[Gunton Research Discussion Group] New comment on Introductions.
David Thornton
Dear Nate and Terry,
I hope that you continue to monitor this blog -- I have only just rediscovered the site, and would gladly continue conversation with you, if you still have any interest. Again, my own interest is in Gunton and Moltmann's understanding of the role within the Trinity of the Spirit in human transformation.
I am profoundly struck by the vast differences in their hermeneutics, but was surprised by how Moltmann's approach addressed unrecognized gaps in my own theological understanding. Gunton's clarity and trinitarian orthodoxy are refreshing, strong, and constructive; Moltmann brings, if you'll pardon the term, a deep humanity to the subject, an unparalleled compassion to his trinitarian pneumatology, while at the same time cleaving to trinitarianism.
What I'm noticing now is a trend across the years of his scholarship, away from a conciliatory attitude toward a more radically eschatological pneumatology. He wrote early on of needing to 'fold' monarchical theology into eucharistic theology to arrive at a more trinitarian understanding. Perhaps he tired of painting the whole picture, and chose to focus on that part he sees as undeveloped, and so has become apparently less balanced and more unilateral. As much as I agree with what I understand of his eschatological pneumatology, it hangs together better when held in tension with tradition. Suffering and sovereignty go together.
I hope to hear from you soon. You can also reach me at thor...@bellsouth.net. Thanks again!
Posted by David Thornton to Gunton Research Discussion Group at 25.4.07
David Thornton
Sorry to have dropped the blog - how encouraging to find someone who resonates with the idea of considering theological anthropology alongside attachment psychology. If you're still online, as it were, I'd like to continue the conversation. I'm new to blogging, so am not familiar with protocol, or really how this proceeds. Hoping to reconnect - our paths are not dissimilar. Loved your exploration of Ricoeur, considered that avenue, but chose/was compelled to focus my analysis more tightly. As one prof advised me, my attempt at a Grand Unified Theory of human being in the life of the Spirit might be overambitious... even though I continue to think that all of this does hang very closely together, it is simply heart-stoppingly difficult to make a coherent argument to that effect!
I'll watch for your reply.
Posted by David Thornton to Gunton Research Discussion Group at 26.4.07
Nathan
I'm finishing my D. Min degree and have used a great deal of Gunton's work on the Trinity and theological anthropology.
Posted by Nathan to Gunton Research Discussion Group at 26.4.07
cyberpastor
Hi all,
I am interested to see this blog come to life. I have just been awarded my PhD from Cambridge. My topic was a reading of Gunton's notion of particularity as an eschatalogical work of the Spirit. I compared Gunton's efforts with Dietrich bonhoeffer and the Luke/Acts narrative. In the end I decided that particularity is a matter of the location, enabling, opening and preserving of Sonship. I teach theology and philosophy at Moore theological College in Sydney australia
Posted by cyberpastor to Gunton Research Discussion Group at 26.4.07
Chelle Stearns
Boy, things seem to be heating up!
My name is Chelle, and I just finished my PhD dissertation at University of St. Andrews. I looked at Gunton’s understanding of personhood and perichoresis for the purpose of exploring a theology of unity as grounded in triune being. I would argue that Gunton’s theology of particularity is very dependent upon his understanding of the mediation of the Spirit.
With this in mind, I think that one of the weaknesses of Gunton’s pneumatology is his focus on the eschatological mediation of the Spirit. He is searching for a way to talk about the mediation of the Spirit, but tends to push the work of perfection and completion to an eschatological category. Gunton doesn’t seem to want that, he wants the Spirit involved here and now, but seems limited by the system he sets up. However, his later essays on the Spirit seem to be moving towards a more dynamic pneumatology. Throughout his theology he emphasizes the need to hold together the mediation of the Son and the Spirit, but why is that so difficult to hold together in the here and now?
Any thoughts?
~chelle
Mick Stringer
It must be a great feeling to have completed your PhD - mine is still in the process of being written.
Gunton's pneumatology is also my research area.
In response to your comments, I would like to add the observation that perhaps the emphasis afforded the eschatological function of the Holy Spirit by Gunton is not so much future-located as it is eschatologically-orientated. That is to say, following Pannenberg's observation that 'if Jesus has been raised, then the end has begun', that there is a sense in which eschatology is the Father's dealing with the here and now via the mediation of his 'two hands.'
In that regard, I understand Gunton to be laying stress upon a trinitarian complementarity between the Son and the Spirit - on the level of both person and work - that affords adequate recognition of the Spirit's enabling of Jesus' humanity to be that which he was called to be - viz, the Son. In similar manner, the Spirit enables human beings also to be drawn-to-perfection in the sense that they, too, are enabled to be who they were called to be - viz, children of God who are drawn to the Father, through the Son by the Spirit. The same is true for the remainder of the created order also as the Spirit draws it toward eschatological perfection and enabling it to offer praise to its maker. Thus, Gunton's repeated referral to Irenaeus' 'two hands' methaphor gives the impression that, for Gunton, perfection is not only that which will be achieved in the future, but is also that which all of creation is being drawn toward through the mediation of Son and Spirit. In that sense, then, the Spirit's eschatological mediation occurs, and continues to occur, in the here and now.
I think ... ?
Blessings,
Mick
Chelle Stearns
That sounds good. I like your phrase ‘a trinitarian complementarity between the Son and the Spirit’. And the idea of an ‘eschatologically-oriented’ mediation of the Spirit is also a good way of talking about this. However, I keep tripping over the place of sin in Gunton’s model. He tends towards abstraction in this particular area, but I know that he did not intend it. My interpretation of Gunton is that he moves towards a theology of being in order to bring together the doctrine of God, the doctrine of creation and a thoroughgoing theological anthropology under the mantel of ‘a trinitarian complementarity between the Son and the Spirit’, as the two hands of the Father. That these three doctrinal areas would have a trinitarian ‘shape’, and that the church, in turn, should reflect this ‘shape’ through love for God, one another and the entire created order.
I think my concern goes back to David Thornton’s question of human transformation. Gunton seems to miss the deep humanity of Moltmann’s theology, but Gunton’s search for ‘a deeper theology of being’ is spot on. So, in the light of human transformation and relationship, what is the role of sin in Gunton’s thinking? And how do we explain Gunton’s trinitarian shape of redemption and perfection to the church without making it so abstract? This is the one point that I continuously trip over in Guton’s theology.
I think that Gunton’s definition of freedom—especially ‘mediated freedom’—might have something to offer here, but I have just started questioning all of this. Any thoughts?
Confused in Berkeley,
Chelle
Bill Clifton
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Bill Clifton
Nate Suda
I’ll wade in here. Is eschatology really the primary driving force in Gunton’s theology? I have my doubts. Mick, you mentioned a couple of times that for Gunton the Spirit ‘enabled [human creatures] to be who they were called to be’. I don’t have my books here in front of me, but did Gunton put it like that? Certainly the majority of the time he preferred ‘to be who they were created to be’. The difference I see here is how we characterize the ‘eschatological movement’. I would argue that eschatology is relatively minor in comparison to the doctrine of creation for Gunton. In this regard Chelle’s observation on Gunton’s weak hamartiology is crucial. Gunton does not suggest that the role of the Spirit causes a great transformation in the person, but rather the sense I get is that the Spirit frees our created ontology to continue growth where it was once fettered. Indeed, Gunton rarely speaks of personal transformation and instead prefers to describe the work of the Spirit on a cosmic scale – i.e. the project of creation. The work of the Spirit continues what began in creation and was put on hold, so to speak, because of sin. Of course Gunton will speak strongly – especially in later works - that without the career of Christ there would be no continuation of the project, and in that sense his doctrine of sin is significant, but with that one exception I cannot see how sin plays a significant functional role in Gunton’s theology. The work of the Spirit is not metanoia, a remaking the world in light of the resurrection; rather it is completing the creative intention of God (here note Gunton appraised the doctrine of creation ex nihilo as one of the major intellectual moments of history). Because Gunton frames the work of the Spirit in this way, I would say his theology is essentially protologically-oriented.
Nate
Mick Stringer
I stand corrected of a rather undisciplined use of terminology. As Nate has rightly pointed out, Gunton does indeed prefer to speak in terms of "created to be" rather than "called to be" as I wrote.
A great example is: "The Spirit as the perfecting cause of the creation is the one who enables things to become what they are created to be; to fulfill their created purpose of giving glory to God in their perfecting" (Gunton, Colin E. 'The Spirit moved over the face of the waters: the Holy Spirit and the created order' in International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, no. 2 [2002], 203. emphasis added).
The application of the term in reference to human persons is explicit: "The God of the gospel meets us in the human figure of his Son become flesh for us; and sends the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, whose function is to enable us, through the risen and ascended Christ, to be truly that which we were created to be" (Gunton, Colin E. 'Is Christianity a post-modern religion?' A lecture presented at the Keene Lectures. Chelmsford Cathedral, Chelmsford, UK [Wednesday, 23 April 1997], emphasis added).
However, it is correct to say that Gunton frequently used the phrase "called to be" in two ways: in relation to i) Jesus Christ and ii) the Christian church. In both cases it seems that the doctrine of election is that which gives rise to his use of the personal term 'call' in preference to the ontological term 'create'. Yet, that 'call', as it relates to individual Christians, is conceived communally rather than individualistically, a point made clear when Gunton states that "for the Church to be the Church it has constantly to be constituted anew, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit to achieve that constitution: to make it ever and again the people of God and the body of Christ as he calls into it new members" (Gunton, Colin E. 'The church: John Owen and John Zizioulas on the church,' in Theology through the theologians: selected essays, 1972-1995. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996, 203, emphasis added).
Importantly, though, the use of "called to be" in relation to individual believers is not entirely absent from Gunton's thinking. He writes, "It is through Christ and the Spirit, who bring us and our world, perfected, to the Father, that people and things can come to be that which they are particularly called to be. To show something of that is the ultimate purpose of this book" (Gunton, Colin E. The One, the three and the many: God, creation and the culture of modernity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1993, 73).
Finally, with tongue in cheek but without desiring to appear too facetious, perhaps my pedantic preoccupation with italicisation above may have clouded the point at stake - viz, the question of whether Gunton's intent was not so much " created to be" and "called to be" but rather "created to be" and "called to be" respectively.
blessings,
Mick
Chelle Stearns
Just a quick note on both Nate’s and Mick’s thoughts.
First, to add to Nate’s comments: it is also important to emphasize Gunton’s stress on the relationship between creation and redemption, especially as Christ is the mediator of both creation and the redemption of the created order. (I know you would agree!)
Mick, you point out a crucial delineation in Gunton! The delineation between the ontological and the person. These are not necessarily separate, but he thinks of them on their own terms. Two ways of talking of the same thing, but from different angles. I think this is why he spends so much time discussing the importance of the eternal and the economic Trinities. With this in mind, when he gets to his anthropology and ecclesiology he talks in terms of both being and becoming, but always through the mediation of the Christ and the Spirit. I know that this is more my interpretation of Gunton, but I do think this helps to understanding his doctrine of the imago dei. I think all of this ties back in with human transformation, etc. I wish I had more time to explain my thoughts, but I have to go.
Peace,