Although [evangelical systematics] are written from a variety of different theological perspectives (Reformed, Wesleyan, Baptist, dispensationalist, charismatic, etc.) and arrive at strikingly different conclusions about issues of central importance in theology, on the question of method they are remarkably similar. For the most part these evangelical systematic theologies make use of a decidedly rationalist approach to theological method.160
Such an approach seems to look back to Charles Hodge, who derived his “propositional” approach from post-reformation Protestant orthodoxy and its rationalism. The Protestant reaction to the counter-reformation led second-generation reformers to adopt the methods of their adversaries, in essence trying to “prove the authority of the Bible using the same Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments which Roman Catholics used to prove the authority of the Church.”161 Thus, a significant shift in theological method occurred from the neo-platonic Augustinianism of Luther and Calvin to the neo-aristotelian-thomistism of their immediate followers—a shift that obviously led to a de-emphasis on the Spirit’s witness.
Whereas Schleiermacher neglects the Spirit’s inspiration of the Word, Henry reduces the need for the Spirit’s illumination of the Word. Such erroneous tendencies tend to neglect the history of theology as well as the Spirit’s role as teacher with respect to the Word of God and the historical Church. Ramm’s pattern of authority, once again, provides the needed balance:
If Christ has founded a Church and given it His word; if the Holy Spirit is the Teacher of the faithful; if the Church is “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); then every generation of Christian theologians must be prepared to take seriously the history of theology (broadly interpreted to include symbols, councils, theologians, treatises) as possessing manifestations of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.162
Ramm holds that “veracious authority” is spoken “not only of the one who possesses truth but also of one who aids in the determination of truth,” and makes a vital link between the Spirit and such an authority:
Here is the Spirit who is veracious within himself; and in his ministry he ministers the truth. . . . Here in the ministry of the Spirit is the ultimate credibility of the New Testament; here is the sufficient and necessary cause for the writing of the New Testament; here is the authority of the divine Scriptures traced to their executor; and here is the real source of our own inward certainty of the Christian faith. And the testimonium is an integral element in the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit.163
The veracious authority of the Spirit, therefore, is demonstrated in both the inspiration and illumination of Scripture. Since a person possesses veracious authority on a given subject when “he would be more likely to possess the truth about the subject than most other men,”164 we can extrapolate this principle to the omniscient Holy Spirit, inferring that the Spirit of God possesses ultimate veracious authority.
In the history of theology, our pattern of divine authority is repeatedly demonstrated in terms of adherence to a veracious authority granted to the Word of God by the veracious Spirit. The New Testament carries the authority which Jesus delegated to his apostles and which the Holy Spirit held over the inspired writers.
Here as elsewhere, the mode of delegation of authority in the New Testament is by the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who inspired the New Testament, it is the Spirit who witnesses to Christ in the heart, and it is the Spirit who quickens the heart to see the truth of God in the pages of the New Testament.165
While the Spirit’s veracious authority is primarily witnessed through inspiration and illumination, the Spirit may also grant secondary authority to theologians, Churches, persons, creeds, symbols, councils and treatises—but only for the purpose of Christ’s ministry and government. The quality of their work or words must be judged by its adherence to the pattern of authority. The Spirit, however, always retains primary veracious authority that cannot be equated with any of these mediums.
Postmodern and Contemporary Theology
Our study of the first four periods of theological history has allowed us to discern provisional definitions of the Spirit’s authority in relation to the Triune God (an authority over the world), to Christ (an authority to execute Christ’s will), and to the Scriptures (an authority to inspire and illuminate them). We have seen in Church history initial argumentation for the Spirit’s place in the “principle” and “pattern” of authority.
Now, as we survey postmodern and contemporary theology, we find that the concern in pneumatology shifts to the relation between the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of the Church. In searching for a renewal of the Spirit’s power in the Church, we find postmodern theology often proceeding from a different starting point than previous theologies. According to Bloesch, “Many theologies today encourage us to seek a doctrine of the Spirit ‘from below’—beginning with the impact of the Spirit in human life—rather than one ‘from above,’ in which we begin with the doctrine of the immanent Trinity.”166 Contemporary theology does not usually begin with transcendent ideas that the Church should adopt but with ideas that stem from the various needs of the Church. The question in this section is therefore, “Does the Holy Spirit possess authority in or over the Church?” In other words, does the Spirit function as governing authority within the Church, and if so, what is the nature of such an authority?
Perhaps the simplest definition of postmodernism is that philosophy which comes after modernism, usually as a response to the deficiencies of modernism. Postmodernists, of course, would remind us that there is no single postmodern philosophy or theology and that postmodernism is as varied as the responses themselves. What are some of the contemporary responses being given to “modern” understandings of pneumatology? To answer this, a brief survey and comparison of five “postmodern” theologians will be conducted in order to initially discern various contemporary understandings of the relationship between the Spirit and the Church. In doing so, however, we must keep a larger goal in mind. Since the ultimate goal of this entire work has to do with the recovery of a biblical conception of the Holy Spirit’s authority in and over the Church—one that might confront contemporary misconceptions of “Spirit”)—these five theologians should also be investigated for the purpose of further dialogue (and indeed will serve as such in chapters three and four)
Evangelical “Postmodern” Theologies of the Spirit
According to Veith, “One response to the end of modernism is to recover what was of value in the premodern era and to apply old worldviews in new creative ways to our contemporary times.”167 This seems to be the response of a few evangelical and Catholic theologians. A recent Catholic/Methodist joint summit, for example, observed that, “encouraging signs of the activity of the Holy Spirit” in the Church today include “a growing hunger for truth now clearly unsatisfied by the achievements and claims of science and technology.”168 They also see a revitalization of the Spirit’s role in the mediation of authority in the Church to be based on Scripture and Church history:
Christ’s authority is mediated through the Spirit, who is Love, and hence