AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: THE "MISSING LINK" IN OUR CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF DIVINE AUTHORITY?, THE

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Studebaker, John A Jr

In evaluating the theological strengths and weaknesses of these two positions, the logic of Augustinian thought regarding procession (and particularly with respect to Augustine's conception of "relational opposition") seems fairly convincing. We can deduce that the authority of the Son and the authority of the Spirit can only be distinguished and understood to be non-conflictory if the Spirit is "under" the authority of Christ. This conclusion seems to be backed by John 15:26 as well.

This strength, however, is coupled with a considerable weakness. Jenson holds that Augustine's three "persons" are functionally indistinguishable. "Augustine could no longer conceptualize the saving relation between God and creatures by saying that the Father and the Son are transformingly present in the Spirit, as the Greek originators of Trinitarianism had done."47 The work of the Spirit is easily thought of as an impersonal process whereby God acts upon us. Since authority always resides in persons, this conception of the Spirit diminishes or eliminates the Spirit's authority, implying that the Spirit is simply a function of Christ.

Such criticisms, however, do not pose a death sentence upon Filioque or the notion of the Spirit's executorial authority. We must realize that the Eastern view has gaping weaknesses as well. Gunton charges that Eastern Orthodox theology tends to develop an insufficient relationship between Christ and the Spirit. Barth held that it suggests a mystical assent to the Father without the mediation of the Son.48 Such a lack of theological development gives the impression that the church can stand under the authority of the Spirit alone. Kasper points out that the Eastern tradition, in its dogmatic creedal formulas, is almost completely silent about the relation of the Spirit to the Son, and that there is also no relation drawn between the economy of salvation (the economic Trinity) and the inner life of the Trinity (the immanent Trinity). According to Kasper, if the Son has a share in the sending of the Spirit in the history of salvation (which he obviously does), then he cannot fail to have a share into the intra-Trinitarian procession of the Spirit.49

In discerning the Spirit's authority to act we must take contributions from both views into consideration. Scripture provides the necessary "balance" to these perspectives, portraying the Spirit as one who retains the divine authority associated with divine Personhood while acting under Jesus' authority. We can conclude: (1) Scripture places strict christological boundaries upon the activity of the Holy Spirit today. The Spirit indeed acts "under Christ's authority" for the purpose of glorifying Christ (John 14:26; 16:14); and (2) under Jesus' authority, the Spirit retains divine Personhood and authority in his execution of Jesus' will. If the Holy Spirit has divine transcendence over creation (Ps 104:29-30), then his agency within creation must also carry divine transcendence into that immanent action. There can be no "blurring" of the Spirit's Personhood with human persons. Gunton proposes: