Читать книгу The Holy Spirit and the Reformation Legacy - Группа авторов - Страница 10

Martin Luther’s Pneumatology, German Idealism, and Modern Catholic Theology

Michael M. C. Reardon

Introduction

Though rightly celebrated, the legacy of the Reformation is mixed, being composed of both positive and negative developments that have been augmented over the past five centuries and concretized within Christian theological discourse. Positive results include the “newfound” prominence and interpretative power of the Scriptures to articulate rightlythe Christian faith, a re-examination of soteriology, and the transfer of specific elements of Christian praxis from the clerical elite to the lay masses. Tangible negative outcomes must also be considered when remembering and assessing the events that transpired from 1517. For example, many see ecclesial disunity as the Reformation’s greatest scandal. That disunity has accelerated at an unabated pace in modernity, not least because such thoughtful reflection often does not occur. Strikingly, this blemish on the heritage of the Reformation indirectly affects every aspect of the Christian faith as it allows for a multitude of theological fads and opinions to be given a near-equal platform to be voiced and accepted. From the nature of Scripture to the efficacy of the sacraments, there exists no single doctrine that can be articulated in a homogenous manner across denominations. Indeed, this lack of doctrinal agreement frequently engenders contentious dialogue within denominational persuasions. This chapter explores the presence of this “mixed” legacy within the theology of its most visible progenitor (Martin Luther) and the group that bears his namesake (Lutheranism).

Specifically, this exploration is situated with a growing stream of research that probes the ostensible dissimilarity between Martin Luther’s theology and later promulgations of Lutheranism, best embodied (or at least formatively shaped) by the theology of Philipp Melanchthon. Concerning their divergent theological trajectories, research in the past four decades is particularly noteworthy, especially the findings of the Mannermaa school and its posited retrieval of Luther’s true doctrine of justification, which bears a striking resemblance to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theōsis.1 Concerning this exercise, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen comments that this rereading offers not only an alternative view of Luther’s soteriology; much rather, it has extensive pneumatological implications as well.2 These latter ramifications are of particular import to this essay, which argues that a robustly pneumatological stream extends from the theology of Luther—a stream that is altogether absent from the theological lineage of Melanchthon. This posited stream is situated outside of the historical purview of either of these Reformers, and thus, no claim is being made concerning the purposeful intention of either thinker.

Nevertheless, the existence of pneumatological differences in Luther and Melanchthon’s theology bore (and continues to bear) influence on countless metaphysical frameworks. Due to the sweeping nature of this claim, the following analysis is at best a cursory exercise that aims to be illustrative, not exhaustive, of the influence of Luther’s pneumatology upon later thinkers and their respective philosophical and theological outlooks. Additionally, the doctrinal stream that is being suggested has been conceptually delimited only to pneumatological concerns—no assertion is made concerning strict genealogical relations between theologians, nor of orthodox or heterodox theological positions. With this in mind, we may turn to the succeeding remarks, which are structured as follows: first, an overview which delineates significant differences between Luther and Melanchthon in their conceptions of the Trinity and in their conceptions of the doctrine of justification, with an emphasis on their pneumatological implications; second, an examination of the presence and influence of Luther’s pneumatology in the philosophy of German idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; third, a presentation elucidating how Hegel’s reimagining of Luther’s pneumatology formatively shaped the theology of twenteith-century Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner; and lastly, a brief conclusion which synthesizes these findings both for future research and present reflection.

The Reformers: Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon

Luther and Melanchthon formed an unlikely duo in the early days of the Reformation. While Luther was known for his acerbic temperament and unsystematic thinking, Melanchthon has been described as charitable, lucid, and coherent.3 Moreover, while Luther was trained in monastic theology, Melanchthon was educated in intellectual humanism.4 Still, “duo”—if carrying the sense of equality in stature—may be a misleading descriptor as their relationship was asymmetrical: Luther was a larger-than-life personality and leader whereas Melanchthon was the spokesperson and devotee. Melanchthon considered Luther “the Elijah” of the present age and stated that he “would rather die than be separated from Luther.”5 But despite both his “junior status” and lack of recognition outside of the academy, it was Melanchthon’s systematic presentation of Luther’s theology that facilitated its assimilation within sixteenth-century scholarly circles and provided the framework for modern Lutheranism. Though to be clear, this ‘systematized presentation’ was anything but a regurgitation of Luther’s sentiments. Concerning this, Samuel Powell rightly states that “the thoughts of Luther and Melanchthon were capable of leading in several directions.”6 Indeed, the succeeding decades of theological development engendered substantial doctrinal divergences between them, an occurrence Paul Hinlicky brilliantly notes in a humorous assessment of Mark Mattes’ “test of genuine Luther-theology”—a metric that Hinlicky claims would exclude Luther himself from “genuine Lutheran theology!”7

The Trinity

Luther’s Trinitarian theology is firmly rooted within the Western Christian tradition,8 as evidenced by what he considers to be the three symbols of the Christian faith: the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the hymn Te Deum Laudamus.9 For Luther, this historical tethering of his Trinitarian claims to patristic Christianity was necessary, as he considered the doctrine of the Trinity to be one of “the sublime articles of the divine majesty” that were “not matters of dispute or contention” between Protestant and Catholic churches.10 However, unlike his scholastic predecessors, Luther did not spend time speculatively explicating the Trinity via logic and philosophy. Rather, he relied upon a scripturally-grounded Trinitarian framework; indeed, it undergirded every one of his doctrinal commitments.11

Regin Prenter presses Luther’s Trinitarian-oriented framework further, noting that it is not merely the Trinity, but rather “the concept of the Holy Spirit [that] completely dominates Luther’s theology.”12 Though a bold pronouncement laid upon the Christocentric Luther, Prenter’s assertion is not unwarranted. In the final section of the Large Catechism concerning the Creed, Luther reverses the order of the Trinity to reflect the Christian’s encounter with God. Concerning this re-ordering, Timothy J. Wengert draws three conclusions: first, that “Luther’s understanding of the Holy Spirit holds the key to his Trinitarian theology”; second, that Luther’s understanding of the Holy Spirit leads to his description of the Trinity; and lastly, that “it is the Holy Spirit who turned Luther’s (and turns our) understanding of the Trinity on its head.”13 Pekka Kärkkäinen advances a conceptually similar argument in Luther’s trinitarische Theologie Des Heiligen Geistes, arguing that Luther exhibits strong pneumatological commitments in doctrines historically grounded in the Trinity.14 One example he offers to support this claim comes from Luther’s commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, wherein Luther posits a strong, unified relationship between the Spirit and faith, with the promise of faith being fulfilled by the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer.15

This reading of Luther is corroborated and expanded upon by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, who believes that Luther’s pneumatological outlook is central to his theology of the law, word, and sacraments. V-M. Kärkkäinen claims that there “is not a single doctrine in all theology in which the activity of the Spirit was not fundamental” for Luther.16 To be sure, this does not mean that Luther was proto-Pentecostal. He was explicitly Christocentric and intended to ground every doctrinal position in both the person and work of Christ.17 Still, V-M. Kärkkäinen asserts that this healthy Christocentrism provided a prominent role for the Holy Spirit in Luther’s theology. For Luther, the Holy Spirit is the primary agent who testifies concerning Christ’s person and mediates Christ’s work. Stated differently, Luther argued that Christ’s personality and activity were both matched by the Spirit’s testimony. Lastly, V-M.Kärkkäinen also notes Luther’s strong emphasis upon the interrelationship between the outward and inward works of the Spirit—an emphasis that is particularly noteworthy when contrasting him with Melanchthon. These dual-concerns formatively shaped Luther’s pneumatology, as he prioritized both the “outer” way that God approaches humankind through the preached Word and sacraments as well as the “inner” way God approaches humankind—through the Holy Spirit and pneumatologically-infused gifts.18 Because of these dual-commitments, Luther believed that there was an “incarnational” aspect of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, he persuasively argued that the real presence of God in Christ is analogous to the real presence of the Holy Spirit in the Christian.19

We thus see that Luther (1) prioritized a Trinitarian theological framework; (2) linked doctrinal positions to the person and work of Christ; (3) committed to the pneumatological mediation of Christ both linguistically and sacramentally; and (4) prioritized pneumatological commitments. Against these positions, one could (perhaps facetiously) delineate Melanchthon’s theological commitments by placing a ‘not’ before each of the above statements. To be sure, this is a jocose suggestion—it would be disingenuous to state that Melanchthon was ‘not’ Trinitarian merely, ‘not’ Christocentric, ‘not’ sacramental, or ‘not’ pneumatological without further context. He did affirm each of Luther’s commitments—yet, he promulgated starkly different conceptions of each position, and, as will be shown, did not prioritize any of them within his theological corpus.

For example, one of the greatest scandals of the early Reformation was the 1521 edition of the Loci Communes Theologici, a work that Melanchthon purported to be an “outline of the Christian faith”—a work that did not discuss the Trinity. Shockingly, his rationale for its exclusion was that the Trinity did not “belong to the essence of theology.”20 A charitable reading of Melanchthon might suggest that he espoused a doctrine of hyper-perspicuity, whereby he considered only items clearly explicated in the Scriptures as “central” to the Christian faith.21 If taken to be true, his impetus to gloss over the doctrine of the Trinity is perhaps understandable—though, Robert Jenson rightly asserts that the writings of the early Melanchthon (and others) had a “regrettably negative impact on trinitarian reference in liturgy, preaching, and personal piety.”22

Such a charitable reading of Melanchthon is undermined by later editions of the Loci in which he aimed to assuage his critics. By the time the final edition was published in 1559, his longest locus was devoted to the Trinity. Its foreword contained the following statement: “the highest concern of man would be to learn the true teaching concerning God, just as also the First Commandment specifically demands this duty.”23 Yet, his theological evolution led to a different, but equally problematic orientation. Though more closely aligned with theological contemporaries in Trinitarian formulation, Melanchthon paradoxically became, in the words of Samuel M. Powell, “most amenable to the speculative method” he previously eschewed.24 This predilection is apparent in the 1559 locus where he places Plato in dialogue with Irenaeus and Origen—in other words, he provides an equal platform to a pagan philosopher and patristic theologians, something that would have been anathema to him just three decades prior. However, here a charitable reading of Melanchthon may be better-warranted, as the cause for his about-face is likely historical. As contentions with the Socinians and Michael Severtus concomitantly occurred alongside pressure from Roman Catholic theologians, it became necessary for Melanchthon to explicate orthodox Trinitarian claims—as evident in his numerous refutations of Severtus and likeminded theologians in this locus. Notwithstanding, Melanchthon’s doctrinal promulgation in the face of opposition did not abrogate his earlier view of the Trinity as an unessential Christian doctrine. Rather, as readily apparent in his corpus at-large, Melanchthon’s Trinitarian presentation was not a central theological commitment. Rather, as Michael Rogness rightly states, Melanchthon’s Trinitarian views are “hardly inspiring” and serve only as “a prolegomena, a foundation for the doctrine of the redemption through the Logos, the Son.”25

Though presented more lucidly than Luther, Melanchthon’s treatments of the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit are similarly uninspiring. Rogness masterfully summarizes their divergent interests: for Melanchthon, “the Gospel was not so much about Christ himself, but the truth or Gospel about Christ, the proclamation of Christ’s saving work on the cross. Luther dwelt on the person of Christ, Melanchthon on Christ’s work.”26 To be clear, Melanchthon did affirm the personhood of both Christ and the Spirit, both in the Loci Praecipui Theologici27 and in the Augsburg Confession.28 Still, his affirmation of Christ’s personhood served a secondary role in his theology. Moreover, Melanchthon’s prioritization of Christ’s work over personhood led to difficulties in articulating a cogent presentation of the Holy Spirit, as he had difficulty defining distinctive works of the Spirit.29 Due to this difficulty, the presence of the Spirit is scant in Melanchthon’s theological system and is relegated only to the interiority of the Christian, strikingly absent from any meaningful public actions.30 Moving to the next section, this focal shift from person and work of Christ in Luther to only Christ’s work in Melanchthon is central to understanding the divergence of their conceptions of the doctrine of justification by faith.

Justification by Faith

V-M. Kärkkäinen notes that there is a “general consensus of most recent Luther scholarship that the commonly held forensic doctrine of justification by faith, as articulated by later confessional writings under the leadership of Philipp Melanchthon, is a one-sided understanding of Luther’s theology.”31 To the old-guard Lutheran scholar, this may be an incendiary claim. Notwithstanding such considerations, this new line of inquiry allows for a more thorough consideration of an “other-sided” understanding of Luther’s soteriology. In Christ Present in Faith, Tuomo Mannermaa articulates this other-side by asserting that Luther’s central conception of justification is not primarily located in legal terminology, but rather, in the imagery of a “happy exchange.”32 Hinlicky expounds upon this imagery and asserts that it is this exchange of the Christian’s sin and Christ’s righteousness that “provides the operative model in Luther’s mind of how the event of justification transpires in uniting the believer with Christ in His death and resurrection.”33 For Luther, this happy exchange presupposes that Christ serves a dual-role in the economy of salvation, both as God’s favor and God’s gift.34 Furthermore, Mannermaa asserts that for Luther, this justifying act was in continuity with sanctification, and that Christ ruling alongside the Holy Spirit is the primary agent making the Christian holy.35 Concerning this, Hinlicky notes that the conclusion of this event is that the Spirit “bonds the believer to Christ in time by faith, just as eternally He bonds the Son to the Father and the Father to the Son in love.”36

This is not the case for Melanchthon. Consider Article IV of the Augsburg Confession:And they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own abilities, merits or works, but are justified freely by Christ through faith, when they believe they have received it by grace, and that their sins are forgiven by Christ who in his death made satisfaction for our sins. God imputes this faith for righteousness in his sight.37

It is the final sentence of the above passage, containing the term “imputes,” which is particularly striking. Rogness rightly notes that Luther never favored this term, nor was it present in Melanchthon’s early writings. Yet, beginning with the Augsburg Confession this linguistic formula became the official description of justification in Lutheranism. According to Wilhelm Mauer, this new description meant that Melanchthon believed that justification was “not made at a joyful wedding; it is a legal transaction in which God rewards faith by imputing to it what still remains to fulfill the law—whereby God himself makes full satisfaction to the law.”38 This is a key development, as it is at odds with Luther’s strong belief that justification is primarily related to a believer’s unity with Christ.39

Melanchthon introduced the word, “forensic,” in the Formula of Concord, where he defined the phrase “to be justified” as an agent being “pronounced righteous in a forensic way.”40 Hinlicky notes that this statement, alongside many others made by Melanchthon, includes “no personal encounter with Christ (one encounters a report about Christ)” nor “any public work of the Holy Spirit to supply justifying faith to the stricken sinner.”41 Here, Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification coheres with his deemphasis of the Trinity. For Melanchthon, it is not the person of Christ that is primary in justification, but rather the work of Christ and its benefits for the Christian. This differs from Luther who believes that both Christ “as a person in us” and the work of Christ are central to a Christian’s justification.42 This same divergence exists in articulating the role of the Holy Spirit. Prenter explicates that Luther prioritizes both the person and the work of the Spirit as really present in the justified agent,43 whereas Melanchthon prioritizes neither—as Hinlicky bluntly states, “this legal transaction is to all appearances also Spirit-less.”44

The Philosopher-Theologian: Finding Luther in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

In Paths not Taken, Hinlicky posits that the slow disappearance of the Holy Spirit in Lutheranism (here understood as primarily shaped by Melanchthon’s theology) was due to the rise of a “general pneumatology.”45 Ephraim Radner suggests that this tendency toward a general pneumatology is the result of a pneumatological expansionism which occurred during the early-modern period and resulted in disparate, vaguely pneumatized outlooks within disciplines ranging from metaphysics to physical sciences to history.46 Though Hegel likely falls both within Hinlicky’s category of “general pneumatology” and Radner’s portrayal of “pneumatological expansionism,” he differs from predecessors such as Gottfried W. Leibniz47 in one key respect—while philosophers such as Leibniz drew from the Lutheran tradition at-large, Hegel was directly influenced by Luther’s writings alone. Indeed, there is a discernible difference in how pneumatology is incorporated within the grand philosophical system of Hegel, even to the extent that the Spirit undergirds his entire corpus. In this regard, it can be persuasively argued that he was an ardent disciple of Luther.

Karl Barth once proclaimed that though Hegel was known primarily as a philosopher, his foremost desire was theological: to be the Protestant Aquinas.48 This claim is echoed by Robert C. Solomon who states that Hegel’s “Christian ambitions, however unorthodox, [are] the very heart of his philosophy.”49 This is readily evident in the breadth of Hegel’s engagement with Geist, a concept informing his metaphysics, understanding of history, conception of human progress, and, implicitly, his entire philosophical outlook. It is most comprehensively delineated in Phänomenologie des Geistes, and Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion (VPR).50 Though Geist is understood differently in these two works, the importance of Hegel vis-à-vis this essay is his explicit affinity for Luther’s pneumatology. In this regard, Hegel believed that he was “more Lutheran than Lutherans,” insofar as he believed that Lutheranism had “become a pale reflection of its former self, especially with respect to the power of the Spirit undergirding Luther’s passionate and imaginative theological assertions.”51 To this end, Alan M. Olson posits that Hegel had an “instinctive appreciation of Luther’s dialectical conception of the Holy Spirit,”52 from which he structured his own pneumatology. Hence, J.M. Fritzman rightly characterizes Hegel’s theological-philosophy as “largely a radicalization of Luther’s.”53

At this juncture, one might ask: what pneumatological commonalities with Luther can be observed in Hegel? At least three exist: (1) the priority of the Holy Spirit in elucidating the Trinity; (2) an emphasis placed upon the linguistic mediation of the Spirit; and (3) the “incarnational” aspect of Luther’s pneumatology as it relates to personal and communal unity with God. Concerning the first item, it was previously noted that Luther inverted the order of the Trinity in his Large Catechism to mirror the experience of the believer. As a reader of Luther, Hegel extended this inversion and speculatively reimagined his Trinitarian framework “from the concept of God as Spirit.”54 This is evident in his 1821 manuscript of VPR, where he states that “God is spirit—that which we call the triune God.”55 This pneumatological priority is noteworthy, as similar to Luther, the Trinity is central to Hegel’s worldview. In fact, Dale Schlitt argues that without the doctrine of the Trinity, Hegel’s categories of history of the world, principle of freedom, and true religion all cease to be coherent.56 Though there is some uncertainty as to how far Hegel removes the notion of personhood from the Trinity,57 and for that matter, “being” itself from the Trinity,58 Olson aptly notes that Luther’s catechetical instruction was highly formative for Hegel, both for his doctrine of the Trinity and his philosophical corpus as a whole.59

Second, Luther’s insistence on the Spirit’s mediation of Christ through the preached Word is reworked in Hegel’s emphasis on the linguistic mediation of Geist.60 This is most readily observed in First Philosophy of Spirit, where Hegel asserts that “language is the first and primary manifestation (or potency, as he puts it, emulating Schelling) of Spirit separating itself from ‘air’ as its primal element and positing itself as speech.”61 This emphasis of both Hegel and Luther may be contrasted with Melanchthon’s understanding of the spoken word as primarily testifying to salvific work—a linkage which Powell claims “did not loom large in Hegel’s thought.”62 As a note, Hegel’s (and Luther’s) emphasis on the Spirit’s linguistic mediation will be revisited when discussing Karl Rahner.

Third, Luther’s parallel of God in Christ with the Holy Spirit in the Christian—V-M. Kärkkäinen’s posited “incarnational” language in Luther’s pneumatology—is incorporated into Hegel’s expansive panentheism63 Unlike Luther, Hegel articulates Geist (and God) as not a Creator apart from the creation, but rather, a substance permeating the created order.64 This extensive presence of Geist extends to human individuals in history via the historical event of the Incarnation. For Hegel, the unification of the divine and human in the historical Jesus de-particularized the incarnation (and the Holy Spirit), and thus, universalized both the possibility of unification of these natures and the Incarnation itself for all human agents.65 Although the notion of Hegel’s universal incarnation would be anathema to Luther, Hegel’s emphasis on unity with the Divine certainly resembles both the mystical language present in Luther’s early writings and Mannermaa’s Finnish interpretation of Luther. Moreover, other assertions of Hegel regarding the Incarnation event, such as it being the moment of God’s self-revelation,66 are exactly in tandem with Luther’s positions. Evidence of Hegel’s close-reading of Luther’s “unity language” is also apparent in his description of communal unity, where he posits—in agreement with Luther—that the mark of the hurch is the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the gathered community.”67 Additionally, Hegel borrowed Luther’s understanding of the Spirit’s work as the Agent who “calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies” the Body of Christ.68 For all of the above reasons, in some strange way, Hegel was as he claimed to be, “more Lutheran than Lutherans.”

Several decades after Hegel (1770–1831), an extraordinary pneumatologically-shaped historical development arose in the work and theology of Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (1904–1984). What was extraordinary was not merely the novel content of Rahner’s theology. Instead, the adage of fashion (or history!) repeating itself every so often was transposed to the sphere of theology and manifestly exhibited in modern Catholic theology. Perhaps stranger than Hegel’s “Lutheran-ness,” the pneumatology of the rabble-rouser Luther—an individual who casually called the Pope the “Antichrist”—heavily influenced Rahner’s theology due to his appropriation of Hegelian philosophy. It is to this striking development that we now turn.

Lutheran Hegelianism in Karl Rahner

Rahner’s theological career could have ended before it started when he failed to defend his first dissertation (Geist in Welt) in 1936.69 But Rahner, despite that initial difficulty, went on to produce a staggering literary output. He also made immense contributions to Vatican II, and concretized his legacy as the foremost Catholic theologian of the twentieth century.70 Relevant to this essay, Rahner marked a decisive shift in theological scholarship as he sought to recapture the centrality of Trinitarian concerns in popular discourse. Like Luther, Rahner’s Trinitarian framework undergirded his theological program, yet unlike Luther, he spent extensive time explicitly articulating this framework via logic and speculative philosophy. Indeed, outside of Catholic circles, he is best known for a statement known as Rahner’s Rule: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”71 His Trinitarian commitments are most clearly delineated in The Trinity and Foundations of the Christian Faith. However, most of his corpus engages the Trinity and does so in a manner bearing a striking resemblance to what may be called “Lutheran Hegelianism.” This kinship is so evident that Olson argues that Rahner’s masterworks are inconceivable apart from Hegel’s influence.72

Aside from Trinitarian commitments, there are three additional commonalities between Rahner and Lutheran Hegelianism: (1) a healthy Christology that supports a robust pneumatology; (2) an emphasis on the linguistic mediation of the Spirit; and (3) the universalization of the Spirit. Concerning the first item, one must examine Rahner’s doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically, Rahner refers to the Trinity as the “self-communicating” God. In this conception of the Trinity, the Father serves as the eternal “mystery of God,” while both the Son and the Spirit serve as the one communication of God.73 One important note: though the Trinity is the framework of Rahner’s theology, it is the Incarnation that serves as its historical referent. Hence, the notion of one Divine communication is interesting, as Rahner insists that it is only the Son who participated in the Incarnation event.74 Yet, Rahner concomitantly argues that the Spirit is inextricably united with this communicative act. This union is due to his presupposition that it is the Spirit Himself who brings about acceptance of the appearance of Christ.75 Hence, Rahner—alongside Luther and Hegel—believes that it is the Spirit who guides and communicates with humankind, both about God’s being and God’s will.76

As observed with Luther, Rahner’s healthy Christology undergirds a robust pneumatological presentation. For Rahner, this is both possible and necessary due to his equating of the immanent and economical Trinities with one another. Based upon this equivalence, he postulates four Trinitarian acts of communication—Origin/Future, History/Transcendence, Invitation/Acceptance, and Knowledge/Love—that equally elucidate the single (and equal) mission of the Son and Spirit in their mission of declaring the unique God.77 Interestingly, Rahner (like Hegel) understood the Trinity as “a single movement of divine subjectivity” from initial self (in the Father) to recognition and realization of that self through the act of communication (in the Son and Spirit).78 In other words, both in his Trinitarian and Christological commitments, Rahner is squarely situated within Lutheran Hegelianism.

Secondly, as evident above, communication and language play a central role in Rahner’s theology. This is because Rahner—like Luther and Hegel—believed that the mediation of the Spirit occurs linguistically. Of supreme import, this emphasis is explicitly due to Rahner’s direct reading of Luther, where he shrewdly notes Luther’s pneumatology and concept of faith as linguistic, that is, as word-act.79 That said, Rahner departs from Luther (yet remains well-within Hegel’s “radicalization” of Luther) by arguing that the Spirit is not limited to these mediatorial channels. Rather, he claims that the Spirit is universally present and active amongst Christians and non-Christians alike.

Like Hegel, Rahner envisions a universal Spirit that permeates the created order. For Rahner, the one communication act of God occurs on two levels: the presence of the Spirit on the “transcendental” level and the presence of Jesus Christ on the “categorical level.” Of these two levels, Rahner prioritizes the transcendental.80 For Rahner, this transcendental aspect of the Spirit is understood by humankind as grace. Like Hegel, he believes that this grace orients all humans toward God. Thus, he asserts that “the world is drawn to its spiritual fulfillment by the Spirit of God, who directs the whole history of the world in all its length and breadth toward its proper goal”81 V-M.Kärkkäinen notes that it is from this expansive pneumatology that Rahner derives another theological commitment: that of the “anonymous Christian.” For Rahner, the Spirit is efficacious in all religions, albeit to varying degrees. Thus, persons who are aimed toward the transcendent grace of God may be “justified by God’s grace and possess the Holy Spirit82” without faith. This understanding of the Spirit as present in world religions throughout history is classically Hegelian,83 as is the Spirit’s “incarnational” action within the Christian and non-Christian alike.

Conclusion: Areas FOR Future Research and Items for Present Reflection

Where does this exploration leave us? As a cursory study, the above proposition likely created more questions than concrete answers or practical solutions. Additionally, it should be noted that many of the claims regarding these interlocutors are contested; thus, this chapter lays one additional claim upon all of them. Nevertheless, it should be readily evident that at least two divergent pneumatological streams exist in ‘Lutheran’ thought—one found in Luther’s writings and another espoused by Melanchthon and his later followers. In this chapter, a rudimentary outline of the first stream was presented: that is, one extending from Luther’s robust pneumatology through Hegel’s expansion and radicalization; and another to Rahner’s universalization and appropriation of Lutheran Hegelianism in Catholic thought.

Luther, the progenitor of this pneumatological lineage, was a Christocentric, Trinitarian theologian who prioritized the personhood and presence of the Holy Spirit in his theology. It was argued that three major items supported his robust pneumatological framework: (1) he tied the person and work of Christ directly to the testimony of the Spirit, (2) he prioritized the linguistic mediation of the Spirit, and (3) he posited that justification was based upon the Spirit’s unity with the believer instead of being a mere legal transaction. Though Mannermaa has often been credited with retrieving Luther’s pneumatological focus, this chapter traced this ‘retrieval’ back to the philosophical theology of Hegel, an individual who considered himself “more Lutheran than Lutherans,” and, as a result, unearthed this predilection of Luther’s decades earlier. Indeed, Hegel retained Luther’s linguistic mediation, prioritization of the Spirit, and “unity” language. In this sense, one can say that he “radicalized” and expanded Luther’s pneumatology to encompass the structures of the Trinity, human history, and universal metaphysics. Broaching Protestant bounds, this stream expanded into Rahner’s transcendental theology. Like Luther, Rahner retained the personhood of the Spirit in tandem with a strong Christology. Like Hegel, Rahner universalized the Spirit as present and active amongst Christians and non-Christians alike. In consonance with both Luther and Hegel, Rahner affirmed both the linguistic aspect of pneumatological mediation and the unity of the Spirit with/within Christians.

This essay also examined several divergences from Luther that were present in the theology of Melanchthon. These included a weak Trinitarian framework, a neglect of the personhoods of both Christ and the Spirit, and a primarily legalistic formulation of the doctrine of justification. Though space limited the possibility of examining persons within this Melanchthonian stream, future research endeavors should pursue this fruitful line of inquiry—it will likely unearth surprising theological consequences in areas ranging from ecclesiology to eschatology. As previously mentioned, it has been argued that Melanchthon’s divergence from Luther’s robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the early-modern theological shift toward a “general pneumatology.” Hinlicky contends that the most prominent philosopher-theologian to inherit this problematic pneumatological paradigm was Leibniz—a claim that is not without warrant. In Law and Protestantism, John Witte Jr. sheds light on a shared Platonic tendency in the theology of Melanchthon and Leibniz (a tendency that places both of them at-odds with Hegelian idealism). One of Witte’s starkest examples is a quotation from Corpus Reformatorum, wherein Melanchthon asserts that God as the “light of lights” has implanted his divine wisdom in all humans, with this knowledge differing only in quantity.84 This same thought (and near-identical verbiage) is articulated in Leibniz’s Theodicy: “This portion of reason which we possess is a gift of God, and consists in the natural light that has remained with us in the midst of corruption; thus, it is in accordance with the whole, and it differs from that which is in God only as a drop of water differs from the ocean.”85 Due both to their shared philosophical underpinnings and other commonalities (such as their weak Trinitarian formulations), Powell proclaims that Leibniz was squarely situated within Melanchthonian Protestantism.86 Tracing the Melanchthonian pneumatological stream beyond Leibniz, one may also investigate the pneumatology of prominent twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth, whom Hinlicky argues “appropriated the sequenced scheme of ‘imputative justification—effective sanctification’, that, following Melanchthon, became normative also for the Reformed tradition.”87 In fact, though Barth’s theology is explicitly Trinitarian and anti-Platonic, his retention of a Melanchthonian view of justification led him to de-emphasize the Spirit in a manner wholly consistent with what may be considered “general pneumatology.”

Regarding this tendency, Theodora Hawkley underscores Barth’s understanding of the Cross as the “decisive end of history,” which in turn diminishes the present role of the Spirit.88 Joseph L. Mangina similarly notes that Barth’s pneumatology only allows the Spirit to “appear as a predicate of Christ’s reconciling work, a manifestation of the latter rather than an agency of its [sic] own.”89 For these reasons, Hawkley rightly concludes that for Barth (as well as for Melanchthon and Leibniz), “the Spirit ceases to be a salvific entity in its [sic] own right.”90

Despite his generalizing tendencies, Barth once called pneumatology “the future of Christian theology.” In saying so, he joined many others such as Eastern Orthodox theologian Nikolay Berdayev who proclaimed that pneumatology is “the last unexplored theological frontier.”91 In agreement with such luminaries, the broadest purpose of this chapter was to explore this future, this unexplored frontier; whether this was done successfully or not is another matter. To do so, an inchoate articulation of a posited pneumatological stream—admittedly elementary—was offered to serve as an entry-point for readers to consider what theological commitments and metaphysical outlooks may be necessary to support a robust pneumatology. However, this is not merely an academic exercise. My hope is that a reinvigorated theology of the Holy Spirit may offer a more successful approach to some of the exigent issues of the present era, such as the increasing interest in ‘mystical’ or ‘inward’ spirituality against traditional Christendom; the growth of third-world Christianity (bolstered largely by Pentecostalism) in contrast to decreasing numbers in the West; and the desire for ecclesial unity to address the visible brokenness of the Body of Christ. These issues (and many more) provide a practical impetus and rationale for this study.

This chapter does not claim that the ‘fruits’ of the Luther-Hegel-Rahner pneumatological stream are entirely positive or biblically sound; nor does it claim that the above crises may only be remedied within a pneumatological sphere. I believe that troubling theological developments occurred within this stream, and thus, Iam apprehensive to offer this pneumatological stream (at least, in its portions that are untethered from Scripture) as a panacea for all ills of the present Christian faith, whether related to praxis or doctrinal concerns.

Additionally, one might argue that the Melanchthonian theological stream, with its resultant “general pneumatology,” is not so different from the stream originating with Luther that results in the “universalized pneumatology” of Hegel and Rahner. Yet, I contend that there is a key difference. Within the latter pneumatological stream there is an implicit honor, dignity, and priority assigned to the Holy Spirit, with a strong impulse to secure his personhood; indeed, a central focus that saves the Spirit from becoming theos agraptos—the God about whom no one writes—or whom V-M. Kärkkäinen playfully terms the “Cinderella of the Trinity; when the two other ‘sisters’ went to the ball, Cinderella was left at home.”92 If only for this reason, the robustly pneumatological stream of Luther-Hegel-Rahner is worthy of consideration and careful study.

Lastly, this chapter should not be viewed as an attempt to castigate or discredit the theological contributions of Melanchthon, nor should it be used as a vehicle to transform him into the “whipping boy” of all Reformation or Lutheran maladies.93 Rather, it aims to delineate common theological elements that have undergirded a robust pneumatology across denominational and philosophical frameworks. Moreover, within the context of this collection of essays, this chapter serves to elucidate the expansive effects of the Reformation’s legacy—spanning well beyond Protestantism to idealist philosophy and modern Catholic thought. Most important, a final description of this chapter is that it aims to function as a hortatory: a desperate call both to scholars and to faithful Christians to reflect upon how their theological commitments can be brought into dialogue with the ecclesial realities of the twenty-first century, a period oft-called the “post-Christian era.”

Five centuries have passed since Luther penned and subsequently nailed 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg. Yet, we remain tethered to our earthly existence. Hence, all Christians must consider the following questions: If the Lord were to delay His return for additional time, what forces will be shaping future generations of Christians? Will the Reformation be a mere footnote in history? Will the Christian faith be assimilated into secular, political, or ideological arenas? Or will a future class of theologians hold Reformation 600, 700, or 1000 conferences, all proclaiming a robust and faithful presentation of the mysteries bequeathed to all Christians once and for all? Though perhaps speculative, it appears to me that the path from our present-day ambiguities to such future certainties (at least, the certainty that the future will soon become our present reality!) is necessarily bound up with the espousal of the Holy Spirit as the gathering, renewing, and sanctifying Divine Person. With this in mind, I humbly ask each reader to allow the Spirit to flow as rivers of living water (John 7:38), both personally and theologically—as that water will continue to do in the New Jerusalem for eternity (Rev 22:1).

Bibliography

Bradley, Denis J M. “Rahner’s ‘Spirit in the World’: Aquinas or Hegel?’ The Thomist 41 (1977) 167–99.

Burke, Patrick. Reinterpreting Rahner: A Critical Study of His Major Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002.

De Nys, Martin J. Hegel and Theology. Philosophy and Theology. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009.

Fritzman, J.M. Hegel. PCTS–Polity Classic Thinkers. Cambridge: Polity, 2014.

Hawksley, Theodora. “The Freedom of the Spirit: The Pneumatological Point of Barth’s Ecclesiological Minimalism.” Scottish Journal of Theology 64 (2011) 180–94.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Freidrich. Phänomenologie Des Geistes. Norderstedt: Verlag Der Wissenschaften, 2015.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Edited by Walter Jaeschke. Hamburg: Meiner, 1993.

Hinlicky, Paul R. Paths not Taken: Fates of Theology from Luther through Leibniz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Hodgson, Peter Crafts. Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Jamros, Daniel P. 1995. “Hegel on the Incarnation: Unique or Universal?” Theological Studies 56 (1995) 276–300.

Kärkkäinen, Pekka. Luther’s trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes. Mainz: von Zabern, 2005.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

__________. “The Holy Spirit and Justification: The Ecumenical Significance of Luther’s Doctrine of Salvation.” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society of Pentecostal Studies 24 (2002) 26–39.

__________. “Karl Barth and the Theology of Religions.” In Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, edited by Sung Wook Chung, 236–57. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Holzer, Vincent. “Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Twentieth-Century Catholic Currents on the Trinity.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 314–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Leibniz, Gottfried W. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. Edited by Austin Farrer. Translated by E. M. Huggard. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985.

Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Large Catechism (1530). https://www.creeds.net/lutheran/luther_large.htm.

———. “The Three Symbols or Creeds of the Christian Faith” In The Practice of Theology: A Reader, edited by Colin E. Gunton, et. al., 130–132. London: SCM Press, 2001.

Mangina, Joseph L. “Bearing the Marks of Jesus: The Church in the Economy of Salvation in Barth and Hauerwas.” Scottish Journal of Theology 52 (1999) 269–305.

Mannermaa, Tuomo. Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification. Edited by Kirsi Irmeli Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.

Manschreck, Clyde Leonard. Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958.

Maurer, Wilhelm. Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession. Translated by H. George Anderson. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Melanchthon, Philipp. A Melanchthon Reader. Translated by Ralph Keen. New York: P. Lang, 1988.

———. The Chief Theological Topics: Loci Praecipui Theologici 1559. Translated by Jacob A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia, 2011.

Olson, Alan M. Hegel and the Spirit: Philosophy as Pneumatology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Paulson, Steve. “Luther’s Doctrine of God.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, edited by Robert Kolb et al., 187–200. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Pearl, Thomas. “Dialectical Panentheism: on the Hegelian Character of Karl Rahner’s Key Christological Writings.” Irish Theological Quarterly 42 (1975) 119–37

Peterson, Rodney L. Preaching in the Last Days: The Theme of Two Witnesses in the 16th and 17th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Powell, Samuel M. The Trinity in German Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Prenter, Regin. Spiritus Creator. Translated by John M. Jensen. Philadelphia: Muhlen-berg, 1953.

Radner, Ephraim. “The Holy Spirit and Unity: Getting out of the Way of Christ.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16 (2014) 207–20.

Regan, Cyril O. “The Trinity in Kant, Hegel, and Schelling.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 254–66. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Richard, James William. Philip Melanchthon: The Protestant preceptor of Germany, 1497–1560. Miami, FL: HardPress Publishing, 2013.

Rogness, Michael. Philip Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor. Minneapolis: Augs-burg, 1969.

Saarinen, Risto. “Justification by Faith: The View of the Mannermaa School.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, edited by Robert Kolb et al., 254–63. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Schlitt, Dale M. German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy. Albany: SUNY Press, State University of New York Press, 2016.

Solomon, Robert C. In the Spirit of Hegel: A Study of G.W.F. Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit.” New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Swain, Scott R. “The Trinity in the Reformers.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering, 228–39. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Wengert, Timothy J. Martin Luther’s Catechisms: Forming the Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Williamson, Raymond Keith. An Introduction to Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion. SUNY Series in Hegelian Studies. Albany, NY: SUNY, 1984.

Witte, John, Jr. Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

1. For further reading, see Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith, passim.

2. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 85.

3. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 154.

4. Rogness, Philip Melanchthon, 2–7.

5. Peterson, Preaching in the Last Days, 103; Manschreck, Melanchthon, 54.

6. Powell, The Trinity in German Thought, 147.

7. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 156. Here Hinlicky asserts that the items used to describe “genuine Luther-theology” are in fact developments in Melanchthon’s theology.

8. Paulson, “Luther’s Doctrine of God,” 187.

9. Luther, The Practice of Theology, 130–31.

10. Swain, “The Trinity in the Reformers,” 228.

11. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 80; cf. Lohse, Martin Luther, 232.

12. Prenter, Spiritus Creator, ix.

13. Wengert, Martin Luther’s Catechisms, 43–44.

14. Saarinen, “Justification by Faith: The View of the Mannermaa School,” 257.

15. Pekka Kärkkäinen, Luther’s trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes, 102–12.

16. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 80–87; cf. Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 234–35.

17. The “and” here is key to differentiating Luther from Melanchthon—i.e., Luther’s dual-emphases on the Person and work of Christ. Kärkkäinen, “The Holy Spirit and Justification,” 32.

18. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 81, 84–85

19. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 85.

20. Swain, “The Trinity in the Reformers,” 228.

21. Powell, The Trinity in German Thought, 16.

22. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy, 198.

23. Melanchthon, The Chief Theological Topics: Loci Praecipui Theologici 1559, 10.

24. Powell, The Trinity in German Thought, 6.

25. Rogness, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 80.

26. Rogness, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 62.

27. Melanchthon, Loci Praecipui Theologici, 17–39.

28. Melanchthon, Augsburg Confession, 100.

29. Rogness, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 79–80.

30. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 149.

31. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 85.

32. Mannermaa, Christ Present, 17.

33. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 146.

34. Mannermaa, Christ Present, 19.

35. Mannermaa, Christ Present, 53.

36. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 148.

37. Melanchthon, Augsburg Confession, 101.

38. Maurer, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession, 343.

39. Rogness, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 113.

40. Rogness, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 112.

41. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 149.

42. Rognass, Melanchthon: Reformer without Honor, 63.

43. Prenter, Spiritus Creator, 31–65.

44. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 148.

45. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 177.

46. Radner, “The Holy Spirit and Unity,” 1 n.1.

47. Leibniz is mentioned in the conclusion as a philosopher who inherited the theological tendencies of Melanchthon.

48. Solomon, In the Spirit of Hegel, 62.

49. Solomon, In the Spirit of Hegel, 62

50. Hegel, Phänomenologie Des Geistes, passim; Hegel, Vorlesungen Über die Philosophie Der Religion, passim.

51. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 155.

52. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 155.

53. Fritzman, Hegel, 23.

54. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 60.

55. Williamson, An Introduction to Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion, 293.

56. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy, 23–24.

57. O’Regan asserts that “Hegel’s Trinitarianism is not tri-personal” (“Kant, Hegel, Schelling,” 260–61).

58. Powell notes that “it is necessary to use quotation marks with ‘being’ because. . .God is not, according to Hegel, a being” (The Trinity in German Thought, 120–134).

59. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 15–16, 41.

60. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 83–85. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 10.

61. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 33.

62. Powell, The Trinity in German thought, 139.

63. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 85.

64. Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology, 129.

65. This is a contested point; see Jamros “Hegel on the Incarnation,” 167–199. Also, see Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 60.

66. Fritzman, Hegel 134.

67. De Nys, Hegel and Theology, 110.

68. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 127.

69. For further reading see Pearl “Dialectical Panentheism,” 119–37, and Bradley, “Rahner’s Spirit in the World: Aquinas or Hegel?,” 167–99.

70. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian legacy, 125; Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 111.

71. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian legacy, 129.

72. These ‘masterworks’ particularly refer to Geist in Welt and Hörer de Worts; see Olson, Hegel 201.

73. Holzer, “Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Twentieth-Century Catholic Currents on the Trinity,” 321.

74. Burke, Reinterpreting Rahner, 80–81.

75. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy, 131.

76. Burke, Reinterpreting Rahner, 81.

77. Burke, Reinterpreting Rahner, 81–82.

78. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy, 145; cf. 139–140.

79. Olson, Hegel and the Spirit, 203.

80. Schlitt, German Idealism’s Trinitarian Legacy, 128.

81. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology 116; cf. Rahner, “The One Christ and Universality of Salvation,” 203.

82. Rahner, “Jesus Christ in the non-Christian Religions,” 43.

83. E.g. Vorlesungen Über die Philosophie Der Religion which posits that successive religions increasingly revealed a single truth.

84. Witte Jr., Law and Protestantism, 123–124.

85. Leibniz, Theodicy, 107.

86. Powell, The Trinity in German Thought, 46.

87. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 128.

88. Hawksley, “The Freedom of the Spirit,” 182.

89. Mangina, “Bearing the Marks of Jesus,” 270.

90. Hawksley, “The Freedom of the Spirit,” 183. Attention is called to the non-personal pronoun of “its” rather than “his.”

91. Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology 13.

92. Theos agraptos is originally a term coined by Gregory of Nazianzus; Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology 16.

93. Hinlicky, Paths not Taken, 154–155.