spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

etd.uovs.ac.za
from etd.uovs.ac.za More from this publisher
23.06.2013 Views

functioning of it (Roozenboom 2007:178). Kuyper, following the apostle Paul closely, emphasizes that the charismata are linked to the ministry of the church. Kuyper calls these the official charismata, which are accompanied by the ordinary and the extraordinary charismata (1946:132). The official gifts empower the believers in the ministry of the Church performed by ministers, elders and deacons. The ordinary gifts, like faith and love, strengthen the gift of saving grace; they are the more energetic manifestations of what every believer possesses in the germ (Kuyper 1946:133). The extraordinary gifts are the purely spiritual charismata, working partly in the physical domain (like the charisma of self-restraint, and of the healing of the sick), and partly in the spiritual domain (like wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, and tongues and their interpretation). Of particular interest is Kuyper’s distinction between charismata that are still present within the church, and those gifts that are inactive. For example, when Kuyper (1946:133) mentions the gift of healing as “the glorious gift of healing the sick: not only those who suffer from nervous diseases and psychological ailments, who are more susceptible to spiritual influences, but also those whose diseases are wholly outside the spiritual realm”, he seems to embrace the possibility of physical healing through the gift of the Spirit within the Reformed church. Yet at the end of the chapter on spiritual gifts, Kuyper rejects the option of physical healing on the basis of the division between active and inactive workings of grace. Those gifts pertaining to healing that are still present within the church are the gifts that address healing of those who suffer from nervous and psychological diseases; “the others for the present are inactive” (1946:133). The suggestion is that the gift of physical healing might be operational again sometime in the future, but that the church did not experience that particular gift in Kuyper’s days. It can be said that he resisted a closed worldview that does not provide space for the Spirit to intervene in human life; yet he maintains the cessationist position that is a characteristic of Reformed church and theology. In summary, Kuyper’s pneumatology is framed by Trinitarian theology, and holds a very positive view on creation. Just like in Calvin’s pneumatology, creation is purposed and destined to bring glory to God. Creation is good, because it is called into existence by God, but creation needs to develop towards the final purpose. The Holy Spirit is the One who is involved in the sustenance and re-creation or perfection of creation. The Spirit is the Perfecter who elevates creation towards another level; this does not imply a form of realized eschatology, even though the consummation has suddenly been brought closer through the salvific work of the Spirit. Kuyper makes a clear distinction between the cosmic Spirit and the redemptive Spirit, but he also emphasizes that She is the same Spirit of God involved in creation and re-creation. Kuyper also makes a distinction between active and presently inactive gifts of the Spirit. The gift of 168

physical healing is such an inactive gift, which means that Kuyper supports the cessationist position. 6.2.3 Karl Barth Karl Barth’s crucial meaning for Reformed theology is undisputed. He was the leading Protestant theologian in the twentieth century, and all theologians who came after him had to relate to his theology in one way or the other (Webster 2000:1; Grenz 2004:34; Hardy 2005:39). One of Barth’s major contributions is the retrieval of a Trinitarian focus in Protestant theology: the doctrine of the Trinity is not a separate doctrine within his systematic approach, but the doctrine of the Trinity permeates and defines the whole of his theology. With the rediscovery and thorough development of the Trinitarian perspective, Barth places the doctrine of the Trinity on the (ecumenical) agenda again (Jenson 1989:47). Since then, there have been many publications in relation to Barth’s Trinitarian theology (see for example Habets & Tolliday 2011). Spirit and the Trinity Barth develops his doctrine of God along Trinitarian lines: the Trinitarian God discloses his identity on the basis of his revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. With his doctrine of the Trinity, Barth resists anthropological tendencies in church and modern Protestant theology, and his account of the relation of God with humanity is based on the idea that the self-revealing God is to be centralized. Barth does not want to start with human experience as knowledge about God, but with the God who has revealed himself to creation in his Word, in Jesus Christ, because only through this self-revelation of God is it possible for a human being to speak about God (Grenz 2004:35). Barth’s retrieval of the doctrine of the Trinity implies that his thought about the Holy Spirit is fully determined by the Trinitarian frame of his theology. He indicates that “the Father represents, as it were, the divine Who, the Son the divine What, and the Holy Spirit the divine How” (CD 1.2, 33). The core of God’s self-revelation is God the Son, who reveals the Father and reconciles sinful creation with the Father. This is the objective side of revelation. In contrast, the subjective side of revelation, the way in which a person receives faith, is the Holy Spirit: “This special element in revelation is undoubtedly identical with what the New Testament calls the Holy Spirit as the subjective side in the event of revelation” (CD 1.1, 449). The Spirit is the One who represents God in creation, and who makes man susceptible to God’s self-revelation. The Spirit is God himself, because the Spirit discloses God; the Spirit is “the concretization of what is shared between the Father and the Son” (Grenz 2004:46). According to Barth, God’s inner- 169

physical <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> is such an <strong>in</strong>active gift, which means that Kuyper supports <strong>the</strong> cessationist<br />

position.<br />

6.2.3 Karl Barth<br />

Karl Barth’s crucial mean<strong>in</strong>g for Reformed <strong>the</strong>ology is undisputed. He was <strong>the</strong> lead<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Protestant <strong>the</strong>ologian <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> twentieth century, <strong>and</strong> all <strong>the</strong>ologians who came after him had to<br />

relate to his <strong>the</strong>ology <strong>in</strong> one way or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r (Webster 2000:1; Grenz 2004:34; Hardy 2005:39).<br />

One <strong>of</strong> Barth’s major contributions is <strong>the</strong> retrieval <strong>of</strong> a Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian focus <strong>in</strong> Protestant <strong>the</strong>ology:<br />

<strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity is not a separate doctr<strong>in</strong>e with<strong>in</strong> his systematic approach, but <strong>the</strong><br />

doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity permeates <strong>and</strong> def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> his <strong>the</strong>ology. With <strong>the</strong> rediscovery<br />

<strong>and</strong> thorough development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian perspective, Barth places <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity<br />

on <strong>the</strong> (ecumenical) agenda aga<strong>in</strong> (Jenson 1989:47). S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong>re have been many<br />

publications <strong>in</strong> relation to Barth’s Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian <strong>the</strong>ology (see for example Habets & Tolliday<br />

2011).<br />

Spirit <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity<br />

Barth develops his doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> God along Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian l<strong>in</strong>es: <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian God discloses his<br />

identity on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> his revelation as Fa<strong>the</strong>r, Son <strong>and</strong> Holy Spirit. With his doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Tr<strong>in</strong>ity, Barth resists anthropological tendencies <strong>in</strong> church <strong>and</strong> modern Protestant <strong>the</strong>ology, <strong>and</strong><br />

his account <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relation <strong>of</strong> God with humanity is based on <strong>the</strong> idea that <strong>the</strong> self-reveal<strong>in</strong>g God<br />

is to be centralized. Barth does not want to start with human experience as knowledge about<br />

God, but with <strong>the</strong> God who has revealed himself to creation <strong>in</strong> his Word, <strong>in</strong> Jesus Christ, because<br />

only through this self-revelation <strong>of</strong> God is it possible for a human be<strong>in</strong>g to speak about God<br />

(Grenz 2004:35).<br />

Barth’s retrieval <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>ity implies that his thought about <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit is<br />

fully determ<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian frame <strong>of</strong> his <strong>the</strong>ology. He <strong>in</strong>dicates that “<strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r<br />

represents, as it were, <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e Who, <strong>the</strong> Son <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e What, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

How” (CD 1.2, 33). The core <strong>of</strong> God’s self-revelation is God <strong>the</strong> Son, who reveals <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong><br />

reconciles s<strong>in</strong>ful creation with <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r. This is <strong>the</strong> objective side <strong>of</strong> revelation. In contrast, <strong>the</strong><br />

subjective side <strong>of</strong> revelation, <strong>the</strong> way <strong>in</strong> which a person receives faith, is <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit: “This<br />

special element <strong>in</strong> revelation is undoubtedly identical with what <strong>the</strong> New Testament calls <strong>the</strong><br />

Holy Spirit as <strong>the</strong> subjective side <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> revelation” (CD 1.1, 449). The Spirit is <strong>the</strong> One<br />

who represents God <strong>in</strong> creation, <strong>and</strong> who makes man susceptible to God’s self-revelation. The<br />

Spirit is God himself, because <strong>the</strong> Spirit discloses God; <strong>the</strong> Spirit is “<strong>the</strong> concretization <strong>of</strong> what is<br />

shared between <strong>the</strong> Fa<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Son” (Grenz 2004:46). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Barth, God’s <strong>in</strong>ner-<br />

169

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!