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

The fourth difference is about the meaning of sacrifice. The theme of sacrifice is central in Christology, but it is difficult to trace in pneumatology. Taking a closer look at the work of the Spirit, however, will make one see that sacrifice and reconciliation can pneumatologically be found in the moments of fellowship in all dimensions of Christian life. The fifth difference addresses the once-and-for-all nature of Christ’s work which is distinctive from that of the Spirit. The Spirit’s outpouring can be seen as a decisive event, but the Spirit’s presence in creation is an ongoing reality. The sixth difference in the structures of Christology and pneumatology is that the Spirit inhabits creation, while this cannot be said about Christ. God dwells in human beings in the Spirit, but not in Christ. Van Ruler (Van Ruler 1947:185; see also Janssen 2005:74) understands the work of the Spirit as more broad-ranging and more inclusive than that of Christ, so that it can be said that the Spirit is the One who expands into the full plurality of the created order. In this sense, the difference between Christ and the Spirit is located in the notion of plurality, because plurality is at the heart of the Spirit’s work. In the Spirit, there are multiple ways and different manifestations of God’s salvation (2011 [1957a]:309). The seventh difference in the structures of Christology and pneumatology that Van Ruler identifies is that the inhabitation of the Spirit is a matter of conflict, stretching over the span of a person’s life-history. It is a struggle in which a person can resist, grieve and quench the work of the Holy Spirit. The eighth difference is that the work of the Spirit includes the mingling of the old and the new in a person’s life. The Spirit touches a person, and changes his or her existence. The implication is that something is happening: God’s grace is infused (gratia infusa) in the believer, and the believer receives the gifts of grace (charismata). This new dimension of divine grace in human life belongs to the work of the Spirit, and can never be related to the work of Christ, for it would be a heresy to suggest a mingling of God’s being and human nature (2011 [1961b]:379). The ninth, and final, difference is that within Christology the work of Christ can be characterized as complete and perfect, while this terminology cannot be included in pneumatology. The Spirit is at work, but creation is not yet perfected. The work of the Spirit should rather be characterized in terms of continuation. 178

The significance of Van Ruler’s approach to a relatively independent pneumatology is two-fold. In the first place, Van Ruler’s pneumatology emphasizes the full Trinitarian nature of Van Ruler’s theology. God is Trinitarian, because God reveals God’s self in Christ and in the Spirit in such a way that the work of the Spirit is not ‘absorbed’ by Christology. Secondly, the clear distinction between the Spirit and Christ emphasizes the importance of creation in Van Ruler’s theology. The work of the Spirit is to contribute to full creatureliness, that is the purpose of creation, whereby the Spirit enables the human to be human before God (Janssen 2005:77). Van der Kooi (2009:54f) concludes that Van Ruler’s relatively independent pneumatology is of great significance for a Christian perspective on culture and history, because it implies that God’s Spirit is at work in the present time, drawing God’s reign closer into our daily life. Van Ruler briefly mentions the gifts of the Spirit in his treatise on the work of the Holy Spirit (2011 [1957b]:351). He makes a distinction between particular, special gifts (such as healing, prophecy, and speaking in tongues) and the central gift of love. Van Ruler does not expand on the gift of healing, even though he says that the specific gifts of the Spirit should be taken seriously because these gifts reveal the excessive abundance of God (‘overstromende óvervloed’). He emphasizes that faith is also a gift of the Spirit, and elaborates on how the Spirit bends the will of a person by calling him or her in many different ways. This calling is the rebirth of the person, according to Van Ruler. In summary, Van Ruler’s pneumatology clearly differs from other Reformed approaches to the work of the Spirit. Refusing to go along with Barth’s Christocentric focus, Van Ruler identifies distinctive features of the Spirit’s efficacies. His model of differences in structure between the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit contributed to a Trinitarian balance. Van Ruler’s pneumatology is heavily defined by his positive view on creation. He believes that everything that the Spirit does, is aimed at the restoration of creation, so that creation will be even more beautiful than it was before. The final purpose of creation is theocracy, the indwelling of God in creation. This inhabitation is coming closer through the work of the Spirit, who approaches creation from this eschatological perspective. Van Ruler’s pneumatology implies that creation is an open, non-dualistic reality. 6.2.5 Jürgen Moltmann The Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann (1926) is widely characterized as one of the most productive and creative contemporary theologians (Meeks 1974:xiii; Bauckham 1987:1; Lorenzen 1996:304; Müller-Fahrenholz 2000:12; Wood 2000:5; Kärkkäinen 2002:125; Grenz 2004:73). Moltmann’s theology has guided many people into a new way of thinking, and he can 179

The significance <strong>of</strong> Van Ruler’s approach to a relatively <strong>in</strong>dependent pneumatology is two-fold.<br />

In <strong>the</strong> first place, Van Ruler’s pneumatology emphasizes <strong>the</strong> full Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian nature <strong>of</strong> Van<br />

Ruler’s <strong>the</strong>ology. God is Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian, because God reveals God’s self <strong>in</strong> Christ <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit <strong>in</strong><br />

such a way that <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit is not ‘absorbed’ by Christology. Secondly, <strong>the</strong> clear<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>the</strong> Spirit <strong>and</strong> Christ emphasizes <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> creation <strong>in</strong> Van Ruler’s<br />

<strong>the</strong>ology. The work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit is to contribute to full creaturel<strong>in</strong>ess, that is <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong><br />

creation, whereby <strong>the</strong> Spirit enables <strong>the</strong> human to be human before God (Janssen 2005:77). Van<br />

der Kooi (2009:54f) concludes that Van Ruler’s relatively <strong>in</strong>dependent pneumatology is <strong>of</strong> great<br />

significance for a Christian perspective on culture <strong>and</strong> history, because it implies that God’s<br />

Spirit is at work <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> present time, draw<strong>in</strong>g God’s reign closer <strong>in</strong>to our daily life.<br />

Van Ruler briefly mentions <strong>the</strong> gifts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit <strong>in</strong> his treatise on <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holy Spirit<br />

(2011 [1957b]:351). He makes a dist<strong>in</strong>ction between particular, special gifts (such as <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong>,<br />

prophecy, <strong>and</strong> speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> tongues) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> central gift <strong>of</strong> love. Van Ruler does not exp<strong>and</strong> on<br />

<strong>the</strong> gift <strong>of</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong>, even though he says that <strong>the</strong> specific gifts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit should be taken<br />

seriously because <strong>the</strong>se gifts reveal <strong>the</strong> excessive abundance <strong>of</strong> God (‘overstromende<br />

óvervloed’). He emphasizes that faith is also a gift <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit, <strong>and</strong> elaborates on how <strong>the</strong> Spirit<br />

bends <strong>the</strong> will <strong>of</strong> a person by call<strong>in</strong>g him or her <strong>in</strong> many different ways. This call<strong>in</strong>g is <strong>the</strong><br />

rebirth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Van Ruler.<br />

In summary, Van Ruler’s pneumatology clearly differs from o<strong>the</strong>r Reformed approaches to <strong>the</strong><br />

work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit. Refus<strong>in</strong>g to go along with Barth’s Christocentric focus, Van Ruler identifies<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ctive features <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit’s efficacies. His model <strong>of</strong> differences <strong>in</strong> structure between <strong>the</strong><br />

work <strong>of</strong> Christ <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit contributed to a Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian balance. Van Ruler’s<br />

pneumatology is heavily def<strong>in</strong>ed by his positive view on creation. He believes that everyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />

that <strong>the</strong> Spirit does, is aimed at <strong>the</strong> restoration <strong>of</strong> creation, so that creation will be even more<br />

beautiful than it was before. The f<strong>in</strong>al purpose <strong>of</strong> creation is <strong>the</strong>ocracy, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dwell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> God <strong>in</strong><br />

creation. This <strong>in</strong>habitation is com<strong>in</strong>g closer through <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit, who approaches<br />

creation from this eschatological perspective. Van Ruler’s pneumatology implies that creation is<br />

an open, non-dualistic reality.<br />

6.2.5 Jürgen Moltmann<br />

The Reformed <strong>the</strong>ologian Jürgen Moltmann (1926) is widely characterized as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most<br />

productive <strong>and</strong> creative contemporary <strong>the</strong>ologians (Meeks 1974:xiii; Bauckham 1987:1;<br />

Lorenzen 1996:304; Müller-Fahrenholz 2000:12; Wood 2000:5; Kärkkä<strong>in</strong>en 2002:125; Grenz<br />

2004:73). Moltmann’s <strong>the</strong>ology has guided many people <strong>in</strong>to a new way <strong>of</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> he can<br />

179

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!