Скачать книгу

ecclesiology. Reminiscent of Luther, Hütter aligns the Spirit with the doctrines and practices of the Church. The Church begins with a trinitarian conception of “communio–ecclesiology,” where the Church is the fellowship of participation in the communion of the Father with the Son in the Spirit. Hütter’s concern is that the Church see herself rightly, as “a glad recipient” of God’s saving work, but also as a body that understands how this “receiving” takes place. “This receiving embodied in practices is precisely the way in and through which the Holy Spirit works the saving knowledge of God.”203 In this paradigm, Church doctrine and practice become the “mediate forms” through which the Spirit guides the Church to truth, and these truths become the “binding authority” of the Church.204 Since Hütter describes the Spirit’s actions as the “poimata” of the “Spiritus Creator,” the Spirit seems to possess a sort of “poetic authority” with respect to the local church. How might such an authority of the Spirit be discerned in light of our pattern of divine authority? We shall investigate this further in chapter six.

      James Buckley and David Yeago’s Knowing the Triune God

      Gregory Jones and James Buckley’s Spirituality and Social Embodiment

      The Governing Authority of the Spirit—Definition and Storyline

      Now that we have observed several contemporary approaches to the Spirit/Church relationship (both theoretical and practical approaches) we are able to examine them in search of a provisional definition of the Spirit’s governing authority, and then pose initial questions for each approach regarding its alignment with the provisional definitions discerned earlier. These questions will be further addressed in chapter three and four as well.

      “Governing authority,” on the other hand, incorporates the authority inherent in one’s own person along with a delegated authority to work or function as “governor” (we might think of a “governor” who is granted the authority to rule locally under the auspices of a President or King). Such a “governing authority” of the Spirit seems to coincide with Oden’s “paleoorthodox” understanding of the doctrine of the Spirit (which generally respects the pattern of authority) while listening to the “postmodern” desire for a renewed focus on the experience of the Spirit within the Church. In this scenario, the body of Christ, having a temporary status until Christ returns with his eschatological Kingdom, is created and administered by the “governing authority” of the Holy Spirit.

      Whereas a “functional power” of the Spirit is not necessarily associated with the other aspects of the Spirit’s authority already discussed, the Spirit’s “governing authority” implies a vital connection to these aspects. If the Spirit’s authority or power is not related to the other elements in our pattern of authority, what will this do to our understanding of the Spirit’s “authority”?

      As a result, initial questions can be asked regarding each of the above-mentioned “whole book” theologies of the Holy Spirit. For instance, in their concern for the experience of the Spirit, have these theologians left behind various aspects of our pattern of authority in the developing their models? What does this do to the notion of the “governing authority of the Spirit”? In particular, we will need to ask:

      1. Does Moltmann’s “panentheism” depreciate the Spirit’s authority as a divine Person?

      2. Does Pinnock’s “universalism” or Hodgson’s “modified trinitarianism” nullify the Spirit’s executorial authority?

      3. Does Welker’s “pluralism” reduce the Spirit’s veracious authority with respect to inspiration, and does Badcock’s attention to spiritual experience reduce the Spirit’s veracious authority with respect to illumination?

      4. Precisely what effects do any deficiencies in Moltmann’s, Hodgson’s,