3 4 CONTENTS at several instances. 6 It thus seemed interesting to see how far these theologians actually diﬀer from each other. How two diverging starting points and backgrounds might end up with similar theologies. And if so, this might help to advance the ecumenical gap between Pentecostalism and the Reformed tradition. Therefore the question I will try to answer in this essay is: What are the diﬀerences and the similarities between Jürgen Moltmann and Frank Macchia concerning their connection of the holy Spirit and the kingdom of God? To answer this question I will ﬁrst expound the way either theologian treats this relation in its own distinct way. I will do this by asking two questions: (1) How is the holy Spirit understood? I will use the classic distinction between the person and the work of the Spirit to structure the answer. And (2) How is the kingdom of God understood? I will ask for the the ‘how’ (nature of the kingdom), for the ‘when?’ (kingdom and eschatology) and thirdly for the ‘what?’ (kingdom and church). These two questions will then be followed by a short section (3) on how the kingdom and the Spirit relate. In a third chapter I will compare the two and come to a conclusion and evaluation of the debate. However, it is important to describe the framework of both theologians ﬁrst because they diﬀer so greatly. This I will do before entering the description of the set criteria. A ﬁnl methodological remark concerns the sources I will use. For Macchia we can easily follow the line of his book mentioned above. For Moltmann this is slightly more complicated since an understanding of his entire œuvre would be necessary to answer the question properly. Since this is beyond the limits of the time and space of this essay I have restricted myself to a few of his books that seemed most relevant. Moltmann’s fundamental book, Theologie der Hoﬀnung: Untersuchungen zur Begründung und zu den Konsequenzen einer christlichen Eschatologie (TH), his ecclesiology, Kirche in der Krat des Geistes: Ein Beitrag zur messianischen Ekklesiologie (KKG), and his pneumatology, The Spirit of Life: A universal aﬃrmation (SL).7 I will occasionaly refer to his doctrine of God, Trinität und Reich Gottes: Zur Gotteslehre (TRG) and to some other relevant articles on the topic of this essay (cf. the bibliography section below for a full bibliography). I trust this will be enough to get a basic understanding of how Moltmann would answer the questions asked above. 6 Moltmann, ET, p. xx and Moltmann, “Was heißt heute ‘evangelisch’?”, p. 46. I refer to this title in the English translation because the German original was not available in the Oxford libraries. This also applies to Moltmann’s Jesus Christ for Today’s World ( JCTW) and The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions (WJC) to which I will refer only occasionally. 7 Chapter 1 Frank Macchia 1.1 Framework: Spirit Baptism Frank Macchia is a Pentecostal theologian and a minister of the Assemblies of God. At the same time he has a clear ecumenical mission as a member of the Faith and Order committee of the World Council of Churches. These tendencies are both very important to understand Macchia’s theological proposal. His book is a mighty eﬀort to provide a Pentecostal theology that is both distinctively charismatic and ecumenical. Through the development of the Pentecostal ‘crown jewel’, Spirit Baptism, Macchia hopes to achieve this twofold purpose. “Spirit baptism has the greatest potential for connecting to other traditions toward the formation of an ecumenical pneumatology” 1 How exactly he does this has to be seen below, but his goal is to widen the meaning of the classic Pentecostal distinctive of Spirit baptism to advance the ecumenical approach of diﬀerent traditions. Macchia thus has a twofold message. To his own ‘constituency’ he argues that they should not to give up on their ‘crown jewel’. And this is exactly a tendency Macchia perceives in recent Pentecostal scholarship. For several reasons there has been a tendency away from Spirit baptism. Its elitist notions of subsequence, which have been proven in disaccord with the New Testament repeatedly, make it a stumbling block in ecumenical relations and likewise pastorally. Also the enormous doctrinal diversity within Pentecostalism, especially concerning Spirit baptism, showed convincingly by historical research, has led scholars away from Spirit baptism. 2 Macchia believes this is unneccesary and even undesirable provided the doctrine of Spirit baptism is articulated in a broad manner. “Why abandon or subordinate such a fruitful metaphor for an ecumenical and global theology of the Spirit just because there are technical problems in how Pentecostals have explained the metaphor historically?”, Macchia asks rhetorically. 3 Macchia’s second message is to global Christianity, namely that “the Pentecostal connection of Spirit baptism with charismatic experience says something profound about the diverse and polyphonic way the Spirit makes Christ present in and through the church”, because very often “[t]his experiential dimension of Spirit baptism tends to be lacking in the formal deﬁnitions of the metaphor among other Christian 1 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 22. Ibid., pp. 28-38. 3 Ibid., p. 32. 2 5 6 CHAPTER 1. FRANK MACCHIA families in the world”. 4 This mission has for Macchia a clear experiential and biographical background. In the introduction of his book Macchia opens with his own story of conversion and Spirit baptism. “I began to cry and to search for words that I could not ﬁnd. […] I felt a fountain well up within me. It grew stronger and stronger until it burst forth with greater strength. I began to pray in tongues. […] I felt God’s powerful presence embrace me …” 5 He ends the narrating of his experience by aﬃrming, “That such testimonies bear witness to genuine experiences of ‘Spirit Baptism’ is for me a given.” 6 This biographical introduction is essential to understanding why for Macchia the concrete experience of the power of the holy Spirit is so vital for his theology and why he is eager to enrich Christian theology with the experience of Spirit baptism. Having framed Macchia’s theology and his purpose we can now turn to the actual content of his proposal by the criteria mentioned above. 1.2 The Baptising Spirit The work of the holy Spirit In describing Macchia it is important to start with the question of the holy Spirit, and more speciﬁcally with the work of the holy Spirit. The experience of Spirit baptism is the starting point for Macchia’s proposal. How does he understand this baptising of the Spirit? For Macchia, baptism in the Spirit is the summary of the work of the holy Spirit and also the deﬁnition of his person. Since Spirit baptism is for Macchia the ‘organizing principle’ 7 of his theology, almost everything Macchia says in his book could be treated in this paragraph. For the sake of the comparison and of structure we will have to diﬀerentiate and make (sometimes contrived) distinctions. If the principal work of the Spirit is Spirit baptism we should look at the notions which surround Spirit baptism. A ﬁrst and obvious connection is to see Spirit baptism as initiation into the Christian life. This is exactly what Macchia argues, that Spirit baptism is indeed closely connected with water baptism and thus initiation. Through the work of the holy Spirit a person is individually regenerated and made a part of the body of Christ. This is called Spirit baptism. It stresses the fact that God is sovereign in giving his Spirit and bringing about conversion. It is never at the church’s disposal (Dunn and Barth). It is thus not biblical to disconnect Spirit baptism from water baptism (cf. Acts 2:38; 19:5-6; 1 Cor 12:13). The sacrament and the actual giving of the Spirit are “two sides of the same coin”. 8 This is a correction of the understanding which has been common in the Pentecostal tradition as a heritage of the Holiness movement. Notably Spirit baptism has very often served as the metaphor for a second conversion. A second moment after initiation where the holy Spirit comes and indwells so as to bring the outward life into accord with the inward conversion which happened at initiation. The gifts of the Spirit and the full Christian life only come about after 4 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 32. Ibid., p. 13. 6 Ibid., p. 14. 7 Ibid., p. 17. 8 Ibid., p. 74. 5 1.2. THE BAPTISING SPIRIT 7 this second conversion. This idea, Macchia claims, is not found in the Bible and is also dangerously elitist and arrogant. He thus suggests to abandon the idea of a second conversion and to emphasise that Spirit baptism, water baptism, initiation and conversion are inextricably intertwined. This has also implications for the doctrines of justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation. “Justiﬁcation in the light of Spirit baptism reveals the overlap between justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation as metaphors of the renewal of creation into the dwelling place of God.” 9 Justiﬁcation should be taken away from the narrow forensic language and instead be used to the describe the one salviﬁc and healing work of the Spirit to the world. Justiﬁcation is about righteousness, about the installation of the new world, the coming of the kingdom. And the coming of the kingdom is a matter of being baptised by the Spirit (this will be more fully developed below). The same goes for sanctiﬁcation. This cannot be separated from justiﬁcation nor from the baptism with the Spirit. The classic separation of justiﬁcation as extra nos and sanctiﬁcation in nobis is unhelpful, both are metaphors for the same Christian life. Just as Jesus was baptised by the Spirit and thus made holy, so are we. Set apart for a holy task in the kingdom of God. 10 All this does certainly not mean “that Macchia is abandoning subsequence – he clearly wants to hold on to an event in the Christian life which intensiﬁes our experience of God’s love, renews us in love and empowers and impels us to mission”. 11 This conclusion of one of the reviewers is recognised by Macchia as to have ‘hit the nail directly on the head’. 12 The subsequent or immediate experience of empowerment by the Spirit, including especially speaking in tongues, is vital for the Christian life and especially for the witness to the Kingdom. This is how it is clearly perceived in Acts: empowerment for witness to the nations. “[W]hatever else it is, Spirit baptism is a powerful experience received with or at a moment distinct from Christian initiation.” 13 Having said this, Macchia quickly adds again that this experience is not unrelated to initiation. On the contrary, it needs to be in close connection with initiation. It is therefore better to understand this empowerment as a “release of the Spirit, as enhancement or renewal of one’s charismatic life” (italics are mine). In this sense “all Christians are charismatic” 14 The empowerment by the Spirit in concrete experiences is an aspect in the New Testament witness not to be neglected. It is also a logical part of understanding Spirit baptism in the framework of the coming kingdom because the empowerment enables the witness to the kingdom. This is Macchia’s message from his own tradition to the global church. But empowerment is ‘only’ a part of the entire work of the Spirit in baptising his people and the world. “The experience of Spirit baptism is inseparable from its broader pneumatological framework in the constitution of the church and the fulﬁlment of the kingdom of God” 15 Regeneration, sanctiﬁcation, justiﬁcation, and empowerment are all metaphors to describe the reality of Spirit baptism. And Spirit baptism can only be understood in the wider framework of the coming kingdom of God. The theme of the kingdom and how this relates to church and 9 Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., pp. 129-44. 11 Knight III, “Reﬂections”, p. 7. 12 Macchia, “Response”, p. 15. 13 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 153. 14 Ibid., p. 77. 15 Ibid., p. 84. 10 8 CHAPTER 1. FRANK MACCHIA eschatology will be discussed in more detail in the next section. 16 Before we move on, there is yet a deeper layer to unveil in the work of the holy Spirit in Spirit baptism. Because all the language of salvation and empowerment as Spirit baptism has to be, above all, language of divine love. Ultimately, Spirit baptism is the outpouring of God’s love to the world (Rom. 5:5). Precisely in this act of Spirit baptism God is love. And this love is never static or an ‘attribute’ of God. “Through Christ as the Spirit Baptizer, God imparts his divine self as allembracing love and not just something about God.” 17 That is why Spirit baptism results in speaking in tongues, the language of love, as opposed to reason. But power without love is empty and void of direction. All the empowerment of the Spirit would be pointless without love (1 Cor. 13:13). This last and deepest layer of the work of the holy Spirit in Spirit baptism brings to the fore an important part of Macchia’s book: the person of the holy Spirit in loving relation to the Trinity. It is to that we now turn. The Person of the Spirit The endowment with the Spirit in Spirit baptism should be understood from a trinitarian perspective. Macchia makes this primarily clear from the relation between Jesus and the Spirit in the New Testament. Macchia argues that in all four gospels Jesus is introduced by John the Baptist as the one who will baptise with the Spirit. Furthermore, at the ‘apostle’s council’ this announcement of John the Baptist is invoked to argue in favour of gentile inclusion. The matter of Spirit baptism was thus very central to the ﬁrst century church. This implies for Macchia that the meaning of Jesus lied essentially in him being the Spirit baptiser. Both categories of God the Father and of his holy inbreathing weren’t new for the Jews, but the connection with Christ and through him the availability of God’s Spirit to all was indeed a novelty. This is also the key topic in Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “How to enter the realm of the Spirit, by faith in Christ of by works?”, Paul asks. Jesus as the Spirit baptiser is thus the principal meaning of the resurrection: Christ rose from the dead in order to bestow the Spirit. And therefore Jesus had to be God, for only God can impart God (Augustine). The doctrine of the Trinity is baptismal theology. In the role of Jesus as Spirit baptiser in history we perceive the Trinity (cf. Moltmann). Good christology is Spiritchristology, the time of Western Geistvergessenheit must come to an end. Jesus is the way to the kingdom, to the Spirit, to eschatology and therein lies his principal meaning. Christ is the King, the Spirit is the Kingdom. 18 This understanding of Jesus as essentially the one who baptises with the Spirit to inaugurate the kingdom naturally leads to a trinitarian understanding of Spirit baptism. This helps to overcome the Pentecostal distinction between the Spirit bestowing Christ as regeneration and Christ bestowing the Spirit as empowerment. If Spirit baptism is understood as a trinitarian act where Christ gives the Spirit to ﬁll us with all his blessings and the Spirit drawing us to Christ, the elitist notion of subsequence can be overcome. The person of the Spirit and of Christ have to be understood in a fully trinitarian way. By the Spirit in baptism the Trinity opens up in self-giving love towards man and towards creation. This 16 Again, the distinction made here is somewhat ambiguous. Because everything in the section on the kingdom and the church is also part of the work of the Spirit. 17 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 261. 18 Ibid., pp. 107-12. 1.3. THE PENTECOSTAL KINGDOM 9 perichoretic love, unfolded in history is what deﬁnes God. This is what deﬁnes his lordship and thus the nature of the kingdom, never oppressive but open in selfgiving love (Moltmann and Pannenberg). The love of God in the Trinity is poured out upon man through Spirit baptism and leads to nothing less than participation in God (Jenson). “In being baptized in the Spirit, we are being ‘baptized into God’!” 19 By the Spirit there is a two-way movement: from the Father trough the Son in the Spirit and the other way around, with the ultimate goal that God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). The understanding of an open and loving Trinity by Spirit baptism also opens up for an understanding of the work of the Spirit broader than “those who consciously call upon the name of the Lord”. 20 The person of the Spirit understood as part of the Trinity is essential in Macchia’s understanding of the Spirit and Spirit baptism. 21 1.3 The Pentecostal Kingdom The Nature of the Kingdom of God It has been somewhat unnatural to avoid kingdom language in the account of Macchia’s view on the person and the work of the holy Spirit because it is so central to it, and I have not succeeded entirely in doing so. We can now fully emphasise the principal role of the kingdom of God in Macchia’s theology of Spirit baptism. In a certain sense it could be stated that all that is said above is the coming kingdom of God. It is Macchia’s aim to show “that the Spirit baptismal metaphor can be descriptive of both God’s action in inaugurating the kingdom of God and our empowered witness to this kingdom in the world”. 22 The foremost connection between the coming kingdom of God and Spirit baptism is in the announcement of Jesus by John the baptist in all four gospels. John is the herald of Jesus as the Spirit baptiser and of the approaching kingdom. The signiﬁcance of this connection is made clear by the fact that Jesus quotes John’s announcement just before his ascension (Acts 1:3) and also Peter remembers this prophecy about Spirit baptism when he addresses the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:16). “The substance of the kingdom in Scripture is pneumatological”, Macchia states referring to Rom. 14:17. 23 But the story of the lordship of God starts already in the Old Testament, well before the Baptist. There, the lordship of JHWH is connected with his redeeming work. The concrete salviﬁc action of God in history led to the confession of his lordship. Later in history, especially in exile, this lordship came to be understood as something eschatological and there it was associated with the outpouring of the Spirit of God and the coming Messiah. This is where John the Baptist introduces the imagery of Spirit baptism. Baptism as a metaphor for the coming redemption of the Lord but also including clear notions of judgement and conversion, as did the ‘Day of the Lord’ in the OT. In its most basic sense the kingdom means the coming of the Lord, his presence amongst his people. This coming of God takes up the whole of creation. That is why miracles and signs accompany the ministry of Jesus. This broad understanding of the work of the 19 Ibid., p. 117. Ibid., pp. 127-8. 21 Macchia, “Response”, pp. 17-20 and Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, pp. 113-29. 22 Ibid., p. 59. 23 Ibid., p. 91. 20 10 CHAPTER 1. FRANK MACCHIA Spirit as the coming kingdom implies “that there is an inseparable connection between personal redemption/empowerment and cosmic renewal in the apocalyptic theological context of the Spirit’s work in the NT that makes a restriction of our pneumatological categories to personal, existential and even ecclesial contexts unthinkable”. 24 That is the Spirit at work, it involves judgement, purging and renewing of the entire world. What happens at Pentecost is the empowerment in order to witness to this coming Kingdom. This wide scope is very important for Macchia’s proposal as we have also seen above in how he deals with justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation. But this wide scope does not exclude personal notions. The kingdom of God’s presence also means union with or participation in God. Kingdom and Eschatology This coming of the Kingdom is inaugurated in Christ’s work of redemption and the endowment with the Spirit, but it is not yet fulﬁlled. This gives the kingdom a clear eschatological character. “We may thus say that the kingdom is ‘now’ but also ‘not yet’.” 25 Speaking of the kingdom and of the Spirit is always eschatological language. The Day of the Lord has not yet arrived. The Spirit is not poured out on all ﬂesh. All of creation awaits the day when “God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). This eschatological vision encompasses all of creation and therefore the work of the Spirit today likewise included the entire cosmos. Spirit baptism is the inauguration of the end. That is the ultimate signiﬁcance of Pentecost: the kingdom inaugurated. Kingdom and Church When the kingdom is so encompassing and to be wholly identiﬁed with the redeeming work of God and the indwelling of the Spirit one comes to wonder what is the place of the church, if any at all. For Macchia there certainly is an important role for the church: “Spirit baptism constitutes the church and causes the church to missionize for the sake of the kingdom. But Spirit baptism also transcends the church because it inaugurates the kingdom”. 26 The people gathered in the Spirit baptised community of the church are a “sign of grace in an increasingly graceless world” (Lochman). 27 This deﬁnition is central to Macchia’s understanding of the church. The church is according to Macchia, the natural outﬂowing of Spirit baptism. Where the Spirit imparts the divine love of the perichoresis of the Trinity, koinonia blossoms and that is the church. And through that same koinonia the church pours itself out in love towards the world. The church is thus witness to the kingdom. This is what deﬁnes its place. The church is not the exclusive community who possess the Spirit and can develop accordingly into arrogant dominion or sectarianism. There is a profound dialectic in the relation between Christ and the church. And Spirit baptism helps to understand the dynamic of this dialectic relation. “Spirit baptism is a participatory metaphor that is dynamic, interactive and eschatological, calling forth understandings of the church that avoid both its separation from, and unqualiﬁed identiﬁcation with, the kingdom 24 Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, p. 102. Ibid., p. 97. 26 Ibid., p. 106. 27 Ibid., p. 156. 25 1.4. THE SPIRIT AS THE KINGDOM 11 of Christ.” 28 Where a distinctively pneumatological ecclesiology could easily give rise to relativism and disconnection from Christ, by understanding is as sign and witness to the kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ, there can be neither identiﬁcation nor disconnection, but a balanced dialectic. This is “an exclusivism of Christ” 29 and not an exclusivism of the church. 1.4 The Spirit as the Kingdom We can be very short in summarising what how Macchia relates the kingdom and the Spirit. For him, the kingdom and the work of the Spirit can be equated. The notion of Spirit baptism is essential to the understanding of the wide scope of the work of the Spirit. This is the core of the work of Christ, this is the meaning of the lordship of God, that all ﬂesh be ﬁlled with the Spirit and participate in the divine love of the Trinity. Until that has become full reality, the church is the principal witness to the kingdom, the ﬁrst place where the spirit works the trinitarian koinonia. 28 29 Ibid., p. 193. Ibid., p. 189. Chapter 2 Jürgen Moltmann 2.1 Framework: The Future Kingdom A characterisation of the theological framework of Jürgen Moltmann is a complicated enterprise. Especially since his theology has often been criticised for its lack of coherence and system. Moltmann himself would be the ﬁrst to admit this. He calls his systematic theology ‘Theologische Beiträgen’ and deliberately avoids the building of a coherent theological system. 1 Moltmann prefers the metaphor of a theologia viatorum. “Mein Bild ist der Exodus des Volkes und ich warte auf theologische Schilfmeerwunder.” 2 His theology has undergone diﬀerent shifts throughout the development of his thinking. Trinitarian theology has for example become increasingly important for Moltmann. 3 Also his relation to the Bible has changed over the years from a thorough foundation in historical critical exegesis towards a more naive and less methodological use, as Moltmann himself has admitted. 4 Diﬀerent factors have shaped the theology of Jürgen Moltmann. First, the continuation of the theology of Karl Barth in a new age was a very important thrust, although Moltmann has clearly moved away from Barth, Barth’s theology is clearly what marks his background. 5 Just as Barth’s, Moltmann’s theology is ‘after Kant’ and thus takes the questions of modern philosophy, especially the problems surrounding experience and knowledge, very seriously, as can be seen throughout his œuvre. Theology is never theology in the ghetto of the church but always on the scene of the broad academy. A second factor lies in Moltmann’s experience of conversion in a POW camp during the Second World War. This, among other factors, lead Moltmann to try to develop a credible theodicy ‘after Auschwitz’ and at the same giving a place to concrete experience of God in his theology. 6 The kingdom of God would become the overarching theme in Moltmann’s theology, as he himself calls it,“kingdom-of-God theology” 7 or “Phantasie für das Reich Gottes”. 8 This characterisation ﬁrst of all includes the deep eschatological 1 Moltmann, TRG, p. 11. Moltmann cited in Falcke, “Phantasie”, p. 155 3 Bauckham, Moltmann, p. 151. 4 Ibid., pp. 25-26. 5 Moltmann, “Remarks”, p. 13 and Moltmann, “Blumhardt”, p. 5. 6 Brown, Moltmann: his Sitz im leben. 7 Moltmann, ET, p. xx. 8 Falcke, “Phantasie”, p. 154. 2 13 14 CHAPTER 2. JÜRGEN MOLTMANN shape of Moltmann’s theology. “Das Eschatologische ist nicht etwas am Christentum, sondern es ist slechterdings das Medium des christlichen Glaubens, der Ton, auf den in ihm alles gestimmt ist, die Farbe der Morgenröte eines erwarteten neuen Tages, in die hier alles getaucht ist.” 9 The theological movement, shaped by Moltmann and Pannenberg, has been named theology of hope. This is hope for the future, hope for the coming kingdom. This coming kingdom comes to shape all loci of theology. It is therefore we will start our description of Moltmann below with the kingdom of God and not with the Spirit as we have done with Macchia. Furthermore, the theology of Moltmann is still and has always been ecumenical and political theology. This has to do with the overarching theme of the kingdom. The kingdom is a broad, cosmos-encompassing reality and thus implies a dialogue between people from all faiths. And the kingdom has to be brought into world, such is the principal mission of the church. The kingdom is a political reality and therefore Moltmann’s theology is always aimed at political realities of various kinds. With this basic framework in my mind we can now approach Moltmann’s view on the kingdom and the Spirit, as said above, in reversed order. 2.2 The Kingdom of Hope Eschatology and the Kingdom Just as all theology for Moltmann is ultimately eschatology, also the kingdom of God is an eschatological category. “Die eigentliche Mitte un der ständig verwendete und inhaltlich sich wandelnde Grundbegriﬀ der Eschatologie liegt zweifellos in den, was als ‘Reich Gottes’ und ‘Gottesherrschaft’ verheißen und erwartet wird” 10 These two words: promise and expectation are very central in Moltmann’s eschatology and thus in his understanding of the kingdom. Especially in Moltmann’s ﬁrst monograph, Theologie der Hoﬀnung, the category of promise is very central. Moltmann identiﬁes God ﬁrst and foremost as a God of promise. That is how he reveals himself in the OT, not as a God of epiphany, but a God who promises. This promise makes that the people of God are fundamentally oriented towards the future instead of the past or the presence. This is what deﬁnes the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: the beginning of the fulﬁlment of God’s promise for the future. But in the cross of Jesus Christ lies a fundamental dialectic that should not be overseen. The promise is not yet fulﬁlled, “Dann gehören die Widersprüche von Kreuz und Auferstehung zu seiner Identität”. 11 Already there and not yet. In the history of the resurrection of Christ the future has deﬁnitively arrived, but in his cross we see that the future has not yet arrived and pain and suﬀering are still part of this world. This is what Moltmann calls an eschatologia crucis: “Der Glaubende ﬁndet night schon in Kult und Geist vollen Anteil an der Herrschaft Christi, sondern er wird durch die Hoﬀnung in die Spannungen und Diﬀerenzen des Gehorsams und des Leidens in der Welt geführt.” This is Paul’s countering of the eschatologia gloriae which he perceived in the early church (1 Cor) where Christ was said to be entirely present in a sacramental way as whether the future had already arrived. That is not the way God is present according to Moltmann. God is present in promise of the future, that is the essence of 9 Moltmann, TH, p. 12. Ibid., p. 197. 11 Ibid., p. 182. 10 2.2. THE KINGDOM OF HOPE 15 revelation. This how God’s kingdom needs to be understood, fundamentally eschatological: already here and not yet. The Nature of the Kingdom Since the eschatological nature of the kingdom rises from the dialectic of cross and resurrection Moltmann can say that Jesus Christ is “the kingdom of God in person”. 12 If we want to know what the kingdom of God is like, we need to look at Jesus Christ. Jesus was herald of the kingdom in his teaching but he especially embodied the kingdom in his death and resurrection. And there it has changed shape, the eschatological shape of cross and resurrection. The work of Jesus is thus just as eschatological as the kingdom. 13 In that sense the separation between the nature and the eschatology of the kingdom is impossible. The nature of the kingdom is its eschatology. God’s lordship over the world is still “Herrschaft in Verheißung”. 14 The nature of the Kingdom is the person of Jesus Christ but it is by the work of the Spirit of Christ that the kingdom is a new and actual reality, visible in the life of the Christian in suﬀering and self-giving.15 But it remains a future reality which has not yet reached its fulﬁlment of complete divine lordship. We have the Spirit only as deposit of the future, not as the fulﬁlment of God’s promise. The kingdom is in that sense hidden in heaven and we can summarise: “So ist das Reich Gottes hier gegenwärtig als Verheißung und Hoﬀnung für den Zukunftshorizont aller Dingen.” 16 For Moltmann the metaphor of the kingdom serves to emphasise the eschatological nature of his theology and of the work of Christ in this world. It also serves him to stress the political reality of the kingdom in the presence. Moltmann repeatedly calls the kingdom of God the kingdom of freedom. Already in Theologie der Hoﬀnung this is clearly present. The kingdom of God will mean in the end that all things will be right. That is how Moltmann understands the judgement of Christ over the world: all things will be put in their proper order of peace, freedom, and justice. It is the vocation of the Christian to start making this kingdom reality today. Christianity and the church are there for the kingdom. The purpose of Christians is the world, or better: the kingdom. In self-giving love Christians give themselves to the world and change the world. 17 And it is the future of the kingdom from which ﬂows the Christian hope that enables and inspires the kenosis to the world. “Die pro-missio des Reiches begründet die missio der Liebe in die Welt” 18 But Moltmann readily stresses that is is God only who creates the future and not man. “Nicht menschliche Aktivität macht die Zukunft.” 19 It is by the power of the Spirit as deposit of the future that this is possible. The future is not a continuation of what we see now, God is creating something new ex nihilo. This is implied in the dialectic of cross and resurrection. The future resurrection is at odds with the presence of the cross. 12 Moltmann, JCTW, p. 7. Harvie, “Living the Future”, pp. 150-3. 14 Moltmann, TH, p. 197. 15 We hint here at the trinitarian structure of the kingdom which will be developed below. 16 Ibid., p. 203. 17 Ibid., pp. 299-304. 18 Ibid., p. 204. 19 Ibid., p. 196. 13 16 CHAPTER 2. JÜRGEN MOLTMANN This is developed more fully and in a more explicitly trinitarian way in Trinität und Reich Gottes. Moltmann summarises his point like this: “Die trinitarische Reichslehre ist die theologische Freiheitslehre. Der theologische Begriﬀ der Freiheit ist der Begriﬀ der trinitarischen Geschichte Gottes: Gott will unablässig die Freiheit seiner Schöpfung.” 20 The point is here that according to Moltmann a monotheistic God will lead to a kingdom of absolutism and intolerance, as has often happened in history: one God, one emperor, one pope. But the God of the Bible is a trinitarian a God. God is fundamentally three and thus essentially open for relation, not for dominant lordship. This relation is at the same time one of servitude (the Father), childhood (the Son) and friendship (the Spirit), Moltmann’s draws on the trinitarian kingdom theology of Joachim of Fiore, but in a distinct way. A monotheistic God and freedom are indeed opposites, he admits, but a triune God invites to a relation of friendship in freedom. The kingdom of the God is one of freedom and kenotic love and is thus a liberating force in today’s world. If we see the kingdom as fundamentally trinitarian, our theology becomes a theology of liberation. And only when the kingdom is the kingdom of a trinitarian God can it fully be an open and liberating kingdom. 21 The implications of Moltmann’s theology of the kingdom should not be underestimated. This is not just one locus of his theology, it is the summary of the whole and thus includes soteriology. Moltmann himself initially understood justiﬁcation to be the core of the gospel, but later he came to see that the kingdom of God should be the centre. Among the problems of justiﬁcation he mentions the narrowing of soteriology to the forgiveness of sins, the narrowing of the work of Jesus to his death as atonement and the narrowing of eschatology to a ‘doppelten Gerichtsausgang’. 22 The coming kingdom of God is thus a broadened soteriology which is based on totus Christus, his life, death and resurrection and not only solus Christus. The eﬀect of this totus Christus is thus more than just the forgiving of sins but implies resurrection power for an entirely justiﬁed life and not only human life but the entire creation until ‘God will be all in all’. No Melanchton without Osiander. No Karl Barth without Christoph Blumhardt’s “wide space of the Spirit in the dawn of the Kingdom”. 23 That is what Moltmann means when he states that Christ is the kingdom and the kingdom is Christ. 24 Church and Kingdom Just as with Macchia above, the question about the place of the church within the kingdom surges. Since Moltmann understands soteriology very broadly and the kingdom seems to have a wide and even cosmic scope, the role of the church is in some sense marginal. But it is exactly this marginal position which makes it the place where the Spirit works par excellence. To understand how Moltmann perceives the role of the church in history we have ﬁrst to understand the way God relates to history. By describing the role of the church we will also gain a deeper understanding of how Moltmann sees how the kingdom is related to history as we described in ﬁrst paragraph of this section. 20 Moltmann, TRG, p. 236. Ibid., pp. 236-9. 22 Moltmann, “Was heißt heute ‘evangelisch’?”, pp. 41-46. 23 Moltmann, “Blumhardt”, p. 5. 24 Moltmann, JCTW, p. 7. 21 2.2. THE KINGDOM OF HOPE 17 The history of the church is not a fact to be understood on its own but from and towards the history of Jesus, as with the kingdom above. The history of the life of Jesus has a direction, it is ‘for us’ and it is moving towards the future, the future of the moment when God will be ‘all in all’. Now, by the holy Spirit the story of Christ continues in history. The Spirit makes the future kingdom present in being the eschatology of the history of Christ. It thus moves between remembrance of the past and hoping for the future. The church is the place where people remember this history of Jesus and thus where the Spirit is at work. In Moltmann’s words: “Die Erfahrungen und Kräfte des Geistes vermitteln der Gegenwart die Geschichte Christi und die Zukunft der neuen Schöpfung. Was ‘Kirche’ genannt wird ist diese Vermittlung.” This place between remembrance and hope, that is the church. It is albeit important to relativise the position of the church immediately. Moltmann does that by understanding the church in the trinitarian history of God. The history of Jesus and the subsequent history of the Spirit have to be understood in a trinitarian way. What we perceive there is the Trinity. According to Moltmann the triune God is open towards the world. “Der dreieinige Gott is der menschoﬀene, weltoﬀene und zeitoﬀene Gott.” 25 The developing of the history on the cross and in the sending of the Spirit is the developing of the triune God himself. The future of gloriﬁcation where God will be ‘all in all’ is the future of the trinitarian God. In that sense the whole of creation is in God and with God in the future gloriﬁcation through the history of the Son and of the Spirit. This means that liberation of people, the coming of the kingdom is the gloriﬁcation of God through the Spirit within the Trinity. “Die Geschichte des Reiches Gottes auf Erden ist nichts anderes als die Geschichte des Vereinigung des Getrennten und die Befreiung des Zerfallenden und darin die Geschichte der Verherrlichung Gottes” 26 In this all-encompassing history of God, the church has a role. But this role is not to be absolutised, because it is only a part of the work of the Spirit in the history of God. On the other hand it should not be relativised either because is part of the history of God and not just of some particular history. “Die Kirche nimmt teil an der Verherrlichung Gottes in der Befreiung der Schöpfung. Wo diese durch das wirken des Geistes geschieht, da is Kirche.” 27 The church is thus not to be equated with the kingdom. The kingdom is ultimately a future reality. But the church is by the Spirit anticipation of that future and in that sense can be called the people of God. “In vorläuﬁger Endgültigkeit und in endgültiger Vorläuﬁgkeit bezeugen Kirche, Christentum und Christenheit das Reich Gottes als Ziel der Geschichte mitten in der Geschichte. In diesem Sinne ist die Kirche Jesu Christi das Volk des Reiches Gottes.” 28 The institution of the church can thus never be absolutist or claim to be exclusivist in any sense. The church does not posses salvation, it is the outworking and anticipation of salvation. It can never exert power or dominion over others, it always seeks the other in love, because it existence is only justiﬁed in its sharing in the life of the trinitarian God. The church thus exists for the world, for the kingdom of God, it gives itself in kenosis for the world and thus partakes in the trinitarian history of God in the world, which is also one of mutually indwelling 25 Moltmann, KKG, p. 72. Ibid., p. 78. 27 Ibid., p. 81. 28 Ibid., p. 221. 26 18 CHAPTER 2. JÜRGEN MOLTMANN kenotic love. The only sacrament according to Moltmann is the Spirit himself, he is the eschatological mysterion of the kingdom. Oﬃces, ‘sacraments’ and charismata of the church are signs and witnesses of the one sacrament of the Spirit in history. The church with all there is to it is present for the kingdom. The kingdom is there by the Spirit as anticipation of the full realisation of the eschatological lordship of God over the world. In this history of creation by the father, salvation by Christ and Spirit we deal with the triune God himself who in the end will be ‘all in all’ encompassing all of creation. 2.3 The Spirit of Life A lot has been said on the Spirit above since for Moltmann Spirit and kingdom are so intimately related. We will now turn to a description from the viewpoint of pneumatology but we will inevitably repeat things that have been said above. Person of the Spirit As we have seen above the Trinity is very central to Moltmann’s doctrine of God. The personhood of the Spirit according to Moltmann should be understood from what he does and what he is in the Trinity. 29 It is the role of the Spirit in the Trinity we will deal with in this paragraph, the work of the Spirit in the next. But theologically these should not be separated from each other. Moltmann’s understanding of the role of the Spirit in the Trinity is somewhat ambigous. 30 On the one hand the Trinity is to be understood as a trinitarian history of God which develops in history. This can be identiﬁed with the kingdom as we have seen above. The order in the Trinity is thus a historic order and Moltmann discerns three orders in the Bible. First of all from Father to Spirit to Son. That is the sending of the Son into the world and his resurrection by the Father and the Spirit. This is what Moltmann sees as Spirit baptism. Christ’s baptism in the spirit is the kenosis of the Spirit, where the Spirit becomes the Spirit of Christ. And from Jesus it goes forth to men and women. Jesus was baptised in the Spirit pars pro toto for many. 31 Second there is the ‘classic’ order of Father - Son - Spirit, which became visible in the history of the sending of the Spirit in the lordship of Christ. The Spirit is the one who continues the history of Jesus Christ in the present. It is important to identify these as trinitarian history because the mission of the Son from the Father into the world, just as the sending of the Spirit into the world who enables the experience of the history of the Son truly are experiences of God because the Spirit and the Son are God. 32 But there is a third, more surprising order from the Spirit to the Son to the Father. Through the indwelling of the Spirit in creation there is a movement from creation towards God in gloriﬁcation, which is likewise an anticipation of the future gloriﬁcation, where God will be all in all. Such is the third order. 33 Concerning the Spirit we thus note three roles. He is the one who enables the history of Christ, the one who is sent to make his history present and the one who indwells creation to 29 Moltmann, SL, p. 268. Bauckham, Moltmann, pp. 151-66. 31 Moltmann, WJC, pp. 93-4. 32 Moltmann, KKG, pp. 69-72. 33 Moltmann, TRG, pp. 104-11. 30 2.3. THE SPIRIT OF LIFE 19 glorify God as anticipation of the future. Bauckham notes that in these roles, especially in the last one, the Spirit is not really a subject separate from man, but indwells man to be a subject towards God. The Spirit thus gives mankind part in the open trinitarian history of God and in his trinitarian love. Here the Trinity is an economic Trinity, without a distinct ontological Trinity. On the other hand Moltmann developed an increasingly social Trinity in his later works where the Spirt became a part of the Trinity as a model of an egalitarian God as opposed to a monotheistic absolutist God. This conception of God makes God the ruler of a kingdom of freedom. Every person of the Trinity has represents a way in which God’s rules his kingdom. The Spirit is the kingdom where man is invited to friendship with God, a relation of ultimate freedom. 34 Here the Spirit functions as a person, as a subject towards man. Moltmann aﬃrms the Spirit is a “counterpart of God in God”. 35 Later on he even compares the Spirit with a mother in the godhead, who stands on equal footage with the Father. As a mother the Spirit gives new birth and is the ultimate comforter. 36 Bauckham quite rightly calls these “worse examples” of “undisciplined speculation”. 37 The Trinity’s eternal and ontological love becomes the important feature of God as a model for the life of the church and the kingdom. This is an aspect of the Spirit more dominant in Moltmann’s later work and completes the way Moltmann understands the person of the Spirit as part of the Trinity. Work of the Spirit Pneumatology may have become more important for Moltmann in his later works, already in TH Moltmann writes that the Spirit “entspringt aus den Auferstehungsgeschehen Christi und ist ein Vorschein und Angeld seiner Zukunft, der Zukunft der universalen Auferstehung und des Lebens”. 38 Here already is the Spirit of Christ the Spirit of life. The work of the Spirit is the resurrection of Jesus and the anticipation of the future resurrection of all creation. The work of the Spirit is the provisional realisation of the kingdom. The Spirit is the one who draws all of mankind into the inner life of the Trinity until its ﬁnal achievement when God will be “all in all”. The notion of the Spirit as Angeld of the coming kingdom is very central for Moltmann. “Die Gegenwart des Heiligen Geistes ist als Angeld und Anfang der neuen Schöpfung aller Dinge im Reich Gottes zu verstehen.” 39 The work of the Spirit is eschatological. That is also why he understands the Spirit as the one and only sacrament. A sacrament is eschatological in the NT, it is how God is mysteriously present. That is exactly the Spirit. The ﬁrst concrete work of the Spirit in bringing about the kingdom is the church. The church is church in the power of the holy Spirit. But, as we have seen above, certainly not limited to it. “Die Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes ist noch nicht das Reich Gottes, sie ist aber dessen Antizipation in der Geschichte.” 40 The work of the Spirit is much wider than the church. Since the Spirit is the anticipation of the cosmosencompassing kingdom of God, he now works in the entire creation. The Spirit 34 Ibid., pp. 220-39. Moltmann, SL, p. 12. 36 Ibid., pp. 157-60. 37 Bauckham, Moltmann, pp. 166-7. 38 Moltmann, TH, p. 192. 39 Moltmann, KKG, p. 215. 40 Ibid., p. 220. 35 20 CHAPTER 2. JÜRGEN MOLTMANN is the Spirit of life. 41 Moltmann wants do develop “a holistic doctrine of God the holy Spirit” 42 This implies that the entire creation is the place where the Spirit works. The Spirit is the means by which God is experienced in all things. This is what Moltmann calls ‘immanent transcendence’, God is experienced in everyday life. The experience of God’s Spirit is always also the experience of the common spirit. God’s creation and the work of the Spirit cannot be detached from one another. 43 In order to get a clearer picture of how this works out concretely we will see how Moltmann understand the work of the Spirit in rebirth and in the charismatic gifts. This is especially useful since we want to compare Moltmann with Macchia. The notion of Spirit baptism, so central for Macchia, is barely present in Moltmann’s œuvre as far as I can see. One reference to Jesus’ baptism with the Spirit we have seen above, the second one is to John the Baptist’s announcement of Jesus as the Spirit baptiser. “Unter dem Eindruck seiner Auferweckung und in die Erfahrung des Geistes verkündigte sie [die Urgemeinde] ihr Taufen als Taufen mit den Heiligen Geist.” 44 Spirit baptism functions only as a way of expressing that the Spirit is at work in baptism. To make the comparison more fruitful we will see how Moltmann understands rebirth and charismatic endowment as works of the Spirit. Moltmann expectedly understands rebirth in a very broad and even cosmic way. This is, according to Moltmann, the way παλιγενεσία was understood originally (cf. also Mat 19:28). But also the personal and inward notion, present in the Bible (Tit 3:5-7) needs to be uphold. Moltmann put it like this: “Regeneration makes Christ’s resurrection present and is the opening of eternal life”. 45 By the work of the Spirit the future is made present. “In the moment of ‘rebirth’, eternity touches time.” 46 Very often has regeneration been disconnected either from the present experience and eschatology (Barth) or from justiﬁcation (Melanchton). Regeneration should be understood as the pneumatological side of what is described in justiﬁcation from the perspective of Christ. Being-in-Christ and lifefrom-the-Spirit essentially mean the same thing, seen from diﬀerent sides. The concrete experiences of rebirth are highly variegated but one can discern peace, joy, security (perseverance of the saints) as experiences of the new life. The fact that these are experiences of the Spirit give them depth and a future. Rebirth is thus a experienced in diﬀerent ways and is a repeated event, daily repentance is part of the Christian life although there certainly can be growth. 47 How does Moltmann see the charismatic gifts of the Spirit? Moltmann calls these the charismatic powers of life. The diverse gifts of the Spirit enable a life in diversity. Since the gifts are many, life is expected to be plural and that is precisely a good thing. “Life is always speciﬁc, never general” and therefore “[l]ife is everywhere endowed”. 48 Everybody is a charismatic, only some don’t live it out. Moltmann distinguishes between the ‘everyday charismata of the lived life’ and the newly created charismata by the Spirit. In a beautiful paragraph Moltmann 41 Moltmann, SL, pp. 8-10. Ibid., p. 37. 43 Ibid., pp. 31-38. 44 Moltmann, KKG, p. 260. 45 Moltmann, SL, p. 152. 46 Ibid., p. 147. 47 Ibid., ch. VII. 48 Ibid., p. 180. 42 2.4. THE SPIRIT AS DEPOSIT OF THE KINGDOM 21 describes how life in the Spirit is to live open to the future and open for dynamic and new things. 49 This courage and openess for our potentialities is enabled by the trust we have in God. It is therefore also that we can love ourselves and be enabled to live out life most fully without fear. But there are also the special gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues. It is very important to make room in our lives for the Spirit to work also in these unexpected ways. Very central to the charismata is the unity in diversity. Because every life is endowed uniquely we can expect plurality. This also includes for Moltmann the life of the handicapped and non-handicapped in the church. In this sense being weak or handicapped is also a gift of the Spirit (!). The way we perceive the Spirit in his charismata is as “vitalising energies”. 50 The Spirit gives love and freedom and is thus the fountain of life. 2.4 The Spirit as Deposit of the Kingdom Since also with Moltmann Spirit and kingdom could not be discussed separately, we have already seen how God’s kingdom and the Spirit relate and can now be very brief. In one sentence the relation is that the Spirit is Angeld of the coming kingdom of God. As a part of the trinitarian history of God the giving of the Spirit marks the breaking through of the kingdom. This started with the Spirit-enabled history of Jesus and this continues today when the Spirit makes this story present. Jesus is himself the kingdom in cross and resurrection. But since his lordship is not yet fulﬁlled, his Spirit indwells creation as an anticipation of the future, where God himself will embrace the entire cosmos in his inner-trinitarian love. The kingdom is thus an eschatological reality. But its breadth is cosmic. Since it anticipates the taking up of the whole of creation in God, already now the Spirit indwells the entire creation and directs it towards the future. The mark of the kingdom and of the Spirit is kenosis, self-giving love. This characterises God in the Trinity and it characterises the way the Spirit inspires man. This begins with the church but envisages the cosmos. 49 50 Ibid., ch. IX, §3. Ibid., p. 196. Chapter 3 Macchia and Moltmann Now we have described the positions of both Moltmann and Macchia on how they view the kingdom of God and the Spirit of God and how they are in both theologies closely related, we can now try to answer our principal question on what the similarities and what the diﬀerences are. I will ﬁrst show that in actual content there is much similarity in how they perceive the kingdom and the Spirit. Secondly I will show that notwithstanding the similarities, due to their diﬀerent frameworks there are dissimilarities to discern. In the third section I will make some evaluative remarks on how this encounter is fruitful and how it can be taken up into a progressive ecumenical theology. 3.1 Similar Content As said, the actual content of Moltmann’s and Macchia’s view on the kingdom and the Spirit are very similar in the sense that Macchia, I think, relies heavily on Moltmann. For both the Spirit and the kingdom are closely related concepts. The work of the Spirit is the advancing of the kingdom of God in the world. Of course, Macchia uses the term Spirit baptism which barely ﬁgures in Moltmann’s œuvre, but Spirit baptism is for Macchia a metaphor. And when we look at the content the metaphor refers to, we see a content very similar to Moltmann’s theology. Both have a broad understanding of the kingdom of God and try to move beyond narrow understandings of salvation. Sanctiﬁcation and justiﬁcation are to be understood in the larger framework of the coming kingdom. Moltmann would say ‘Jesus is the coming kingdom’, Macchia would say ‘Jesus is the Spirit baptiser’, but they mean essentially the same thing. Both concepts are broad and envisage the whole cosmos. The principal meaning of the sending of Jesus into the world and his life, death and resurrection lies in what comes after: the Spirit-baptised kingdom (Macchia) or the kingdom of God anticipated in the sending of the Spirit (Moltmann). Here they both diﬀer from their own backgrounds (classical Reformed and Pentecostal) where the signiﬁcance of the work of Christ is often focused on a forensic understanding of the cross and salvation as forgiveness of sins. Although for Moltmann this ‘horizontal’ understanding of salvation in concrete political realities of liberation appear to receive more stress, they certainly agree on the importance of this broad understanding of salvation, as they both recognise. 1 The kingdom/Spirit baptism encompasses God’s entire 1 Moltmann, “Remarks”, p. 12 and Macchia, “Response”, p. 15. 23 24 CHAPTER 3. MACCHIA AND MOLTMANN work in history which is ultimately the outpouring of his divine love. Even more, this is God himself in his trinitarian history. God himself is the Kingdom. God himself baptises us into the Trinity. Theosis, participation and union with Christ are the words which belong to the coming kingdom and to Spirit baptism. That is what it means to be taken up into the divine love of the Trinity. Both Macchia and Moltmann understand the Trinity from how they see God acting in history and both tie God and history closely together, although Moltmann elaborates on this much more. Interestingly the way Bauckham criticises Moltmann’s ambiguous understanding of the Trinity applies to Macchia in a similar way. The Spirit acts as the outpouring of God himself in history, indwelling the hearts of men and women, where the Spirit doesn’t act as counterpart of man, but indwells him in glorifying God. At the same time the social Trinity is a model for earthly koinonia and for how the church should look. Here again, Macchia strongly relies on Moltmann. For both, the church is to be emphasised and to be relativised at the same time. There is a dialectic between Christ and the church. It is the place that arises naturally where the Spirit is poured out, reﬂecting the koinonia of the Trinity (Macchia). Or, in Moltmann’s words, it is the ﬁrst place where the work of the Spirit as deposit of the future is perceived and where the history of Jesus is present in remembrance. On the other hand the work of the Spirit is not limited to the church. The church is there for the kingdom, and the kingdom is where the Spirit is all about. The church exists ‘by Spirit baptism’ or ‘in the power of the Spirit’ but is taken up in the movement of God towards the kingdom. Never can the church thus become absolutist, sectarist (Macchia) or domineering (Moltmann), because the church does not posses the Spirit, but the Spirit possesses the church and thus transcends it. Furthermore, for both the eschatological framework is very important, albeit a diﬀerent nuance should be discerned, as we will do below. Moltmann says that the Spirit is deposit of the kingdom, Macchia would say that Spirit baptism is the anticipation of the future. Both emphasise that the kingdom is not yet fulﬁlled but is already there. The Spirit is visibly at work, Spirit baptism is a concrete experience (Macchia), the kingdom is a political reality (Moltmann). But not everyone and everything is yet baptised by the Spirit, the kingdom is still ‘hidden in heaven’. It all awaits the future, when ‘God will be all in all’. 3.2 Diverging Frameworks Having described the strong similarities between Moltmann and Macchia we can now see where they diﬀer. As we have seen above the frameworks and backgrounds of Moltmann and Macchia are enormously diﬀerent. An American Pentecostal and a German Protestant from two diﬀerent generations operating in entirely diﬀerent milieux are indeed in some sense far apart. The way Moltmann works as continental European with a strong post-war, post-Kant and post-Barth mindset makes his priorities very diﬀerent from the West Coast Assemblies of God minister Frank Macchia. Notwithstanding the eﬀorts from both sides to bridge this gap, the gap remains. Moltmann comes to articulate a broad kingdomof-God theology which is aimed to be credible in Enlightenment Europe where speaking about God, let alone experience God, is very suspicious. Macchia’s aim is to make Pentecostal theology credible to the theological ﬁeld and to convince 3.2. DIVERGING FRAMEWORKS 25 his tradition of opening up. One could say that Moltmann is breaking down the walls of the ghetto and tries to unite the ghetto for that reason, Macchia on the other hand is breaking down walls within the ghetto. The way Macchia opens his book by telling his story of conversion with a strong experience of Spirit baptism is a far cry from Moltmann’s Meditation über die Hoﬀnung which serves as an introduction to his TH. Concretely, this means that Moltmann starts with the eschatological kingdom of God as the main feature of his theology and the Spirit functions within the kingdom. Because of this order, the Spirit is to be understood as broadly as the kingdom itself. The Spirit is the Spirit of life which anticipates the eschatology of God embracing all of life within himself. The creation by the father, the history of Jesus and the indwelling by the Spirit is not just God’s work, it is God’s essence. That is the trinitarian history of kenotic love. God is love, God is his kingdom, God is the future. This is what Moltmann calls God’s immanent transcendence. Everyone who lives experiences God’s Spirit and likewise everyone will be taken up into the all-encompassing life of the Trinity. In the end this will have priority over God’s judgement. Macchia goes a long way with Moltmann as we will see in more detail below but he does not go as far as to acknowledge a kind of universalism. Macchia often approvingly quotes Moltmann when it concerns this cosmic and broad scope of Spirit baptism. For Macchia, Spirit baptism is more than just separating ‘them’ from ‘us’, it is about the kingdom and thus more than the church, it is more than personal salvation. And also justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are to be taken up into the much broader Spirit baptism and thus salvation seems to encompass all of creation in the end. Macchia does not openly discuss the implication of his theology for the nature of the last judgement but I think a latent universalism is implicit in Macchia’s book. He hereby distances himself from his own tradition which adheres to rather classical reformed/evangelical doctrines. 2 Classical, not only concerning the last judgement but also concerning the meaning of salvation and the doctrine of God. It would be interesting to see Macchia putting his cards on the table to see whether he really goes with Moltmann all the way. If that be the case the diverging starting points of both authors do indeed come together in a very similar theology. But I suspect Macchia risks becoming estranged from his own tradition if he were to diﬀer from them not only concerning subsequence and the breadth of salvation but also concerning the doctrine of God and of heaven and hell. Such an estrangement would endanger his principal aim which is to connect his own Pentecostal tradition with the ecumenical churches. It would give Macchia’s proposal more credibility not to go with Moltmann all the way but to remain true to his Pentecostal roots and develop a truly distinct charismatic theology. Otherwise his proposal risks being no more than ‘simply to borrow Moltmann’s theology and add chapters on Spirit baptism and healing’. 3 2 The Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths states, “There will be a ﬁnal judgment in which the wicked dead will be raised and judged according to their works. Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, together with the devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, will be consigned to everlasting punishment in the lake which burneth with ﬁre and brimstone, which is the second death” (The General Council of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths). Likewise, in the Confession of Faith of Vanguard University, where Macchia teaches, it says, “We believe […] In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting damnation” (Vanguard University Faith Confession). 3 Cf. Knight III, “Reﬂections”, p. 5. 26 CHAPTER 3. MACCHIA AND MOLTMANN It would be unfair to label Macchia’s proposal entirely as a charismatic version of Moltmann, because diﬀerences do certainly occur. Macchia’s description of the importance of speaking in tongues is very diﬀerent from Moltmann. For Macchia, the experience of Spirit baptism includes powerful experience of the Spirit including prophecy and especially speaking in tongues as the ultimate language of love. The experience of the Spirit in all of creation is more like a side note for Macchia. Moltmann on the other hand starts by describing the Spirit as the cosmic life-Spirit, which vitalises all of life. The charismatic notions of speaking in tongues and ‘miraculous’ healing are not core notions for Moltmann, but topics he addresses because he wants to be open to new experiences of the Spirit, seen in the Pentecostal movement. I suspect that below the surface of this diﬀerence there might be a deeper eschatological dissimilarity, be it only a in emphasis. This has everything to do with diverging frameworks. Where Moltmann’s theology was born in a experience of God among war and death, Macchia’s theology arose from a powerful experience of ecstasy. It seems to me therefore that Macchia’s ‘already there’ of the kingdom is stronger than Moltmann’s. Moltmann’s theology is really a theologia, or better, an eschatologia crucis. Macchia certainly acknowledges the need for a theology of the cross and he criticises the often triumphalist notes in his own tradition, but nonetheless Moltmann’s theology is more profoundly a theology of hope where Macchia’s is a theology of the experience of empowerment by the Spirit here and now. Apart from what we saw in the above paragraph this is also visible in how they describe the relation between the kingdom and the Spirit. Moltmann consequently calls the Spirit “Angeld” of the coming kingdom, emphasising the provisional nature of our present experience of the Spirit and the fact that the lordship of God is not yet complete. Macchia prefers to quote Gregory of Nyssa stating that “Christ is the King and the Spirit the Kingdom” or elsewhere that “the structure of the kingdom is pneumatological”. Macchia uses the language of witness to the kingdom, in referring to the church or to the christian life. Witness suggests that something is to be seen. Moltmann uses the language of hope, hope is oriented towards what will be instead of what can be seen today. The diﬀerence is subtle but it does show a diﬀering starting point and it results in diﬀering practice. 3.3 Fruitful encounter? Having seen the diﬀerences and similarities between how Jürgen Moltmann and Frank Macchia relate the kingdom of God and the holy Spirit I will now make a few evaluative remarks on whether this ecumenical encounter has been fruitful. The comparison above has, I think, shown that Macchia is indeed incorporating theology from outside his own Pentecostal tradition into the language of Spirit baptism, especially the theology of Jürgen Moltmann, but certainly also others like Karl Barth, Hans Küng and Miroslav Volf. He has really incorporated theological insights from especially the 20th century continental tradition into a theology which is still distinctively charismatic. Not only because Spirit baptism is the overarching theme, but especially because the way Spirit baptism functions in Pentecostal churches is fully maintained. The concrete experience of (subsequent or not) endowment of the Spirit accompanied by speaking in tongues remains central to Macchia’s proposal even when he goes a long way with the 3.3. FRUITFUL ENCOUNTER? 27 theology of Jürgen Moltmann. I think, as I discussed above, that Macchia’s theology would gain more strength if he could show to be more independence from Moltmann and to avoid the idea that his global Pentecostal theology is actually, instead of ‘evangelical plus’ now ‘Moltmann plus’. Especially concerning universalism and the nature of Gods transcendence and immanence more clarity is needed, but also, for example, concerning the nature of Scripture. Moltmann’s use of Scripture has become increasingly vague and at times random and errant. It would be interestingly to see how Macchia sees this and how this aﬀects his appreciation of Moltmann. Nonetheless, if we look at this encounter and the connection made between the kingdom of God and the holy Spirit from the viewpoint of the history of pneumatology, this encounter is indeed a welcome and fruitful contribution. The way Pentecostal theology puts stress on the experience of the holy Spirit and accompanying gifts are a welcome input in the somewhat barren western pneumatology, aﬀected by Geistvergessenheit. As Dunn concludes in his important study on Spirit baptism in the NT “Against the mechanical sacramentalism of extreme Catholicism and the dead biblicist orthodoxy of extreme Protestantism they [Pentecostals] have shifted the focus of attention to the experience of the Spirit. Our examination of the NT evidence has shown that they were wholly justiﬁed in this.” 4 Though I would not label my own Calvinist tradition as ‘dead biblicist orthodoxy’, it certainly lacks some features of experience of the Spirit that seem indeed to be present in the NT and in the Pentecostal movement. And a desire for more experience of the Spirit is clearly present. This is reﬂected in literature (cf. for example Meer dan genoeg: Het verlangen naar meer van de Geest) but also in the popularity of more ‘charismatic/evangelical’ conferences as ‘Opwekking’ and ‘Soul Survivor’ and those organised by New Wine and among students by IFES. In this same literature the line of argument is often very defensive and certainly not in favour of an experience of the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy. 5 And if they are more favourable than still the doors are not swung open in enthusiasm, but the experience of the Spirit appears to be a matter of great prudence. 6 With regard to this fear or prudence of many protestant and catholic traditions towards a development of pneumatology in this direction, Macchia’s book is very helpful. In acknowledging many of the (certainly not unjust) fears and worries of the cessasionists and by opening the meaning of Spirit baptism to a much wider array of meanings this certainly opens up the debate. Pentecostal theology is to be taken very seriously if we want do to pneumatology today. In this respect the encounter of Macchia with Moltmann is certainly fruitful for pneumatology. And also from the perspective of the doctrine of the kingdom of God this is a step in a, I think, helpful direction. The association of the Spirit with the kingdom of God is certainly not a new idea, but the implications of this connection have not been explored in this sense. This is mainly due to the fact that the kingdom of God only became a prominent theme in modern theology. The theme has never been absent but never functioned as an all encompassing principle until Coccejus made the kingdom very central in is covenant theology. Earlier, Luther, 4 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, p. 225. Brinke, Maris, et al., Meer dan genoeg and similarily in the United States Horton, Christian Faith, pp. 882-6 and earlier in the Netherlands Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek , III, pp. 563-9. 6 Floor, Gaven van de Geest, pp. 66-68. 5 28 CHAPTER 3. MACCHIA AND MOLTMANN for example, limited the kingdom to a narrow soteriology. “Regnum Christi est remissio peccatorum”. 7 Calvin did connect the reign of Christ with the work of the Spirit but understood it more in terms of God’s providence and the spiritual battle against the devil, thus being also part of sanctiﬁcation. 8 It was especially through Enlightenment the theme kingdom of God became increasingly popular as an important theological category. Already in Spener, but increasingly in Kant and Lessing, culminating through Hegel in Marx, the kingdom of God became an increasingly ethical concept and decreasingly theological. Through the persistent critique of the NT scholar Johannes Weiß the Kingdom of God and that of man came to be understood as fundamentally opposed to each other in the New Testament. This paved the way for theologians as Pannenberg and Moltmann to emphasise the dialectical nature of the kingdom of God and the fact that it lies ‘hidden in heaven’. 9 If we see the encounter between Moltmann and Macchia in this perspective, the contribution of Pentecostal theology is certainly helpful. It emphasises together with Moltmann the fact that the kingdom of God is from beyond, but at the same time it acknowledges the fact that the otherworldliness of the kingdom is an experiential reality. It demands the theology after Enlightenment to once again open the senses to an unexpected experience from beyond, while maintaining a critical distance, as is done by Macchia. The kingdom does not need to be completely secular while still being experiential by the empowerment of the Spirit. Macchia’s eﬀort to connect deeply with the theology of Moltmann has enabled the encounter I have tried to describe above. Therefore it has, I believe, potential to contribute to a fruitful ecumenical dialogue in the certain hope that the kingdom of God will come where the Spirit is invoked to create anew. 7 Schwöbel, “Reich Gottes”, p. 211. Calvin, Institution, pp. 435-40,837-8. 9 Schwöbel, “Reich Gottes”, pp. 209-15. 8 Bibliography Books and Articles Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Bavinck, H. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Kampen: Kok, 1918. Brinke, H. ten, J.W. Maris, et al. Meer dan genoeg: Het verlangen naar meer van de Geest. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2004. Calvin, Jean. Institution de la religion chrétienne (Mise en rançais moderne par Marie de Védrines et Paul Wels). Aix-en-Provence: Kerygma, 2009. Dunn, James. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970. Falcke, Heino. “Phantasie für das Reich Gottes: der theologische Weg Jürgen Moltmanns”. In: Evangelische Theologie 61.2 (2001), pp. 154–162. Floor, L. De gaven van de Heilige Geest in bijbel-theologisch perspectief . Heerenveen: Groen, 1999. Harvie, Timothy. “Living the future: the kingdom of God in the theologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolhart Pannenberg.” In: International Journal of Systematic Theology 10.2 (2008), pp. 149–164. Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pelgrims On the Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Knight III, Henry. “Reﬂections on Frank Macchia’s Baptized in the Spirit”. In: Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2008), pp. 5–8. Macchia, Frank. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. — “Baptized in the Spirit: Reﬂections in Response to My Reviewers”. In: Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2008), pp. 14–20. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theologie der Hoﬀnung: Untersuchungen zur Begründung und zu den Konsequenzen einer christlichen Eschatologie. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1965. — Kirche in der Krat des Geistes: Ein Beitrag zur messianischen Ekklesiologie. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1975. — Trinität und Reich Gottes: Zur Gotteslehre. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1980. — The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions. Trans. by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1990. — The Spirit of Life: A universal aﬃrmation. Trans. by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1992. — Jesus Christ for Today’s World. Trans. by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1994. — “Was heißt heute ‘evangelisch’? Von der Rechfertigungslehre zur Reich-GottesTheologie”. In: Evangelische Theologie 57.1 (1997), pp. 41–46. 29 30 CHAPTER 3. MACCHIA AND MOLTMANN Moltmann, Jürgen. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Trans. by Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 2000. — “The hope for the kingdom of God and signs of hope in the world: the relevance of Blumhardt's theology today”. In: Pneuma 26.1 (2004), pp. 4–16. — “On the Abundance of the Holy Spirit: Friendly Remarks for Baptized in the Spirit by Frank D. Macchia”. In: Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2008), pp. 9– 13. Schwöbel, Christoph.“Reich Gottes IV: Theologiegeschichtlich und dogmatisch”. In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 4th ed. Vol. 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 209–215. Websites Brown, Kevin. Moltmann: his Sitz im leben. June 27, 2013. url: http://diglotti ng.com/2013/01/21/moltmann-his-sitz-im-leben/. The General Council of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths. June 27, 2013. url: http://agchurches.org/Sitefiles/Default/RSS/A G.org%20TOP/Beliefs/SFT_2011.pdf. Vanguard University Faith Confession. June 27, 2013. url: http://www.vanguard. edu/about/mission/. Typeset by XELATEX

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Thy Kingdom Come: Frank Macchia and Jürgen Moltmann on the Spirit and the Kingdom

Thy Kingdom Come: Frank Macchia and Jürgen Moltmann on the Spirit and the Kingdom

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS