Well, I typed out a massive posting, only to have it get lost on my computer. I will try to re-form my thoughts now as I attempt to expand on what I wrote last and begin to answer the question posed by Sam.
Any form of Incarnational Living is going to be communal, based on the example of the Trinity, and guided by the Spirit. As such, we need a reworked, deeper understanding of both Trinity and Spirit. Trinitarian theology is being deeply expanded right now, thanks especially to writers like Volf, Moltmann, Grenz, Zizioulas and Ratzinger to name but a few. As far as Pneumatology goes, though, we have a long way to go.
It is my belief that we (non-Charismatic Western believers) have replaced the Holy Spirit with the Holy Bible. As such, we try to make an "Acts 2" church by trying to do exactly what the early believers were doing, rather than follow the deeper example they gave us: following the Spirit's guidance and allowing Spirit to form them into a missional community. The Spirit is hard to define, which is why wind/breath is the perfect title for this important member of the Trinity. In a post-foundationalism Christian faith, we must begin to embrace the Spirit, who cannot be defined in concrete terms, but must be accepted as a fluid, dynamic part of who we are and what we are being led to do in the world. We are incarnational because the Spirit of the Trinitarian God is in us, so as a community we can bring God into the world.
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You Wrote:
"Any form of Incarnational Living is going to be communal, based on the example of the Trinity, and guided by the Spirit. As such, we need a reworked, deeper understanding of both Trinity and Spirit. Trinitarian theology is being deeply expanded right now, thanks especially to writers like Volf, Moltmann, Grenz, Zizioulas and Ratzinger to name but a few."
Do you really think that Trinitarian is being deeply expanded, or just freshly re-worded? Some of these guys are so steeped in their own orthodoxy that they can't see past it.
In my very under-read opinion, Zizioulas owes his theological formation to authors like Henry De Lubac and others. Again, My take is that these dudes are simply putting fresh words on existing thoughts.
And, oh yeah... I totally agree with you on needing a reworked, deeper understanding of both Trinity and Spirit.
As far as Zizioulas goes, I would say a lot of what he says is borrowed and/or expanded off of others, as is often the case with Eastern Orthodox theologians anyways.
As far as your more general question goes, I would have to say yes and no. Maybe "deeply expanded" was too extreme. But I would say our understanding of the Trinity is being expanded and hopefully challenged at the same time. There is always a fine line as we explore a topic which is rarely hinted at in the Bible. I would hope the discussion would continue without any definite answers, since we are dealing with such wild ideas like the economic and immanent trinity and so forth.
As far as these guys mentioned goes, I certainly do not agree with all of them, especially Ratzinger. Zizioulas has some great thoughts, and some odd ones. The other three I suppose I would call some of my heroes in the faith...
Post a Comment