Eclesio_Pneumatologia

7/28/2019 Eclesio_Pneumatologia

1/29Liston: Pneumatological Union Between Christ and the Church

TO WA R D S A P N E U M ATO E C C L E S I O L O G Y:E X P L O R I N G T H E P N E U M AT O L O G I C A L U N I O NB E T W E E N C H R I S T A N D T H E C H U R C H

Greg ListonPhD Candidate AUT University and Carey Graduate School

In Christ, the Son of God exists bodily; in the Church, Christ indwells anecclesial body. Such correspondence between the ontology of Christ andthe Church is commonly recognised. What is perhaps underappreciated,however, is that this correspondence cannot be adequately examined withoutgiving priority to the Spirit. is essay rst argues that understandingthe connection between Christ and the Church from a pneumatologicalperspective is crucial, and then utilises this pneumatological connectionto draw analogical insights about ecclesiology from the vantage point of Christology. In so doing, the constituent features of a Pneumato-Ecclesiology begin to emerge, as viewed from a Spirit-Christological foundation.

ere are two reasons that it is crucial to understand the connectionbetween Christ and the Church from a pneumatological perspective. A rstand obvious reason is because Christs identity cannot be understood apart

from the Spirit. e last few decades have seen signicant attention givento Christologies that interpret Christs identity (at least partly) through thecategory of the Spirit, and not solely through the category of the Son. SuchSpirit Christologies claim that we cannot correctly understand the identity,ontology, and mission of Jesus Christ without introducing this category of the Spirit at the most fundamental level. From a biblical perspective, theSpirit was intimately involved in Jesus conception (Luke 1:35), birth (Luke2:2528), baptism (Mark 1:912), ministry (Luke 4:1819), death (Heb9:14), and resurrection (Rom 1:4). Spirit Christologies rightly argue from

this deep functional involvement to an even more fundamental ontologicalidentity. For example, Del Colle says I am arguing that who Jesus isproceeds from a basic and foundational pneumatological orientation. 1 Not just Christs actions then, but his very identity cannot be understoodwithout a pneumatological perspective.

1 Ralph Del-Colle, Spirit-Christology: Dogmatic Foundations for Pentecostal-CharismaticSpirituality, Journal of Pentecostal eology 3 (1993): 9596.


2/29Colloquium 44/1 2012

Te second reason the pneumatological perspective is crucial is that itdenes the relationship between Christ and the Church it is by the Spirit that the Church forms the one body of Christ. Paul states this explicitly. Inhis most extended outworking of the body image, he writes: For we wereall baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body whether Jews or Gentiles,slave or free and we were all given one Spirit to drink. (1 Cor 12:13) Paulis not merely saying that the Spirit enables us to embrace the reality of unity in diversity as a functional community. More profoundly, his claim is thatthe Spirit makes the Church the body of Christ. Badcock comments: TeChurch as the body of Christ cannot be considered apart from this [theSpirits presence], for the ecclesiastical body of Christ is something that ismediated by the work of the Spirit, and cannot exist without the Spirit. 2

Such an insight is not restricted to the image of the Church as thebody of Christ, however, nor indeed to merely metaphorical connectionsbetween the loci of Christology and ecclesiology. Te biblical text connectsChristology and ecclesiology in three signicant ways: historically (theChurch was founded by Christ), metaphorically (the Church is like Christ), and organically (the Church is in Christ), and for each of these theconnection is facilitated in and through the Spirit. Tis point is signicant.If the Bible emphasises so strongly the pneumatological component of the union between Christ and the Church, then an adequate theologicalunderstanding of the correspondence between them simply cannot be

formed without giving signicant attention to its pneumatological nature.Viewing Christology and ecclesiology through a pneumatologicallens, parallels between a Spirit Christology and a Pneumato-Ecclesiology immediately become clear: 1) Te Spirit conceives (Christ and the Church);2) Te Spirit sustains the communion (of Christ and the Church); 3) TeSpirit conforms (Christ and the Church); 4) Te Spirit directs and empowers(Christ and the Church); 5) Te Spirit is displayed and mediated (by Christand the Church).

Tis paper utilises these pneumatological parallels in order to

analogically view ecclesiology from the perspective of Christology. By thenature of analogy, each parallel has points of both clear continuity (becausethe Church exists in union with the incarnate Christ) and intentionaldiscontinuity (because the Church is not simply a continuation or repetitionof the incarnation). Moreover, as with all divinehuman analogies each

2 Gary D. Badcock, e House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 85.



parallel also has a clear asymmetry, for the existence and function of theChurch depend completely on the existence and function of Christ. 3 By examining these points of continuity, discontinuity, and asymmetry indetail, the constituent features of a Pneumato-Ecclesiology come into clearfocus, founded as they are upon a prior Spirit-Christology. In particular, theChurch is revealed as being tripartite in nature (the pneumatological unionbetween Christ and the Church), relational in identity, unique in context,Christ-centred in orientation, dynamic in disposition, increasingly Christ-like in appearance, indivisible in constitution, cruciform in shape, missionalin purpose, and narrative in character.

( )

e continuity in this rst parallel is simple and clear. Just as Jesus conception

and birth was by the Spirit (Luke 1:35), so the conception and birth of theChurch itself was by the Spirit (Acts 2). It is by the Spirit that the eternalSon became hypostatically united with a human nature, and it is similarly by the Spirit that Christ was (and is) mystically united with his Church. econsequence is that the Church is not just irreducibly human (as is clearly evident) but also irreducibly supernatural (as is sometimes overlooked).

e Church is not solely (or even primarily) a human institution, but existssubstantially because of its pneumatological communion with Christ. eChurch cannot be understood merely sociologically any more than Christcan be thought of merely historically. In contrast it must be understood ashaving a tripartite nature it exists as the pneumatological union betweenChrist and the Churchs human community. Talking or thinking of theChurchs human community 4 independently of its connection with Christ

3 is understanding of analogy in terms of continuity, discontinuity, and asymmetry takesas its source what Barth scholar George Hunsinger terms Barths Chalcedonian pattern.George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth:Te Shape of His Teology (New York/Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1991), 34. Between the divine and human natures of Christ andconsequently, according to Barth, between all divine and human relationships there is unity,differentiation, and asymmetry: unity in that the two need to be considered together withoutdivision or separation; differentiation in that they cannot be so mingled that either losestheir own integrity without confusion or change; and asymmetry in that the relationshipis ordered so the rst is independent and superior, the second dependent and subordinate.Hunsinger claims there is virtually no discussion of divine and human agency in the ChurchDogmatics which does not conform to this scheme, page 187.4 is phrase the Churchs human community refers to the entity that Christ unites himself with to form the Church. By denition, such an entity cannot include Christ within it, becauseit needs to be united with him in order to form the church. e sole purpose in categorising


4/293 Colloquium 44/1 2012

through the Spirit is as nonsensical as talking or thinking of the humannature of Christ independently of its hypostatic union with the eternal Sonby the Spirit.

e discontinuity associated with this parallel regards the sending andreceiving of the Spirit. In terms of the incarnation, Christ receives theSpirit who is sent by the Father . In contrast, the Church receives the Spiritwho is sent to us by Christ .5 Christ is thus both the receiver and giver of theSpirit,6 a discontinuity that requires explanation. In virtually every othercase of God acting in or on the world, it occurs by the originating action of the Father as he speaks the Word through the Spirit . In this case, though, itis the incarnate Word of God who is the sender of the Spirit. How can thisbe?

Catholic theologian David Coffey provides a positive pointer towards theexplanation by utilising the mutual love model of the Trinity. 7 He suggeststhat within the Trinity, the focus of the Fathers love is on the Son, but whenin the divine plan that love is directed beyond the Godhead, it is creative(in the creation of Christs humanity) and unitive (in that the result is nota mere union of persons but unity of person within the Son). 8 e Spirithypostatically unites the humanity of Christ with the person of the Son. AsCoffey explains: In the one act of nature and grace the humanity of Christwas created by the triune God and so radically sanctied by the Holy Spirit,sent thereto by the Father, that it became one in person with the eternal

Son, and so Son of God in humanity.9

Moreover, Coffey identies not just

such an entity is to recognise that talking or thinking in such a way is nonsensical, for thechurch cannot and does not exist apart from Christ.5 e word receives is in inverted commas here, as it is used purely in a directional, and not ina temporal sense. Explicitly rejected is any implication that Christ or the Church existed beforethe receiving of the Spirit. e conceiving (by the Spirit) and the receiving (of the Spirit)should be considered as chronologically and logically synchronous.6 See for example addeus D. Horgan, Biblical Basis and Guidelines, in Te Church in the Movement of the Spirit (ed. William R. Barr and Rena M. Yocum; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994), 1516.7 Coffeys work is utilised here because of its suggestive nature. As noted below at several points,it certainly has challenges. But nevertheless it points in an interesting direction that is worthy of reection. e intention here is to utilise the positive suggestions in Coffeys work withoutaccepting all of the problematic associations.8 David Coffey, e Incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Christ, Teological Studies 45 (1984):472. Note that it could appear here that the Spirit creates the human rst and then the Son ishypostatically united with that human, but such a chronological sequence is clearly not Coffeysintention.9 Coffey, e Incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Christ, 469. (Italics mine.) Note that by



the love of the Father for the incarnate Christ as the Holy Spirit, but also(and pivotally) the love of the human Jesus for the Father. So as the Son isincarnated into creation as the human Jesus, in a closely analogous way, theHoly Spirit is incarnated into creation as the love of the human Jesus forthe Father.

Over his life and ministry, the love that Jesus has for the Father as the Son(identied as the Holy Spirit) 10 is progressively realised in the humanity of Jesus. According to Coffey, this stamps the imprint of the human Jesus onthe so-called incarnate Holy Spirit, so that when Jesus dies, is resurrected,and gains the beatic vision in his humanity , not only has the incarnateperson of Jesus fully realised his divine Sonship, but the incarnate loveof Jesus has fully realised his divine Spiritship to the full measure thathumanity can accommodate it. Finally, Coffey notes Rahners propositionthat human love for God is indistinguishable from and inextricably boundto human love for our neighbours, 11 and concludes that the sending of theHoly Spirit on the Church by the human Jesus is simply the intrinsic andnecessary counterpart of Jesus human but fully realised love for the Father.

Without owning all of Coffeys theological positions above, 12 nor hisnomenclature (particularly his unusual application of the term incarnate

using the words radically sanctied Coffey may be implying that as an infant (or embryoeven) the human Christ had attained the beatic vision, with a full human knowledge of the

Father. Further, Coffey appears to be suggesting that Jesus becomes the Son rather thanbeing identically the logos by virtue of the hypostatic union. Whether or not either of theseimplications accurately reects Coffeys position is beyond the scope of this paper, but neitheris required or adopted for the course of this argument.10 e implication of identifying the Holy Spirit specically as the mutual love of the Father andthe Son calls into question the full personhood of the Holy Spirit, a problematic implication of Coffeys understanding not required for the following analysis.11 Karl Rahner, eological Investigations (trans. Karl-H. Kruger and Boniface Kruger; 23 vols.;London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1974), 6:23149.12 ere are several theologians who strongly critique Coffeys position as outlined here, thetwo most notable being Paul Molnar (from a Barthian perspective) and Neil Ormerod (from a

classical western perspective.) For Molnars critique, see Paul D. Molnar, Deus Trinitas: SomeDogmatic Implications of David Coffeys Biblical Approach to the Trinity, Irish eological Quarterly 67 (2002): 3354, Coffeys response: David Coffey, In Response to Paul Molnar,Irish eological Quarterly 67 (2002): 37554, and Molnars response to Coffeys response:Paul D. Molnar, Response to David Coffey, Irish eological Quarterly 68 (2003): 6165. ForOrmerods critique see Neil Ormerod, e Trinity: Retrieving the Western Tradition (Milwaukee:Marquette University Press, 2005). Also Neil J. Ormerod, Two Points or Four?-Rahner andLonergan on Trinity, Incarnation, Grace and Beatic Vision, eological Studies 68 (2007):66173. And Coffeys response to Ormerod: David M. Coffey, Response to Neil Ormerod, andBeyond, eological Studies 68 (2007): 900915.



to the Holy Spirit) there is nevertheless signicant value to be found in thedirection he takes. 13 e fact that in the moving Paraclete passages of John1416 it is Christ and not just the Father who sends the Spirit, and particularly the close connection between Christ going away and his sending of the Holy Spirit (e.g. John 16:7) suggest that through Jesus life and culminating in hisdeath, resurrection, and ascension there is not only growth and developmentin the incarnate Son, but also in the relation between the incarnate Son andthe Spirit. Indeed, if one thinks in terms of a relational ontology (as opposedto a substance ontology) 14 then the change, growth, and development in theincarnate Christ and in his relationships are clearly interdependent. Further,if the Spirit could only be sent fully, permanently, and completely onto theChurch afer Christ had departed from the earth, then it is quite reasonableto suppose that it is Christ (as opposed to the eternal Son simpliciter ) whowas and is doing the sending. Finally, if it is Christ who sends the Spirit tothe Church, then it is also reasonable to suppose that the role of the Spiritbeing sent to the Church is specically and uniquely determined by Christshumanity and its relation to the human nature of the Church. In otherwords, it is the incarnate Christ who sends the Spirit to the Church in orderto unite us with his humanity. Our humanity is joined with his humanity by the Spirit he sends.

Just as the Godhead experienced or learned what it was like to createby creating, and the eternal Son experienced or learned what it was like

to become human in the incarnation, so the Holy Spirit in his (initial andcontinuing) anointing of the incarnate Son and his (nal and eternal)resurrection of the incarnate Son, experienced or learned through hisactions what it meant to transform and redeem humanity. In particular,the Spirit learned what it meant/cost for humanity and divinity to bepermanently and unalterably united together in the person of the Son. It

13 Also, see Steven M. Studebaker, Integrating Pneumatology and Christology: A TrinitarianModication of Clark H. Pinnocks Spirit Christology, Pneuma 28 (2006): 520. In this article

Studebaker effectively applies Coffeys ideas to Clark Pinnocks Spirit Christology.14 e terms relational and substance ontology are utilised in broad terms here, and refer to thecommonly noted turn to relationality in theological understanding of the last few decades.So rather than a person being an individual substance with a rational nature, as Boethius andthe western tradition would have it, the ontology of a person is understood as intrinsically and irreducibly relational. See for example Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: eTrinity in Contemporary eology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 11762, for a discussion of therelational ontology of the Godhead. See also omas Smail, Like Father, Like Son: e Trinity Imaged in our Humanity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), for a corresponding discussion onthe relational ontology of humanity.



is this experienced Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus the incarnate Son, who is sentto the Church, drawing and wooing us, uniting our humanity to that of theincarnate Son. And as he makes us one with Christ we share in the incarnateSons permanent and unique relationship with his Father, a relationshipthat itself is enabled through the same Spirit. e Church then, should beunderstood precisely as the pneumatically-enabled relational union betweenour humanity and that of the incarnate Sons.

e continuity of this parallel, then, is that just as the Spirit conceivedand sustained Christ during the incarnation, so he conceived and sustainsthe Church. e discontinuity is that while the Spirit is sent to Christduring the incarnation, the Spirit is sent by Christ to the Church. Andthis leads directly to the asymmetry. e Church of God exists on earthonly because in and through the incarnate Son, the Spirit of God is fully released to humanity, uniting the human community of the Church withChrist. A common biblical image connecting Christology and ecclesiology profoundly illustrates this facet. e Pauline Epistles o en describe Christas the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11) or as its cornerstone (Eph2:20), or in the most detailed outworking as a living cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4,68). But in each case, the context of the metaphor is both christologicaland pneumatological. e Churchs foundation, cornerstone, or livingcornerstone (which is Christ) is for the building of a temple where GodsSpirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16, Eph 2:22, 1 Pet 2:5).

e conclusions of John and Lukes gospels similarly emphasise the pointthat the Church exists because of the release of the Spirit on humanity through the work of the incarnate Son. 15 In Johns gospel, Jesus nalcommissioning words to the community of his followers are about beingsent into the world lled with the Holy Spirit that he gives to them (John20:2123). Luke similarly nishes his gospel with Jesus assurance thathe will send the promised Holy Spirit (Luke 24:4549). 16 In fact, viewedtogether, Luke-Acts provides the preeminent description of this historicallink. New Testament scholar Graham Twel ree notes clear and signicant

parallels between the lives of Jesus and the early Church, in preaching (bothproclaim the good news of the kingdom of God), healing and exorcising

15 e gospel of Matthew nishes with a similar promise to that in Luke and John but in thisgospel Jesus claims that he himself will be with his disciples (Matt 28:1920). Reading the texttheologically, we would interpret this as a reference to the Spirit, but it is not explicit in the text.Mark, in contrast to the other three gospels, nishes quite rapidly without any parting words tothe community (excluding the additional section not contained in the earliest manuscripts).16 e parallel passage in Acts specically identies this gi from Jesus as the Holy Spirit.



(both perform extraordinary signs and wonders), prayer (a priority forboth), and in character qualities (both are described as full of power,grace, joy, and both elicit responses of fear through their ministry). 17 Butprimarily, Twel ree notes the parallels between the Spirits involvementin the conception of Jesus life and the inauguration of his ministry, andthe similar involvement of the Spirit in the early life of the Church and theinauguration of its ministry. Just as Jesus ministry was inaugurated andempowered by the Spirit so the followers of Jesus were and, by implication,should continue to be empowered by the same Spirit. 18

e Spirit, however, should not be seen as simply the primary parallelbetween the early life of Jesus and the early life of the Church, as Twel reedoes. e Spirit is much more than merely the rst among many parallels he is the source and root cause of them all. Examining the biblical textbeyond Luke-Acts enables us to signicantly strengthen our understandingof these parallels, and to see that the Spirit is the root and underlying causeof each of them. For just as the Spirit anointed Jesus to preach (Luke 4:18),so he anoints the early Church to do so (Acts 2:14). As the Spirit empoweredJesus to heal (Luke 4:18), so he empowers the early Church (1 Cor 12:9).As the Spirit enabled Jesus prayers to connect him with the Father (Luke10:2122), so the Spirit connects our prayers with the Father even thosewe cannot express (Rom 8:2627). As the Spirit reveals Jesus character andnature (John 16:3235), so the Spirit enables the fruit of Jesus character

to be seen in the Church (Gal 5:2225). In each of these acts the Spirit isnot just one parallel among many, one characteristic connecting the Churchhistorically with the incarnation, he is the sole dening and constituentfeature that makes the Church what it is. 19 As Twel ree rightly concludes

17 For more information see Graham H. Twel ree, People of the Spirit: Exploring Lukes Viewof the Church (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2009), 3234. See also Kevin N. Giles, eChurch in the Gospel of Luke, Scottish Journal of Teology 34 (1981): 12146.18 See Twel ree, People of the Spirit , 32.19 Twel ree makes the argument in his analysis of Luke-Acts that the Church is Christo-centricand not pneuma-centric. Twel ree, People of the Spirit , 20507. e primary basis for his claimis that Jesus instituted the Church in the calling of the disciples before the coming of the Spirit.Such an understanding, however unnecessarily diminishes the role of the Spirit in the lifeof Jesus, and assumes an unnecessary mutually exclusive distinction between characterisingChrist and the Spirit as the dening centre of the Church. Further, and ironically, makingsuch a distinction runs directly against the gamut of evidence in Luke-Acts presented in theremainder of Twel rees book. If, as Twel ree realises and notes, this Jesus who was conceivedby the Holy Spirit (page 31), who had a ministry that was inaugurated and empowered by theHoly Spirit (page 31), who founded a Church that has the Spirit as its dening characteristic(page 208), at a time that Luke looks back on and calls the Churchs beginning (page 28), then



Luke establishes the coming of the eschatological Spirit as the deningevent and experience of the Church. Christians are people of the Spirit.

us, if Luke was asked what determined and characterised Christianity orthe Church he would probably say that those who are part of it are people of the Spirit.20 From a biblical perspective, then, the asymmetrical connectionbetween the conception of Christ and the Church is because Jesus, as aperson in history, fully and completely anointed with the Holy Spirit as ahuman, exalted above all that was created, founded the church by breathingthe Spirit onto it, thereby giving it life.

( )

e Bible, however, doesnt focus merely on Christs foundational role in

the Church. Christ is very much active in and connected to the Churchthroughout its history. So a direct and signicant corollary to the Spiritsconceiving Christ and the Church is that it is not a once off event but acontinuous action. e Spirit sustained Christ in the hypostatic unionthrough his communion with the Father and the Spirit sustains the Churchin its life-giving connection with Christ, and in him through the same Spiritto the Father.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence for the organic identity thatexists between Christ and the Church is the repeated New Testament useof phrases referring to the Church being in Christ or Christ being inus. Although the phrase is used in different ways, most commonly it refersto the Churchs present status. For example, Pauls repeated description of his fellow believers in Romans 16 as in Christ suggests he uses the termnot dissimilarly to how we use the word Christian. Being in Christsimply means that by grace, and in various particular senses depending onthe context, what is true of Christ is true of us. 21 In particular, a primary implication is that just as Christ is the Son of God, we too are sons anddaughters of God. But being related to the Father like Christ does not meanwe are relating to the Father like Christ. Having the status of being sonsand daughters does not mean that we are actually experiencing a lial

surely it is safe to suggest that the Church is centred around not just Christ but the Spirit aswell.20 Twel ree, People of the Spirit , 32.21 See the discussion in C.F.D. Moule, Te Origin of Christianity (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1977), 4769.


10/290 Colloquium 44/1 2012

relationship with our heavenly father. How does our sonship becomemore than a status, but a reality of fellowship an active relationship? Paulexplains by noting that because we are sons [i.e. our status], God sendsthe Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out Abba Father[i.e. our relationship] (Gal 4:6). So we appropriate sonship by means of theSpirit of Christ. We call the Father Father because the Spirit testies to usthat we are actually children of God (Rom 8:16).

Again, there are clear continuities here, particularly when Jesus lifeis viewed through the insights of a Spirit Christology. Just as the Spiritsustained Jesus lial communion with the Father during the incarnationand now in glory, so he sustains the Churchs lial communion with theFather. Jesus in his incarnation always had the status of Sonship, but he chosenot to act independently of his human nature, and as such did not utilisethe power of his divinity to enable him to do more than a human beingcan intrinsically achieve. Rather, Jesus remained in active fellowship withthe Father through the Spirit. Jesus status was that of being Gods Son, andduring the incarnation this sonship was appropriated in intimate fellowshipwith the Father through the Spirit. Similarly, we have the status of beingsons and daughters, and we appropriate that status in the reality of intimaterelationship with the Father through the Spirit in union with Christ.

e associated asymmetry is that the Churchs relationship with theFather is only in Christ. It is only because the Church is in Christ that we

relate to the Father as his sons and daughters. Indeed it is precisely Christslial relationship with his Father in which the Church participates. omasTorrance explains this pivotal asymmetry through a cautious analogy withthe theological couplet of the anhypostasia/enhypostasia of Christ.

Anhypostasia would mean that the Church as Body of Christ has no per se existence, no independent hypostasis, apart from atonement andcommunion through the Holy Spirit. Enhypostasia, however, would meanthat the Church is given in Christ real hypostasis through incorporation,

and therefore concrete function in union with him. at is why to speak of the Church as the Body of Christ is no mere gure of speech but describesan ontological reality, enhypostatic in Christ and wholly dependent onHim. 22

22 omas F. Torrance, Atonement and the Oneness of the Church, Scottish Journal of Teology 7 (1954): 254.



e implication is that the Churchs ontology is not just intrinsically tripartite but also intrinsically relational . e Church is constituted by itsparticipation in the Sons lial relationship with the Father. Just as the ousia of God is intrinsically relational, so the Churchs identity is constitutedrelationally. In Christ we experience the fatherhood of God through themediation of the Spirit. Utilising the Christological analogy, we are led to view the Church as a single entity, which communes as this single identity a single subject with the Father. e Christological vantage point thusenables us to view the Church as a whole in its unity with God (i.e. the vertical relationship). 23 What is being emphasised from this perspective isthe mark of the Church as one. e Church is one primarily because thereis one Christ (Eph 4:46), and together by the one Spirit we as one Churchparticipate in Christs one relationship of Sonship with his one Father.

e discontinuity in this parallel of communion regards our entry pointinto this one lial relationship. Christs lial relationship with the Fatheris one of nature, the Churchs is one of grace. He is Son by virtue of beingbegotten, we are sons and daughters by virtue of being adopted. Christ beganhis human life in relation with the Father, we must undergo a qualitativetransformation in order to participate in this relationship. e Church is thusformed or created through the transformation of individuals into the body of Christ, whereby we as many persons and yet one people are united withChrist by the Spirit, and thus participate in Christs lial relationship with

his Father. e transformational change that we undergo is thus qualitativeand individual. 24 In the ontologically dening new relationship throughthe Spirit that connects us with Christ and in him to the Father, we (unlikeChrist) are fundamentally altered. In biblical language, we are born again(John 3:119), we become new creations (2 Cor 5:17). e Church is thusboth Christ-centred in orientation and unique in context , for our ontologicaltransformation to be a part of his body is dened by a new relationship withChrist, becoming a member of his body and cannot take place otherwise. 25

23 is is not to say that the horizontal perspective is absent or diminished in an overall andbalanced Pneumato-Ecclesiology, but simply that this particular aspect is not clearly visiblefrom the present vantage point. e view through the lens of the Spirit from the starting pointof Christology sheds little light on and gives an inadequate view of the horizontal relationships that exist between Church members. e analogical viewpoint from the Trinity, however,provides a comparatively unhindered view of such horizontal relationships.24 is is in contrast to the quantitative and communal conformation to Christs image thatthe Church undergoes, as discussed in the next subsection.25 at our ontological transformation is to be identied with a new relationship is a point



Perhaps the most erudite and balanced description of this transformationis in the work of the Scottish theologian omas Torrance, and particularly his notion of onto-relationships. 26 Torrance notes that human existence; evenat the created, biological level is relational: it is apparent that man must beregarded as an essentially relational being, who is what he is as man throughsubsisting in the being constituting relation of the Creator with him. 27 Butpeople have fallen from this created, relational state so that they are nolonger the beings they ought to be either in relation to God or in relationto one another. 28 Nevertheless, a remnant of our original state remains; inthat we are aware that we ought to be other than we are, even though wecan do nothing to change our ontological, fallen state. Gods determinationthat people should be with him, however, triumphs over our fallen nature.Torrance points to Jesus as the true imago Dei, and thus identies him asthe only genuine human being. Moreover, inJesus it became nally established thatfor man to live in union with God is to become fully andperfectly human. 29 Further, because Jesus unites divine and human naturewithin his one person, the humanity of every manis bound up with thehumanity of Jesus, and determined by it. 30 e consequence according toTorrance is that we are but humanised men and women, for we are nothuman in virtue of some essence of humanity that we have in ourselves,but only in virtue of what we receive from his humanity. 31 Strictly, Godis the only true person, as an inherently relational being. We, in contrast,

popularly associated with John Zizioulas, although as some have rightly noted his work excessively minimises the personhood of created but unredeemed humans. For example,Gunton writes; If Christ is the mediator of creation as well as being mediator of salvation andthe head of the Church, his body, does it not follow that even our biological selves are already personal, as created? Zizioulas is right, surely, in his assertion that person is an eschatologicalconcept; but is not the persons eschatological realisation anticipated already in creation, albeitless truly under the conditions of sin and death than in the community of salvation? ColinGunton, Persons and Particularity, in e eology of John Zizioulas (ed. Douglas H. Knight;Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 105.26

In the explanation that follows we utilise Torrances 1988 essay; omas F. Torrance, eGoodness and Dignity of Man in the Christian Tradition, Modern eology 4 (1988): 30922.

ere are, however many sources where Torrance addresses these themes. For an overview, seeMyk Habets, eosis in the eology of omas Torrance (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 3942. It isunfortunate that Torrance uses gender exclusive language, but it has not been altered.27 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 311.28 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 312.29 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 313.30 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 317.31 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 318.



are personalised persons, we are persons only through what we receivefrom Jesus Christ and become in union with him and indeed in communionwith the fullness of personal Being in the Holy Trinity. For us really to bepersonal, therefore, is to be in Christ. 32

is new ontological relationship (onto-relationship) of persons incommunion with Christ occurs precisely by the Holy Spirit. Indeed it wouldperhaps not be an exaggeration to say that for Torrance Jesus is the means,with the Holy Spirit as the end of our salvation. 33 What has happened throughChrists incarnation and atoning sacrice is that the profound ontologicaltension between our human being and the Holy Spirit has been healed sothat the Holy Spirit is now freely given to us in all the fullness of his life-giving and sanctifying presence. 34 For a person in Christ is affirmed witha spiritual wholeness and a new ontological interrelation with others thattranscends his original creation, for now he exists not just alongside of theCreator, but in such a way that his human being is anchored in the very Being of God.35

Summarising, then, in terms of continuity, the parallel of communionreveals that the Church is ontologically constituted in relationship with theFather through the Spirit. In terms of asymmetry, it illustrates that the Churchis ontologically constituted in Christ through the Spirit, and only by virtueof this position in Christ do we share his lial relationship with the Father.In terms of discontinuity, it points us to the ontological transformation

undergone as biological individuals enter Christs body the Church. eChurch is thus relational in identity, Christ-centred in orientation and uniquein context : we are identied precisely as the one community of those whoshare in Christs lial relationship with his Father.

32 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 321.33 We note that on this point there are close parallels between Torrances theologicalunderstanding and that of Eastern Orthodoxy. In a discussion of these parallels, for example,Habets notes that Torrances pneumatology is in general agreement with this [ie. an Eastern

Orthodox understanding], see Habets, eosis in the eology of omas Torrance , 149. Hethen goes on to quote Lossky saying For the true end of the Christian life is the acquiring of the Holy Spirit. See Vladimir Lossky, e Mystical eology of the Eastern Church (London:James Clarke and Co. Ltd, 1957), 196.34 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 321.35 Torrance, e Goodness and Dignity, 321.



( )

Human nature is not static. Our mind develops; our will sharpens; ouremotions deepen. Given that ontology is intrinsically relational, then justas our physical capability grows, so our human nature grows as well. e

two are inseparable. Development is the very essence of humanity. Jesus, asfully human, changed, developed, and grew throughout his life (Luke 2:52).And as this happened, Christ was increasingly conformed into the image of God by the Spirit. As such, the hypostatic union of Christ was not merely initially conceived by the Holy Spirit, but it was by the Holy Spirit that Jesusgrew into his own skin so to speak. As Catholic scholar Heribert Mhlenrecognised, the Spirit sanctied or conformed the human nature of Jesusso that it could be more and more fully united with the divine Logos. 36 eparallel here is that just as Christ was conformed into the image of God by

the Spirit, so the Church is conformed into the image of Christ by the Spirit.It is by the Holy Spirit the Church is being sanctied so that it can be morefully united with Christ, and so more fully reect him.

e implication is that the Churchs identity should be recognised as beingdynamic in disposition. e ontology of the Church is not static, somethingthat just is. Rather the ontology of the Church grows and develops, justas human nature (and Jesus humanity in particular) grew and developed. 37

e analogy thus reveals a nuanced understanding of the Church as Christsbody. In contrast to a Reformed understanding (e.g. Barth, for whomthe Church is fully and always the body of Christ, but only a part of it), 38 and a Eucharistic understanding (e.g. Zizioulas, for whom the Church isrhythmically the body of Christ), 39 the biblical references to Christsbody can be interpreted not merely as a state of being but also as a stateof becoming. e Church both is the body of Christ and is becomingthe body of Christ. It is becoming the body of Christ in the sense that as

36 See Gary D. Badcock, Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A eology of the Holy Spirit (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 14553. A key example of this sanctifying process is seen inGethsemane where the struggle was the most intense and the culmination of the union themost complete.37 is is not to imply that nature is independent of person, in some way. Rather, that as anature (either human or ecclesial) develops and grows, so the reality of the person can be moreand more clearly displayed.38 Kimlyn J. Bender, Karl Barths Christological Ecclesiology (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 19495.39 See Paul McPartlan, e Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas inDialogue (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 28788.



the Church grows and develops through time, it is increasingly transformedby the Spirit to achieve a greater communion with Christ, fully realisingthe potential of its ontological union and identication at the eschaton.

e Church is becoming the body of Christ in the sense that it is beingprepared for that day. And it already is the body of Christ in the sensethat Christ has already united himself to the Church, with the promise of afuller and greater communion to come. Just as the not guilty verdict of thenal judgement is enacted at the present time (Rom 3:26), in precisely thesame way the future union is (in a nuanced sense) enacted at this moment,through the arrabn (deposit) of the Spirit. 40 rough the Spirit, the Churchboth is the body of Christ, and is becoming what she already is.

One clear benet of the continuities arising from this parallel of communion, then, is that it paints a picture of ecclesial journey anddevelopment that naturally incorporates the many biblical images thatdescribe the Church this way, particularly the prominent image of the Churchas Christs bride. 41 Although this metaphor is perhaps less commonly utilisedin contemporary theology, 42 its biblical signicance is in no way inferior.

e body metaphor is predominantly Pauline, while the bridal metaphoris both contiguous with the Old Testament picture of Israels betrothal (andunfaithfulness) to God, 43 and gets broadly repeated across the entirety of theNew Testament. e image of betrothal appears in the Gospels (e.g. Matt9:1417, Matt 25:113, Mark 2:19, Luke 5:3335), in the epistles (e.g. Rom

40 See note 44 below.41 Note that there is some biblical motivation for interpreting this bride of Christ image asbeing more than merely a metaphor. Brewer, for example, notes the extreme lengths that Paulgoes to in order to explain why the marriage covenant between Christ and the Church appliesnot just to Gentiles but to Jews who had an existing marriage covenant (Rom 7:14). He writes,Paul must have been tempted to say that the analogy of a marriage covenant breaks down atthis point. However, like the prophets, he regarded it as more than an analogy. is marriageof God to Israel was a solemn binding covenant which could not simply be disregarded, David

Instone Brewer, ree Weddings and a Divorce: Gods Covenant with Israel, Judah and theChurch, Tyndale Bulletin 47 (1996): 22. Most commentators are content with acknowledginga literal covenant between God and Israel (or Jesus and the Church), which parallels in very many respects an Ancient Near Eastern marriage covenant, but is not to be literally identiedas one.42 Although it may be becoming less neglected. See for example, Hans Urs Von Balthasar,Explorations in eology: Spouse of the Word (trans. A. V. Littledale; vol. 2; San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 1991).43 For a description of the continuity between the OT and NT images, see Brewer, reeWeddings and a Divorce: Gods Covenant with Israel, Judah and the Church, 125.


16/296 Colloquium 44/1 2012

7:24, 2 Cor 11:2, Eph 5:25) and comes to fruition with the wedding supperof the lamb (Rev 19:927). While the body image implies a unity of subject,metaphorically melding Christ and the Church into a single organism, thebride image emphasises the intimacy of relationship while the pair remaindistinct identities. e metaphors primary thrust is on the Churchs journey of preparation. Just as a future bride in the ANE was set apart for onehusband, and prepares for her wedding by keeping pure and making herself ready, so the Church is set apart for Christ, and prepares by keeping pureand making herself ready. e outworking is clear: the Church is Christs andhis alone; we must remain faithful, preparing ourselves for the day when hereturns and unites us with him fully, completely, and forever.

But the Spirit is just as central for the bridal image as for the body image. If the Church is beholden to Christ how has this engagement beenconrmed? By the Spirit. When you believed, you were marked in himwith a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing ourinheritance until the redemption of those who are Gods possession to thepraise of his glory (Eph 1:1415; see also 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5.)44 And how doesthe Church go about keeping pure and making herself ready? By the Spirit. Itis the work of Christ that initially made the Church pure and hence eligiblefor marriage. e old covenant united people to Yahweh by the law, but theChurch could not and Israel did not remain faithful to God through thismeans. But Jesus death has released us from the law (Romans 7:14), so that

we are no longer prisoners of sin. But having thus been puried and hencebecome eligible for marriage, we are to remain pure and make ourselvesready. A bride gets ready by putting on garments of ne linen; the Churchgets ready by clothing herself with righteous acts (Rev 19:8) or by bearingfruit for God (Rom 7:4). To do this is to serve in the new way of the Spiritand not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:5), to demonstrate liveslled with the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:25). It is by the work of Christ,then, that we are eligible for marriage to him; but it is by the Spirit that weare marked as his future bride. Similarly, through the Spirit we are enabled

44 None of the three passages noted above are bridal images and it is difficult to make thecase directly from the New Testament that the word translated deposit here ( arrabn ) refers(even obliquely) to an engagement ring, although some commentators do utilise it this way. Seefor example Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Rich: An Expository Study of Te Epistle to the Ephesians(Wheaton: Victor, 1977), 24. Whatever the terminological usage of arrabn , however, the truthbeing alluded to in such an identication (i.e. that the Holy Spirit is the present conrmation of the future promise of full union with Christ) is undoubtedly valid. See also David J. Williams,Pauls Metaphors: Teir Context and Character (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 53.



to remain pure and to prepare ourselves for the coming wedding. Just as theSpirit causes the Church to be Christs body, so the Spirit causes the Churchto become Christs promised bride. e Spirit enables the Church to grow into being not just eligible but worthy to be Christs bride.

e parallel between the Spirits role in conforming Christs humanity (to the Son) and conforming the Church (to Christ) gives an illuminatingpicture of the Church growing up, becoming more aware over time of who she is, and through this increasing knowledge and obedience beingmoulded into an increasingly perfect image of Christ. is coincides closely with the picture of the Church as the bride of Christ, being prepared by hisSpirit for the eschaton when full union and communion is nally realised.

ese biblical images are o en mentioned simultaneously (e.g. Eph 5:2533,1 Cor 6:1217) and thus almost certainly refer (at least metaphorically) to acommon truth. Whether the Church is understood primarily as the body orthe bride of Christ, then, it is characterised by being increasingly Christ-likein appearance.

ere are two key discontinuities within this parallel, however: the rstrelating to our entry into the conformation process; the second concerningthe extent we live up to it. Regarding the former, this is simply a clearerstatement of the discontinuity discussed in the previous section. Christ inhis humanity is increasingly conformed to who he already is; we in enteringthe Church are rst changed into something fundamentally new. We are

transformed before we can be conformed . e change and development thatoccurred in Christ is quantitative, in the sense that he started life already inrelationship with the Father. Christ was intimately connected by the Spiritfrom his conception, but was nevertheless limited by his inherent creatednessand humanity. As his human characteristics grew and developed, and asthe Spirit increasingly conformed his human will to the divine will, so heincreasingly became who he was. C.S. Lewis wrote of one of his ctionalcharacters as having at every age the beauty proper to that age. 45 We mightsimilarly speak of Christ as having at every age the perfection proper to

that age. So Christ was perfect, and a perfect reection of God was ever andalways in Christ, but as a human this perfection included change, growth,and development, so that, in his humanity and within both its age-denedand creaturely limitations, Christs humanity was increasingly con-formed

45 C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces, in Selected Readings(London: HarperCollins, 2002), 462.e quotes extension is equally applicable and profound: she was according to nature; what

every woman, or even every thing, ought to have been and meant to be, but had missed



into the image of obedient sonship by the Spirit. Te Church, in contrastis both trans-formed and con-formed into Christs image. More accurately,the Church is formed or created through the trans-formation of individualsinto the body of Christ, whereby we as many persons and yet one peopleare united with Christ by the Spirit, and thus participate in Christs lialrelationship with his Father. Te change that we undergo is thus qualitativeand individual before it is quantitative and communal.

But even following this transformation, the Churchs quantitative andcommunal conformation to the image of Christ must be distinguished fromChrists. For while Jesus conformation is perfect within his creaturely andage-based limitations, the Churchs conformation is certainly not so. Teaction of the Church is (at times) sinful, because its being is (in part) sinful.It is precisely because of this second discontinuity between Jesus and theChurch that Barth made such a strong distinction between the true andfalse, or the sanctied and the sinful Church. Some authors suggest thatBarth was forced into such a sharp distinction because of his thin doctrineof the Spirit, which leans toward collapsing the doctrine of the Spirit intothe doctrine of Christ within the loci of ecclesiology.46 Whether or not suchan accusation is warranted, a thick doctrine that recognises the Spiritsunique bridging role in the redemption of humanity certainly overcomesthis tendency.

Anglican theologian Gary Badcock, for example, examines the point

where the Father turned his face away from Jesus on the cross a pointat which the vast majority of scholars concede that Jesus was truly full of (our) sin and notes that at that point the Father and Son were still onewith each other because they were united through the Spirit. 47 From thebasis of this Spirit Christology, he comments:

It is not something foreign to God to be at one with himself in otherness.Te way of the triune God is not only such that God can be both here andthere without contradiction, but that God can condescend to exist in the

contradiction of sin and death, and yet remain one with himself. 48

46 See for example Joseph L. Mangina, Bearing the Marks of Jesus: Te Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barth and Hauerwas, Scottish Journal of Teology 52 (1999): 32239. Note thatMangina doesnt use precisely this terminology, however.47 Tis paragraph summarises one particular exploration in theology contained in Badcock,Te House Where God Lives , 194209.48 Badcock, Te House Where God Lives , 203.



Badcock then looks out from the basis of this Spirit Christologicalunderstanding at the Church, and notes that just as at the cross the Spiritunited two things that were alien to each other (the Father in his holiness andthe incarnate Son in our sinfulness), so he does it in the community of theChurch. Te Spirit reaches beyond the small grasp of our own community and embraces not only those who seem alien to us, but supremely whatseems strictly alien to God. Badcock goes on to develop a theology of otherness, the way the Church through the Spirit can and should embracepeople who dont belong in a Church. He concludes with these words, TeSpirits passing over into what seems incompatible with it isa fundamentaldimension of the Spirits work, and a fundamental possibility with which thediscipline of ecclesiology has scarcely begun to grapple.49

Te consequence of a thick doctrine of the Spirit is that there can beno sharp distinctions made between the holy and sinful sections of thechurch. Indeed no sharp inter-ecclesial divisions true/false, sanctied/sinful, visible/invisible can be justied, meaning the Church must be viewed as indivisible in constitution. For just as the Spirit united Christ withthe Father on the cross a Christ who (at that point at least) was creditedwith our sinful nature and actions so the Spirit unites both the sinful andthe sanctied parts of the Church with Christ, and consequently with eachother. Moreover, just as by the power of the Spirit Jesus triumphed over thesin he bore for us, moving from death to life and glory, so by the power of the

Spirit the Church in its entirety will move from death to life and glory. For itis in the nature of the Spirit that where he exists he conforms, sancties andperfects, so that just as he triumphed over the sin that caused Jesus sufferingand death, so he will conform and perfect the entirety of the Church.

So the continuity is that just as the Spirit conforms the humanity of Christ to the image of God, so the Spirit conforms the Church to the imageof Christ. Te associated discontinuities are rst, that individuals must betransformed before the Church can be conformed, and second, that theChurchs conformation to the image of Christ is not gradual, steady, and

perfect. Te asymmetry, of course, is that it is Christ to whom the Churchis being conformed. Tis is the repeated argument of Paul (Phil 2:5, 2Cor 4, Eph 12 and Col 1) who urges that the life and death of Christ, hishumiliation and exaltation, be increasingly translated into the life of theChurch. Perhaps even more explicitly, the Epistle to the Hebrews urges that

49 Badcock, Te House Where God Lives , 207.



the Church looks to Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down atthe right hand of the throne of God, (Heb 12:23) and then goes on to urgethat the Churchs life should analogically imitate his.

omas Torrance notes the twin poles of this asymmetry (Christ as goal)and the rst asymmetry mentioned (Christ as founder). 50 He terms these theeschatological and the ontological view of the Church. Insightfully, herecognises that focusing on the latter leads to a view of the Church as merely enhypostatic, and thus as an extension of the Incarnation. Similarly focusingon the former leads to a view of the Church as merely anhypostatic, with theresult that the Church has no present existence as the body of Christ but israther dened solely by its eschatological future. But Torrance concludesthat as both are centred on Christ, they

belong together inseparably. If we think of the Church consistently in terms of Christ who died and rose again and apply that analogically to the Church so that we understand it not only as constituted by thesubstitutionary work of Christ but as so incorporated into Him thatit bears about in its body the dying and rising of the Lord Jesus, thenwe cannot have an eschatological view of the Church that is not alsoontological, nor an ontological view of the Church which is not alsoeschatological.51

If we add to this the recognition that both the present existence of theChurch in Christ, and the future attainment of the Church being fully likeChrist are Spirit-enabled then we end with a profound and balanced pictureof the Church in the Spirit as being and becoming Christs body, a Churchthat is not only Christ-centred in orientation , but dynamic in disposition,increasingly Christ-like in appearance, and as a consequence of the bridgingof the Spirit indivisible in constitution.

( )

As the discussion moves to the last two pneumatological parallels betweenChrist and the Church, the focus moves from ontology to functionality, fromwhat the Church is (and is becoming) to how it becomes so. e question

50 Torrance, Atonement and the Oneness of the Church, 255-56.51 Torrance, Atonement and the Oneness of the Church, 256.


21/29



dening) relationship with the Father is enabled through this growth andlearning (see for example Heb 5:58). So too the Church. e Churchs(ontologically dening) relationship through the Spirit with Christ and inhim with the Father is determined by our obedience and suffering. It is as wekeep Christs commands that we remain in his love, just as Christ remainedin the Father and the Father in him because of his obedience (John 15:10).

e Spirit conforms the Church into the image of Christ, therefore, as itsuffers and obeys, or better, as it suffers in obedience. 54

e Church is thus cruciform in shape, as Torrance explains:

It is through baptismal incorporation, through self-denial and bearingthe Cross, through Holy Communion that the Form of the Son of Manbecomes the form of the Church His Body. As the body of Christ, theChurch is cruciform, but that has to be understood as active analogy, of daily crucixion and resurrection. Wherever in obedience to the bloodof Christ the Church is found engaged in the ministry of reconciliation,pouring out its life like the Son of Man that the Word of reconciliationmight be delivered to all men for whom He died, wherever the Churchshows forth His death until He comes and presents its body a livingsacrice, there the image of Christ is to be seen and His Body is to bediscerned in the Church. 55

Signicantly, it could be added here that there the Church is increasingly conformed to the image of Christ, as the Spirit increasingly unites theChurch to her founder and perfecter.

e discontinuity is that whereas Christ always obeyed the Spiritsdirection, and submitted himself entirely to the Spirits empowering, theChurch does not. Jesus could have sinned but didnt, 56 the Church cansin and does. e discontinuity discussed previously is applicable here. Athick understanding of the Spirit enables the Church to still be the Churcheven in those times when she is decidedly less than she should be. For not

just when we are sinners, but even when we sin, even then the Spirit binds

54 See particularly John 15:125.55 Torrance, Atonement and the Oneness of the Church, 259.56 Note that an exclusively logos Christology, because of its inbuilt Docetic leaning, bringsinto question whether Jesus could actually have sinned. is paper, however, is utilising aSpirit Christology perspective which fully acknowledges the reality of Christs humanity.Consequently, there is both a recognition that Jesus could have sinned, and an affirmation thathe did not.



us to Christ. e asymmetry here is also most signicant: the Church is nota suffering servant in the way that Christ was. Christs suffering obediencewas uniquely effective in the ministry of reconciliation. e Church doesnot repeat his ministry, nor does it contribute to it, but rather it participates in Christs own ministry, and does so by serving him and suffering for him.To cite Torrance again, e Churchs ministry as prophetic, priestly andkingly is correlative to Christs whole ministry but entirely subordinate toit and fullled alterius rationis , in a way appropriate to the Church as theBody of which Christ is the Head, as the servant of which He is the Lord,as the Herald of which He is King. 57 e task of the Church then is to be astransparent as possible, so that by looking at (or better, through) it peoplemay see Christ, and so that by joining it people will be conjoined to Christ.It is precisely through the Church being cruciform in shape, that she willincreasingly full her missional purpose.

( )

e continuity within the h and nal parallel is that just as Christdisplayed the existence of the kingdom of God as a present reality withinthe world, so too does the Church. But this continuity is again Spirit-driven.In both cases, it is the presence of the Spirit that establishes the reality of thekingdom. Jesus makes this explicitly clear when he replies to the accusationof driving out demons through Beelzebub: if I drive out demons by theSpirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Matt 12:28).

e discontinuity is that whereas the Spirit is always displayed by Christ into the world, it is not always displayed by the Church. e Spiritis not captive to the Church, nor restricted to it. But the existence of thisdiscontinuity forces us to address the issue of whether the Church has any mediatorial role at all in the world? ere are two key questions here. First,what role does the Church play in the transformation of individuals, that is,what does the Church do to embody, assist or facilitate the Spirit in enablingindividuals to make the qualitative passage from biological individuals toecclesial persons in Christ? Second, what role does the Church play in theconforming of itself (and as a corollary the persons that constitute it) to theimage of Christ. In other words, what does the Church do in order to aid itsquantitative development epistemologically and practically?

57 Torrance, Atonement and the Oneness of the Church, 258.



Tere are two excesses to be avoided. First, the rejection of allecclesial mediation. An example of this error is the developed theologicalunderstanding of Barth, who dismisses any ecclesial mediatorial role inboth instances, limiting the Churchs vocation to witness. For Barth, theChurch, like John the Baptists crooked nger in Grunewalds painting,simply points to the work of Christ through the Spirit who both transformsus as individuals and conforms us as a body into the image of Christ. 58 Some theologians argue that it is because the Spirits work is minimised andsignicantly collapsed into that of Christ within Barths understanding thatredemptive history is essentially brought to a close at the cross, leaving littlefor the Spirit or the Church to do, and no place for any form of ecclesialmediation beyond witness. 59 Te second error is to overemphasise theChurchs mediatorial role. Zizioulas, for example, argues that the Church hasa central, necessary role as the unique means by which the transformationof the individual and the conformation of the Church occurs. Because theperson of Christ (post resurrection) is collapsed into the Spirit, the Churchcollapses into Christ (particularly at the Eucharist), and so just as the Spiritentered the world through the God-man Christ, so it enters the worldthrough the divine/human institution of the Church, essentially making theChurch the sole and exclusive mediator of the Spirit. 60

Logically distinguishing between the involvement of Christ and the Spiritwithin the Church, however, enables both of these excesses to be avoided,

and a real but limited role for ecclesial mediation to be affirmed. First,although the Church witnesses to the world the reality of the Spirit andthe kingdom of God, and although the Church provides the unique context within which transformation occurs, it certainly does not accomplish thattransformation. Te grace by which we become part of the Church is solely the work of the triune God. Scripture teaches repeatedly and clearly thatwe cannot save ourselves (e.g. Eph 2:8). Second, the Church, which is anhistorical institution in which the Spirit abides and continues to abide even

58 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (trans. G.W. Bromiley; 4 vols.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010),I.1 112. See alsoCD I.1 262; I.2 125; III.3 49259 See for example Mangina, Bearing the Marks of Jesus: Te Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barth and Hauerwas. Also Joseph L. Mangina, Te Stranger as Sacrament:Karl Barth and the Ethics of Ecclesial Practice, International Journal of Systematic eology 1(1999): 269305.60 See for example John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church(New York: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1985), 11011. Also Miroslav Volf, A er Our Likeness:

e Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 10102.



when we fall and fail, contributes to its own conformation into the image of Christ through suffering and obedience. Here, we utilise the parallel betweenthe incarnate body of Christ and the ecclesial body of Christ. e Spiritenabled Christ to grow into who he was as his human nature developed.As he surrendered himself in obedient submission the Spirit led him downthe path of suffering and into glory. Similarly, the Church as whole, unied,historic institution grows into what it is over its history, and this growthhappens through obedient submission to the Spirit that leads us along thepath of suffering and into glory. ere is, of course, an extra dimension toour journey, in that the Church is (like Christ) not merely growing into thefullness of its created potential, but it is also conquering and overwhelmingits eshly or sinful nature. 61 But this impediment and added growthrequirement, the Spirit too has shown himself to be more than capable of eradicating as the Church grows, for just as the Spirit triumphed in powerover the sin in Jesus through his death on the cross, so he will triumph overour sin as well. Further, as we do submit to the Spirit in obedience, andwalk the path of suffering into glory that he lays out for us, we increasingly provide a more complete picture of the kingdom of God on earth, andconsequently, a more compelling witness.

e picture of the Church here bears marked similarities to theecclesiologies developed by recent authors who describe the Church asnarrative in character . e work of Von Balthasar, 62 Vanhoozer, 63 Horton, 64

61 omas F. Torrance, for example, would not see this as an extra dimension but one thatChrist also struggled with and overcame in the power of the Spirit. See for example omasF. Torrance, e Trinitarian Faith: e Evangelical eology of the Ancient Catholic Church(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 18890. While I agree with Torrance on this particular issue,it is not necessary for the present argument, and consequently not included nor emphasisedhere.62 Hans Urs Von Balthasar, eo-Drama: eological Dramatic eory (trans. G. Harrison; 5 vols.; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988).63 Kevin J. Vanhoozer, e Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian

eology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005).64 Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: e Divine Drama (Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox, 2002). Also, Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008).



and Hauerwas 65 are indicative. 66 In Vanhoozers words: If theology is aboutthe speech and action of the triune God and the Churchs response in wordand deed, then doctrine is best viewed as direction for the Churchs ttingparticipation in the drama of redemption. 67 Noted below are three clearpoints of intersection between the Pneumato-Ecclesiology being developedhere and a narrative or dramatic understanding.

First, it recognises that the Churchs primary role is simply to be. Or, toutilise Hauerwas o en quoted dictum: the rst social task of the Churchis to be the Church. 68 In this the Church plays an important mediatory roleas the context in which conformation occurs. A key feature of dramatictheology is that it recognises that Scripture reveals who Jesus is only whenit is employed as the script by which the Christian community lives. Asone commentator explains the otherness that brings me to myself, then,is not simply God as revealed in Scripture, but God as revealed in the livesof those persons who are my companions in the way of discipleship. Astronger statement of Churchly mediation at this local level can scarcely beimagined.69

Second, and correlated to this, it recognises the essential narrativecharacter of the Church the Church is the living narrative of the kingdom.In contrast to both Barth and Zizioulas, the Church is not to be understoodas merely a series of moments at which humanity encounters Christ throughthe Spirit. Nor is it a collection of many stories of various individuals

who encounter Christ. It is rather the common, developing narrative of a community that lives in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is journeying inexorably towards a nal and complete union and communion

65 Stanley Hauerwas, Te Peaceable Kingdom (Notre Dame: SCM, 1983). Also, Stanley Hauerwas, With the Grain of the Universe (London: SCM, 2002). For a brief summary of Hauerwas dramatic outworking of ecclesiology in comparison with Karl Barth, see alsoMangina, Bearing the Marks of Jesus: Te Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barth andHauerwas, 269305. Note that Hauerwas himself has endorsed Manginas understanding of his theology on this point. See Hauerwas, With the Grain of the Universe , 14445.66 Note that the presentation here does not own all of the constituent features of these authorsecclesiologies, let alone their entire theological programs. Indeed, it couldnt as they are in placesdifferent and contradictory. Rather, what is being noted is that many of the overarching themesof this work closely converge with some of the features of the pneumatological ecclesiology being developed here. For a brief overview of dramatic theology see Myk Habets, Te Dogmais the Drama: Dramatic Developments in Biblical Teology Stimulus 16 (2008): 25.67 Vanhoozer, Te Drama of Doctrine , 31.68 Hauerwas, Te Peaceable Kingdom , 100.69 Mangina, Bearing the Marks of Jesus: Te Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barthand Hauerwas, 297.



with him, and is even now in constant connection to the risen Jesus by the Spirit. Tis is why the Church is o en understood by these dramatictheologians as a journey, a procession, or an adventure. 70

Tird, and again following on from the previous point, there is anemphasis on the everyday actions and life of the Church its obedienceand its suffering as the means by which the journey is enacted and thusthat God makes himself increasingly known to us. Hauerwas for exampleexplains this by utilising the language of gestures: It is through gesturesthat we learn the nature of the story that is the very content and constitutionof that kingdom. 71 By gestures, Hauerwas is referring to the full breadth of Christian life: the day to day practices of community, the moral practices of ethical signicance, and even the place of liturgy and sacraments. On thelatter, Hauerwas notes that, baptism and eucharist stand as crucial gestureswhich are meant to shape us rightly to hear as well as enact the story. Wecannot be the Church without them. 72

Tere are clear points of convergence, then, between a narrative ordramatic ecclesiology, and the Pneumato-Ecclesiology being developedhere. In particular, the Church provides the context in which transformationof individuals occurs, and further, in analogy with the humanity of Christ,it dynamically grows and develops through its actions of obedience andsuffering. Indeed it could easily be argued that a dramatic ecclesiology ts best within the overall setting of a Pneumato-Ecclesiology, and as a

subsection of it.73

Mangina recognises this as he notes a wise caution aboutthe development of Hauerwas ecclesiology:

Without attention to the Spirit and to the specically mandated ways by which we encounter the gospel, his [ie. Hauerwas] political interpretationof the Church might easily slide into a Christian politics of identity, onthe one hand, and as a corollary to this an impotent protest against liberalsociety. In other words, a developed pneumatology might offer resourcesfor keeping the community of Jesus followers focused on his story. An

authentic theology of discipleship or imitation bearing the marks of

70 See for example, Hauerwas, e Peaceable Kingdom , 87; Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology , 25657.71 Stanley Hauerwas, Christian Existence Today: Essays on Church, World and Living In Between(Durham: Labyrinth, 1988), 289.72 Hauerwas, Christian Existence Today, 107.73 See for example Cheryl M. Peterson, Who is the Church?, Dialog 51 (2012): 2430.



Jesus, as I have put it depends on situating the Church within the largercontext of the Spirits work. 74

Such a developed pneumatology, or (better) a Pneumato-Ecclesiology that looks through the lens of the Spirit at the ontology and functionality of the Church is precisely the aim of this present essay.

e constituent features of a pneumatological ecclesiology obtained sofar in this paper are merely those that are visible from the vantage pointof Christology. is perspective needs to be complemented by the view of ecclesiology from alternative vantage points such as eschatology,anthropology, the Trinity, and other theological loci, where the primary

connection between each of these lociand ecclesiology is similarly viewed aspneumatological. But notwithstanding the analysis and future insight thatwill arise from these other perspectives, the Christological viewpoint alonehas yielded signicant insight into the constituent features of a Pneumato-Ecclesiology. e picture painted above is of a Church that is tripartitein nature (the pneumatological union between Christ and the Church),relational in identity, unique in context, Christ-centred in orientation,dynamic in disposition, increasingly Christ-like in appearance, indivisiblein constitution, cruciform in shape, missional in purpose, and narrativein character. If Cheryl Peterson is correct in positing that the real crisisfacing the Churches is one of identity 75 and to discover who the Churchis,we ought to start with the Spirit, 76 then it is hoped that the Pneumato-Ecclesiology developed in this essay, in line with a ird Article eology,provides a step in the right direction. 77

74 Mangina, Bearing the Marks of Jesus: e Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barthand Hauerwas, 292.75

Peterson, Who is the Church?, 24.76 Peterson, Who is the Church?, 28.77 On ird Article eology see Myk Habets, e Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology (Eugene, OR.: Pickwick, 2010), 22857. I am indebted to Dr Myk Habets for hiscritical interaction with the themes of this essay as part of his PhD supervision of my thesis: e Anointed Church: Towards a ird Article Ecclesiology.


29/29

Documents

Eclesio_Pneumatologia