In his dissertation Being in Christ (2009) Reformed theologian Hans Burger does a commendable effort to renew Reformed theology through retrieving the concept of participation in Christ, in order to warrant the relational and transformative dynamics of the gospel.
It is doubtful, however, whether his systematic-theological proposal offers the dogmatic innovations that seem to be needed to fully achieve his goals. Further steps could be taken.
In his compelling study Baptized in the Spirit (2006), Pentecostal theologian Frank D. Macchia suggests five dogmatic moves that might be helpful to further advance Burger’s endeavour.
1.
Introduction – Retrieving the participative
dynamics of the gospel
Through his
dissertation, Being in Christ,
Reformed theologian Hans Burger has offered a significant contribution to the
renewal of Reformed theology.[1]
It is a profound and precise study, that is comprehensive and balanced, and
carefully in conversation with both Scripture and the Reformed tradition. His
retrieval of the concept of “being in Christ” gives theological grounding for a
richer understanding of salvation in a Reformed perspective.
Burger’s
study must be understood from his denominational background, the Dutch Gereformeerde Kerken (vrijgemaakt), an
orthodox-Reformed tradition that has strongly emphasized the objectivity of
salvation and the exclusivity of Christ, with rather rational overtones. This
emphasis has emanated from pastoral concerns, aiming at giving the believer
assurance of faith, grounded not in fickle feelings or experiences (as in
Reformed Pietism), but in the completed works of Christ. This pastoral
intentions, however, may have led to an understanding of faith that is more
juridical than relational, more cognitive than affective, and more passive than
inducing active involvement of the subject. Burger even speaks of a “neglect of
Christ” in a “conservative form”, since by stressing the doctrine of
satisfaction by penal substitution,
“Jesus Christ is reduced to the one who died for our sins but
who, in the present, does not really play any role (…) Jesus Christ himself
remains someone from the past.”[2]
Burger’s
first concern, then, is to retrieve the relational
dynamics of the gospel. The Christian life must be driven not by legalism, but
by communion with Christ in the present. To deepen a theological understanding
of this present communion, Burger reintroduces the theme of “being in Christ”,
or “union with Christ”. This theme of the unio
mystica cum Christo is deeply Reformed, he asserts, since it is a central
theme in the theology of e.g. John Calvin. But evidently, this treasure of the
Reformed tradition needs to be rediscovered.
His second
concern is about the transformative
dynamics of the gospel, or put differently, “the question of the presence of
salvation in the present”.[3]
While Pentecost and Charismatic Christians emphasize the life-transforming
power of the gospel in terms of victory, healing and deliverance, conservative
Reformed theologians often seem to downplay expectations to see salvation
“materialized” in the present reality, since the world is still broken under
the power of sin and any “glory” remains a future inheritance. But here too,
Burger suggests, the concept of “being in Christ” might deepen our
understanding.
Burger seems
to be on the right track here and the direction he takes most certainly looks
promising. His thorough-going study resonates with a wider movement in
contemporary orthodox-Reformed theology that retrieves notions of participation,
listening anew to its own tradition, e.g. John Calvin, the Belgic Confession
and the Heidelberg Catechism.[4] But
five years after its initial publication, we might assess that further dogmatic
innovation is needed to fully achieve Burger’s goal of recognizing the radical
concept of “participating in the eschatological story of Christ”.
In this
paper I will suggest that the dogmatic proposals of Pentecost theologian Frank
D. Macchia might be helpful to advance Burger’s endeavour. After providing a
brief overview of some key elements in Burger’s study, I will outline his
proposal for a systematic-theological framework, and try to pinpoint which
dogmatic issues would need to be taken further. I will then sketch how Macchia’s
dogmatic proposals could be of use at these points.
2.
Hans Burger: Outline of a careful investigation
In
accordance with his hermeneutical approach[5],
Burger listens to two voices of the Reformed tradition, John Owen (Ch. 2) and
Herman Bavinck (Ch. 3), two canonical voices, Paul (Ch. 5) and John (Ch. 6),
and two contemporary voices, Ingolf U. Dalferth (Ch. 8) and Oliver O’Donovan
(Ch. 9), before proposing his own systematic-theological concept of “being in
Christ” (Ch. 10). Burger derives a few important “building blocks” from this
approach, that appear to be crucial for his effort of retrieving the relational and transformative dynamics of the gospel.[6]
Recapitulating
his precise and highly structured approach would be interesting, but this is
beyond the scope of this paper.[7]
Let me suffice to mention a few key elements.
2.1 Both
eschatological and mystic
The language
of “being in Christ” is diverse, as Burger shows in his Chapters 5 and 6. It
comprises both the Pauline perspective,
in which “being in Christ” is perceived as an eschatological reality (it is real yet incomplete, and believers
are perceived as active subjects awaiting their full participation in the new
creation[8]),
and the Johannine perspective, in
which “being in Christ” is primarily perceived as one side of the reciprocal inhabitation of Christ and
his disciples.[9]
Both perspectives should be included, in addition to juridical perspectives.[10]
(Burger neglects to mention the imagery of the messianic Kingdom at this point.
My suggestion would be that precisely this Kingdom-perspective would proof to
be a integrative principle here. We will find this with Macchia.)
2.2 Distinguishing,
and thus warranting Reformed concerns
Really insightful, and helpful to discern between the
exclusivity and the inclusivity of Christ, is Burger’s structured exposition on
the “four moments” of the relation between Christ and the Church, as he
investigates how these four moments are present in the respective theologies he
deals with. Burger discerns two Christological moments, and two soteriological
moments.
2.2.1
Two Christological Moments
a.
Substitution: the moment of exclusivity of
Christ
b.
Representation: the moment of inclusivity of
Christ
Burger
concludes that we need both the exclusivity of work-substitution (Jesus Christ has done something unique for us),
and the inclusivity of his (double)
representation: Christ representing the Father to humanity, and humanity to
the Father. The inclusive moment denotes the side of the story of Christ in
which believers will participate, the exclusive moment denotes the other side
of the story, which is the “soteriological precondition” of this participation.[11]
Both moments
seems to be intertwined with both Paul and John, Burger asserts, and they
should not be separated. If they are
separated, we lose the tension that is needed to retain the Biblical
perspective. For if the inclusive moment is emphasized at the expense of the
exclusive moment, it may lead to a mistaken equation of Christ’s relation to
the Father and ours, holding that human obedience would be salvific and that
believers would become divine. But if the exclusive moment is emphasized at the
expense of the inclusive moment, it may lead to isolation of the juridical
aspect – as often has happened in orthodox-Reformed theology.
So we need the concept of substitution to
warrant the Reformed concern for the exclusivity of Christ, but we also need
the concept of representation to retain the relational dynamics of the Gospel.
2.2.2
Two Soteriological Moments
c.
Union: the moment of contact between Christ and
the believers
d.
Participation: the moment of the believer’s
sharing in Christ
The
believers’ union with Christ[12]
is not merely a single moment of initiation, but an ongoing union – thus warranting the relational dynamics of salvation. Several aspects are to be
discerned, related to the beginning of this union (incorporation, unification,
faith) and its ongoing continuation (inhabitation, communion, communication).
Its nature is analogous to the intertrinitarian perichoresis.
But in addition
to this ongoing union, Burger then discerns the moment of participation in
Christ. Using the concept of participation “will be an apposition but also an
improvement of the Reformed tradition”, Burger asserts.[13]
“For a concept of ‘being in Christ’ the moment of
participation is important to do justice to, especially, the Pauline model as
well as to the eschatological nature of ‘being in Christ’ , characterized by
the tension between already and not yet.”
It gives the
lives of the believers an orientation towards a full participation in Christ,
his identity and his destination. For the Reformation the concept of
participation proved to be problematic, as it needed to steer away from both
the faults of medieval Roman Catholic theology and Remonstrant theology. But the concept of participation needs
rehabilitation in Reformed theology, for emphasis on substitution only– without
participation in Christ and his righteousness - robs the gospel of its renewing
and life-transforming potential.[14]
2.3 A
Reformed theological framework
By thus
making clear distinctions between the various moments and stressing these
perspectives should be kept together, Burger is able to retrieve the notions of
inclusivity and participation, in order to restore the relational and
transformative dynamics of the gospel, while warranting the concerns of the
Reformation for the exclusivity of Christ.
His
exploration leads Burger to a theological framework that is:
- · Eschatological in every aspect. Doing justice to the Pauline perspective, Burger emphasizes that the church lives “in between” the coming of the new Aeon and the ending of the old Aeon. Thus an entire period in history opens up, in which the believers are “taken up into the story of Christ”: the end of our story and the end of his history coincide.[15]
- · Deeply trinitarian. The continuing story of God with his world has a Christological and a Pneumatological side, as the ‘two hands of God”.
- · Participative in character. The continuing history of God with his world has an exclusive and an inclusive side, that must be kept together. Christ’s history continues after his death, with his resurrection, his ascension to the right hand of the Father, his sending of the Spirit to the church and making the church participate in his story, as the believers anticipate their full participation in Christ.
2.4 Pinpointing
some dogmatic issues in Burger’s study
Burger’s proposal for a theological framework is to be
considered a major contribution to the renewal of orthodox-Reformed theology. It
is worth being developed further, consistently making inferences for Reformed
theology. My suggestion would be that in order to fully achieve Burger’s goal
of retrieving the participative dynamics of the gospel, further dogmatic moves
have to be made.
Of course,
it is hard to do justice to his comprehensive, 600-page exploration, with all
its nuances and broad references. But at the risk of failing to do so, I will
try to pinpoint some dogmatic issues that might have to be taken further.
·
Participation,
perichoresis and experience
It
remains unclear how to perceive the union
with Christ in the life of the believers. On the one hand, Burger stresses
the importance of this mystical union, understood as the mutual indwelling of
Christ and his disciples. He refers to Calvin, according to whom this unio mystica was fundamental for
salvation.[16]
He also refers to the Cappadocian Fathers and their concept of perichoresis,
and asserts that the believers’ union with Christ is “more than just relational”.
On the other hand, he stresses that the intertrinitarian perichoresis is merely
an “analogy” to the believers’ union with Christ. Is he saying enough here? How is the believers’ union “more than
relational” if the perichoresis is merely an "analogy", and how would they experience this?
Burger
does say a few things on this. In his section on soteriology, he speaks of the
works of the Spirit and attests that the inhabitation of Christ in the
believers is the inhabitation of the Spirit, who is a down payment of our
future inheritance. Moreover, “Christ’s Spirit in us is a source of moral and
spiritual renewal”.[17]
But here, too, it remains unclear how
the Spirit is such a source for renewal, and how believers would experience this?
·
The
eschatological story of Christ and the mission of the Spirit
Burger
might be emphatically referring to the ongoing “eschatological story of Christ”
(stating that the history of Christ continues after his death, with his
resurrection, ascension and his sending of the Spirit, making the church participate
in his story[18]),
but at crucial points his emphasis is still very much on “the story of Christ
as told in the Gospels” (confined to “birth, life, cross, death and
resurrection”[19]),
as if to safeguard Christ’s historical uniqueness and exclusivity.
If
Burger’s approach of the Biblical sources is canonical and the entire
“narrative of the history of salvation” indeed should be foundational for
systematic theology (as Burger states), why not consistently take this entire narrative
– from creation to new creation – as
the interpretative soteriological framework, instead of merely the narrative of
“the life, death and resurrection” of Jesus Christ?
Burgers
narrow emphasis in soteriology on “the life, death and resurrection” of Jesus
Christ has the unintended effect that it suggests only a second-rate importance for the remainder of the eschatological
story. Inevitably – but in contradiction to his own endeavour - the ascension of Christ, his
sending of the Spirit, and the participation of the Church are somehow
downgraded to an appendix, as often has been the case in Reformed theology. It
is significant and revealing in this respect, that when Burger speaks of the
importance of Christ’s sending of the Spirit to the church, he hastens to say
that “I do not want to suggest that something has to be added to cross,
resurrection and glorification”.[20]
Further on we will see how Macchia makes a different choice, that seems
helpful.
Throughout
his study, Burger aims to stress the “two hands of God” and the importance of
the Spirit. Yet his emphasis on the mission of the Son - focussing merely on Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection - inevitably seems to be undermining this,
impeding a fuller appreciation of the distinct mission of the Spirit.
·
The
mission of the church
This
also translates into Burger’s understanding of the mission of the church.
Despite his emphasis on the participation of the church in the eschatological
story of Christ, he now narrows the mission of the church down by stating that
the Son’s mission has been accomplished, and that the mission of the church is
“to make known Christ and his work”.[21]
How “participating” is that? How “transformative”?
Taking
his point of departure more consistently from the entire narrative of salvation
– from creation to new creation –
could have opened up possibilities for understanding the mission of the church
systematic-theologically in terms of “being the beginning of new creation”, and
“preparing for the new creation”.[22]
And
a full appreciation of the mission of the Spirit, being poured out in the
church, could have opened up possibilities for a fuller understanding of the
mission of the church in terms of being Spirit-filled and empowered by the
Spirit, already living “in the sphere of influence of Christ’s reign through
the Holy Spirit”.[23]
3.
Frank D. Macchia: Spirit-baptism as integrative metaphor
Frank D.
Macchia is a Pentecostal theologian with ecumenical concerns.[24]
His excellent study Baptized in the
Spirit is aimed at retrieving some of the distinct features of
Pentecostal theology – its “crown jewels”
– but explicitly in order to contribute from this distinctiveness to the wider
body of Christ.[25]
He places himself in the tradition of the Reformation and is clearly in
conversation it, drawing from e.g. John Calvin.
Macchia
takes the metaphor of baptism in the Spirit, and explores how it might function
as an organizing principle of a Pentecostal theology. Pentecostals tend to understand the concept
of “Spirit baptism” from Luke/Acts only, as charismatic and missionary
empowerment. But one needs Paul’s perspective as well, which is soteriological
(having fundamentally to do with “being in Christ” and initiation into the
Kingdom of God).[26]
In order to integrate these perspectives, Macchia proposes a broader
theological framework, that is eschatological,
trinitarian, and pneumatologically
understands the Kingdom of God as
inaugurated as a “Spirit baptism”.[27] His central thesis is, that
“Spirit baptism is a baptism
into the love of God that sanctifies, renews, and empowers until Spirit baptism
turns all of creation into the final dwelling place of God. Along the way,
Pentecostals will be justified in calling Christians to a Spirit baptism as a
fresh experience of power for witness with charismatic signs following.”[28]
Five dogmatic moves that might help
I will not
attempt to summarize Macchia’s line of argument here[29],
but confine myself to highlighting five dogmatic moves (or perhaps
“innovations”) that he makes , that could be helpful to Burger’s endeavour.
·
Participation,
perichoresis and experience
1)
The
first dogmatic move that might be helpful to advance Burger’s endeavour, is
that Macchia takes the Kingdom-motif as dominant category[30],
and augments it with the theme of participation in - and union with - God. The
Kingdom-motif thus evolves into “the notion of participation in the
ever-expanding fullness of divine love through the presence of Christ”.[31]
This move to connect participation to the Kingdom-motif enforces and
theologically grounds the eschatological understanding of participation, for
which also Burger aims.
2)
A second dogmatic move that might be helpful
to advance Burger’s endeavour, concerns Macchia’s use of the theme of the intratrinitarian
perichoresis. Like Burger, Macchia relates participation to the concept of
the perichoresis,
but he does so more consistently. Macchia applies the perichoresis as truly a
key principle for understanding the nature and implications of “being in Christ”, outlining more far-reaching implications
for the life of the believer and the life of the church.
For this, Macchia draws from Jürgen Moltmann
and (mostly) Wolfhart Pannenberg, taking the notion of the believer’s
participation in the perichoretic
divine life significantly further than merely an “analogy” (as we find it with Karl
Barth, who noted an analogia caritatis
between the triune God and the creation of humanity as relational beings).[32]
The communion of persons in God is characterised by reciprocity, mutuality and
interdependence, as the divine persons in self-giving love pour out themselves
in the other, drawing from one another’s fullness, and being established and
glorified through it. This perichoretic
triune life is not closed or self-contained, but dynamic and open to creation, seeking
to involve creation, that God may dwell in creation and creation may dwell in
God, and God may be “all in all”. (I can’t help but ad here, that this notion
should appeal especially to theologians in the Calvinistic tradition. For intriguing
input for this, see Julia Canlis’ fresh perspectives on Calvin, for instance: Calvin’s Ladder (2010), p. 133-134).
From Moltmann and Pannenberg, Macchia
also draws the insight into God’s vulnerability to be affected by the world,
and he develops this further with the help of Michael Welker’s view of God and
humans as empathetic subjects: the
self is fulfilled “not in self-reference but rather in empathy with others”.[33]
He concurs with Pannenberg that the monarchy of God is theologically related to
– if not somehow dependent on – the establishment of God’s reign of life in the
world, thus theologically connecting the
notion of participation with the Kingdom-motif.
3)
Often such expositions on perichoresis and participation remain
rather abstract and philosophical, but with Macchia it gets quite concrete and
experiential, as he relates this to the life of the individual believer and the
life of the church in terms of Spirit
baptism (again I can’t help but refer to Canlis on Calvin, for instance p.
134) – applying the concept of Spirit baptism as a point of integration between
sanctification and eschatology (drawing both from the concept of perichoresis and the Kingdom-motif).[34]
This most certainly is a dogmatic
innovation that is helpful to Burger’s endeavour. The reign of God comes on
believers,
“through an abundant outpouring of God’s very Spirit on us to
transform us and to direct our lives toward Christlike loyalties. From the
Trinitarian fellowship of the Father and the Son, the Spirit is poured out to
expand God’s love and communion to creation. This outpouring prefigures the
eschatological indwelling of God in all of creation”.[35]
Thus, Spirit baptism is neither “a super-additum or a supplemental
experience of grace that is not essential to Christian identity”, nor a “divine
act and a creaturely participation in ways too deep for conscious awareness” –
it is “something consciously experienced”.[36]
Macchia emphasizes that Spirit
baptism is not dependent on human
experience (as it might be perceived in Pietism) - it is about divine action, by which Christian
identity is established, and the necessary human response of trusting the
promise of God (as Reformed theology stresses).[37]
But he maintains the connection between God’s act of initiation and the unique experiences and giftings of the Spirit.
“Initiation to the life of the
Spirit is not dependent on human experience, but the experience of the kingdom
of God in power is certainly involved in Spirit baptism as an eschatological
gift of ever-new participation in the life and mission of God.”[38]
·
The
eschatological story of Christ and the mission of the Spirit
4)
A fourth
dogmatic move that would be helpful to Burger’s endeavour, is Macchia’s
eschatological understanding of Jesus being primarily
the “Baptizer with the Spirit”.
If the goal of God’s history with the world is turning “all of creation
into the final dwelling place of God”, and Spirit baptism is to be understood
as “a baptism into God’s love that sanctifies, renews, and empowers” in order
to turn creation into this final dwelling place,[39]
then the outpouring of the Spirit can no longer be understood as merely an
“empowerment” for the church, as a supplemental
experience of grace, but it must be understood as the core of salvation.
As Henry Knight
summarizes,
“Spirit-baptism is essentially an outpouring of divine love, the same
love that marks the Trinitarian life of God. It is a gift of eschatological
life, inaugurated at Pentecost and consummated in the new creation. Rather than
being the last event in a soteriological sequence, it encompasses all of
soteriology.”[40]
Whereas Burger – in accordance with the
Reformed tradition – places his emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus
(and indeed says that in terms of soteriology nothing needs to be added to
this), Macchia stresses that this emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus must
involve “Jesus as the one raised from the dead to bestow the Spirit”. The “chief purpose of the resurrection” is
for Jesus to become to Bestower of the life-giving Spirit, inaugurating the
Kingdom of God on behalf of the Father.[41]
(see Canlis on Calvin, p. 126)
“Without the role of Jesus as the one who bestows the Spirit, his
resurrection would have lost its eschatological goal and the relationship of
Jesus to his heavenly Father would have lost its strongest clue”.[42]
Western theology has failed to fully appreciate this eschatological and
pneumatological perspective, Macchia asserts.
“Western theology did not subordinate the Spirit simply by accenting
Christ’s role in imparting the Spirit but rather by not allowing this
impartation decisively to define the substance of his redeeming work. The
drama of redemption has instead been viewed as fulfilled in the cross (as
perhaps ‘revealed’ or ‘proved’ by the resurrection), while Pentecost was seen
as an added ‘plus’.”[43]
It is obvious that this dogmatic move that Macchia makes, would prevent
the risk of subordinating (the mission of) the Spirit to (the mission of)
Christ, and would be helpful to Burger’s endeavor of emphasizing the “two hands
of God” in the history of salvation.
·
The
mission of the church
5)
Whereas Burger defines the mission of the
Church quite narrowly as “witnessing to Christ and his works”, Macchia’s
eschatological and pneumatological Kingdom-framework opens up possibilities for
a broader and richer systematic-theological appraisal, that would serve Burger’s
intentions quite well.
In Spirit baptism, the church is
allowed “to participate in, and bear witness to, the final sanctification of creation” (italics are mine).[44]
This then, is the fifth dogmatic move that
might be helpful to Burger.
The Spirit-baptized church is
participating already in what has yet to come (see Canlis on Calvin, p.
129) as the Spirit is,
“the eschatological gift that brings
to us the ‘powers of the age to come’ (Heb. 6:5).”[45]
The already and not yet are
interwoven, for the Kingdom “is not spatial but has to do with new life, the
life of the Spirit of God”.[46]
The Church as
1) the new people
of God
2) the body of Christ, and
3) the temple of the Spirit
is to participate in the inauguration and fulfilment of the Kingdom of
God in the world and can by grace be a living witness to it, embodying it and
pointing to it.[47]
“The kerygma and the
sacraments are not directed to the formation of a redemption cult but the
fulfillment of God’s missionary and eschatological goals for the world.”[48]
Whereas often such remarks remain
rather abstract, Macchia translates it quite concretely to both social action and charismatic experiences, and both individual and communal life.
The
sanctifying work of the Spirit is to be released in life through powerful
experiences of renewal and charismatic enrichment that “propel us toward vibrant
praise, healing reconciliations, enriched koinonia,
and enhanced gifting for empowered service”.[49]
Social justice and healing and deliverance are equally part of this
glorification of God in the world, as the church
“participates in the liberating reign of God evident on
Jesus’ ministry through Spirit baptism”.[50]
4.
Further study
Macchia’s
consistent eschatological and pneumatological perspectives seem promising for
achieving Burger’s goal of fully retrieving the participative dynamics of the
gospel. Further study would be required to establish whether his dogmatic moves
can be followed while still warranting the concerns of Reformed theology.
Recent publications from a Reformed perspective certainly give reason to think so
– I am referring to Gijsbert van den Brink and Kees van der Kooi, Christelijke Dogmatiek[51],
and Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder.[52]
Burger’s exploration is to be continued.
This is a
paper written in 2012, as part of the course Participation – Christ, the Spirit, and Us, by Prof. Dr. Gijsbert
van den Brink, Prof. dr. Cornelis van der Kooi, and Dr. Maarten Wisse (VU
University Amsterdam, Dogmatics and Ecumenics).
See (also Frank D. Macchia: Baptized in the Spirit, 2006): Experiencing the Indwelling Spirit: Enhancing Pannenberg with Pentecostal theology.
Bibliography
- · Brink, van den, Gijsbert, and Kees van der Kooi, Christelijke dogmatiek (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012).
- · Burger, Hans, Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009)
- · Canlis, Julie, Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010)
- · Macchia, Frank D., Baptized in the Spirit. A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)
- · Macchia, Frank D., ‘Baptized in the Spirit: Reflections in Response to My Reviewers’, in: Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Vol. 16 (2008), 14-20
- · Knight III, Henry H., ‘Reflections on Frank Macchia’s Baptized in the Spirit, Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Vol. 16 (2008), 5-8
Footnotes
[1] Hans Burger, Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic
Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009).
[2] Burger, Being in Christ, 2, 3.
[3] Burger, Being in Christ, 4.
[4] See Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of
Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), and J. Todd Billings, Union with Christ. Reframing Theology and
Ministry for the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).
[5] Burger, Being in Christ, 9. Since the task of systematic theology is
to offer critical reflection on the practice of the church, Burger says, it has
to do justice to this discourse and its grammatical structures. His own
framework has to derive from, and be consistent with, this discourse and its
grammatical structures.
[6] Burger
distinguishes two elements in this discourse that are relevant to a concept of
“being in Christ” (1. The Biblical language of “being in Christ”, 2. The larger
context of this “in Christ”-language), and two structures (1. The doctrine of
the Trinity, 2. The “Four Moments” of the relation between Christ and the
church). One important “building block” is his conclusion that a concept of “being
in Christ” has to be trinitarian.
[7] I gladly refer to my summary of
Chapter 10, in which I give an exposition of Burger’s methodological steps.
[8] In
this Pauline perspective, the church thus lives in eschatological tension,
since the new aeon has already come with Christ (and the church lives within
the sphere of the influence of Christ’s reign through the Holy Spirit), yet the
old aeon is still around us, as we anticipate our full participation in the new
creation. From this flows that “being in Christ” is a corporate reality (it is about a new humanity, new creation), in
which believers are involved as active
subjects. This existential involvement results in “subjective experiences that
might be labelled as mystical” (Burger, Being
in Christ, 279).
[9] In
this Johannine perspective, the relation between Christ and his disciples has
characteristics analogous to the relation between Father and Son. “Primarily we
need concepts like interiority, reciprocal inhabitation and communion, highlighting the moment of
union.” But we also need the concept of participation:
the Son makes us participate: Mediated by the Spirit and by Christ, “we share
to some extent in Christ’s communion with his Father and are in God” (Burger, Being in Christ, 387).
[10] Burger
asserts that we need to understand the “in Christ”-language in its larger
context, including the story of Jesus Christ as told in the Gospels, and other
Scriptural images referring to Christ. Burger neglects to mention the imagery
of the messianic Kingdom at this point. My suggestion would be that precisely
this Kingdom-perspective would proof to be a integrative principle here. We
will find this with Macchia.
[11] Burger, Being in Christ, 514.
[12]
The believers’ union with Christ is to be understood from a trinitarian
perspective, Burger asserts. The love of the Father for the Son in the Spirit
is the source of his love for the believers, as it is expressed in election,
the gift of atonement, and union with Christ (142-143).
[13] Burger, Being in Christ, 519.
[14] Burger, Being in Christ, 521.
[15] Burger, Being in Christ, 526
[16] Burger, Being in Christ, 144, 515.
[17] Burger, Being in Christ, 531.
[18] Burger, Being in Christ, 527.
[19] Burger, Being in Christ, 524, also 526.
[20] Burger, Being in Christ, 536.
[21] Burger, Being in Christ, 533.
[22] Burger does aim for this, see
553-554.
[23]
Burger also aims for this, see 279,
554-555.
[24] Macchia (Professor of
Systematic Theology at Vanguard University, California) has been active in various ecumenical settings, including the
International World Alliance of Reformed Churches/Pentecostal dialogue and the
Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Christian Churches (USA).
[25]
Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit.
A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
[26] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 15.
[27] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 17.
[28] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 60. Let this then be, Macchia says,
the Pentecostal contribution
to the worldwide Church: “Orthodox faith, that is rooted in the will of the
Father as Creator, centered in the Son as Spirit Baptizer and Inaugurator of
the kingdom of God, and richly directed toward the life of the eschatological
Spirit in perfecting creation as the final dwelling place of God” (112).
[29] I gladly refer to my previous
research paper The Spirit and the
Presence of the Future. A Survey of the Pneumatological Proposals of Michael
Welker and Frank D. Macchia in the Context of Charismatic Renewal
(unpublished paper, VU University Amsterdam, June 2013), and my summary of Baptized
in the Spirit.
[30] Burger also repeatedly refers to the
Kingdom-perspective, understood very much the same way as Macchia does
(emphasizing the eschatological tension of the already and not yet of the
Kingdom). However, Burger fails to use the Kingdom-motif as leading category,
as Macchia does.
[31] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 45.
[32] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 104-107, 113-129, 156-160.
[33] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 125 (referring to Michael Welker, “The
Spirit in Philosophical and Theological Perspectives”, lecture given at the
International Consultation on the Work of the Holy Spirit, New York: Yale
University, November 13-14, 2004).
[34] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 42.
[35] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 116.
[36] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 152.
[37] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 65.
[38] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 70.
[39] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 60.
[40] Henry H. Knight III, ‘Reflections on
Frank Macchia’s Baptized in the Spirit, Journal
of Pentecostal Theology, Vol. 16 (2008), 5-8.
[41] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 109-110.
[42] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 111.
[43] Frank D. Macchia, ‘Baptized in the
Spirit: Reflections in Response to My Reviewers’, in: Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Vol. 16 (2008), 14-20. If
highlighted as the organizing principle for theology, Macchia asserts here, Spirit
baptism “fundamentally determines the very substance and significance of Christ
as redeemer and the object of faith in the church”. In other words, Christ is
redeemer because of “his role (through life, death, and resurrection) in
pouring out the Spirit, the very means by which others join in his communion
with the Father.”
[44] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 86.
[45] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 88.
[46] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 97.
[47] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 192.
[48] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 87.
[49] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 145.
[50] Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 161.
[51] Gijsbert van den Brink and Kees van
der Kooi, Christelijke dogmatiek
(Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2012). This recent Reformed dogmatics propagates a
consistent trinitarian approach, emphasizing both the christological and pneumatological perspective
(as the “two hands of God”) and exploring a pneuma-christology (Ch. 10, 11 and
12). It seeks to relate soteriology and eschatology, referring to the Kingdom
of God (cf. 429). And it connects these insight to the concept of participation
(Ch. 15, esp. 611-625).
[52] Canlis’ recent study certainly seems
to encourage more radical dogmatic moves than Burger was making a few years
earlier. Canlis’ fresh perspective on the theology of Calvin, as expressed both
in his Institutes and his pastoral
writings and sermons, provides intriguing incentives to advance further.
According to her study, participation in the Trinity – understood radically as
sharing in God, as mutual indwelling through the Spirit, understood from the
concept of perichoresis – should be at the center of Reformed theology (e.g.
4-5, 60, 96); the eschatological story of Christ should be understood from the
perspective of creation (and new creation), perceiving creation as “the sphere
of koinonia” (54), new creation as the final dwelling place of God, and the
ongoing and distinct mission of the Spirit in preparing creation to be so, in
terms of participation (58, 60). According to Canlis, Calvin endorses several
of the key moves of Macchia that we referred to: the perichoretic understanding
of a trinitarian “openness” to creation, connected to participation in the
divine life (Canlis, 133, 134), in connection, too, to Spirit baptism (134,
135), and even Macchia’s assertion that the descent of Christ to crucifixion and
death indeed is pivotal, but not in terms of settling of accounts, but in that
it is “oriented toward another movement to bring humanity ‘up’ to the Father as
sons in him – ‘one with God the Father’ (…) a movement initiated by the love of
the Father, enacted by the Son, and enabled by the Spirit” (126, 127).
No comments:
Post a Comment