The transparent Spirit

A belated Pentecost thought, courtesy of T.F. Torrance - quotes are all from "Theology in Reconstruction", 253-258.

The office of the Holy Spirit in the Church is not to call attention to himself apart from Christ but to focus all attention on Christ, to glorify him, to bear witness to his deity, to testify to his mind and will, and in him and through him to lead us to the Father.  He is God the Spirit by whom we know God, for he is God the Spirit by whom God bears witness to himself.  Transparence and self-effacement thus belongs to the very nature and office of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, who is known only as the Father is known through the Son and the Son is known in the Father, and who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified as himself very God.

It is worth tugging at some of the threads in this quote to make sure we've understood them.  Note that the Spirit is worshipped and glorified because he is himself God, true and full God; but he is not worshipped in the attention that we pay to him, but the attention that we pay by him to the Son, to Jesus Christ as he leads us to the Father.  The Spirit is known, and known as God; but he is not known in himself, but only as he himself makes known the Father and the Son.  Torrance summarises this by referring to the Spirit's transparence.  He doesn't mean to imply by this any sort of insubstantiality, as if the Spirit could be 'seen through' because of his weightlessness and lack of solidity.  We are dealing with the almighty, personal God when we are dealing with the Holy Spirit.  The point is simply that the divine office of the Spirit as he is revealed to us in the Gospel is to make Christ known, and through and in him the Father.  His almighty power is shown, not in itself, but in showing us the almighty power of the Father and the Son.

What really strikes me about the way that Torrance utilises this concept is that he sees the transparence of the Spirit as in some sense a transferrable quality.  In thinking and speaking of God, we utilise human forms and concepts, which in themselves "are quite opaque as far as their reference to God himself is concerned."  We simply don't have the ability to stretch our language up to God.  "This is where the transparency of the Spirit comes in, for to be genuine our witness must be shot through and through with the uncreated light of God's self-revelation."  We need the Spirit to make our words transparent to God's reality, to make them bearers of God's own light - something we can't do by ourselves.

Torrance extends this description of the transparency of the Spirit to Scripture - the perspicuity of the Scriptures means the fact that the Spirit causes the biblical witness to be transparent to divine reality - and baptism - in which we are meant to look "through the rite to Christ and his Gospel... Without Sacramental transparence Baptism becomes blind and meaningless."

We need - desperately need - the work of the Holy Spirit to make anything that we do with reference to God genuinely valuable and meaningful.

We recall too that this transparence comes from the Holy Spirit, from his own self-effacing nature and office in hiding himself, as it were, behind the Face of the Father in the Son and behind the Heart of the Son in the Father, yet revealing the one Triune God by letting his eternal light shine through himself to us.

A Bonhoeffer index

Dietrich Bonhoeffer has been incredibly influential on my thinking about a range of topics, especially how to do Christian ethics.  On the 80th anniversary of his death, here is a list of things I've written about him:

• Thoughts on the decline of nominal or cultural Christianity, processed with the help of Bonhoeffer's distinction between ultimate and penultimate things.
• Thoughts on divine mandates, and the different spheres of human life, prompted by the Covid-19 crisis.
• A brief thought on ethics as obedience to God, and the implications for church fellowship.
• An exploration of two key concepts from Bonhoeffer - nature and vicarious representation.
• Thoughts on the famous contrast between cheap and costly grace,
• Learning to pray, drawing on Bonhoeffer's work on the Psalms.
• A series of posts working through Bonhoeffer's (sadly unfinished) Ethics:
• Part 1 - Christ, Reality and Good
• Part 2 - Ethics as Formation
• Part 3 - Heritage and Decay
• Part 4 - Guilt, Justification, Renewal
• Part 5 - Ultimate and Penultimate Things
• Part 6 - Natural Life
• Part 7 - History and Good (1)
• Part 8 - History and Good (2)
• Part 9 - God's Love and the Disintegration of the World
• Part 10 - Church and World I
• Part 11 - On the Possibility of the Church's Message to the World
• Part 12 - The "Ethical" and the "Christian" as a Topic
• Part 13 - The Concrete Commandment and the Divine Mandates
• A brief application of Bonhoeffer to the question of abortion.
• Some critical thoughts on Bonhoeffer's understanding of the church. This was ten years ago, and I'm not sure now that I agree with myself!
• An appreciation of Bonhoeffer's emphasis on corporate, common prayer in the church.
• Thoughts on how the gospel addresses people who are good.
• A reflection on confession of guilt as the precursor to good ethical thinking.

There are a couple of others which I haven't linked, but which you can find if you look; they deal with my reading of Metaxas's biography of Bonhoeffer, which I liked at the time but feel more ambivalent about now.

A three-way fight

I spent some very profitable time last week discussing the work of Charles Taylor with people who are much more qualified to speak about him than I am.  For those who don't know, Taylor is primarily famous for his enormous book A Secular Age, in which he tries to answer one question: how have we moved from a point in 1500 when atheism was more or less inconceivable, to a point in 2000 where belief in God is enormously contested?  What changed in society and the intellectual world of the West to make atheism a live option, not just for isolated individuals, but for the mainstream of Western people?  The book is exhaustive, and exhausting, in its run through the history of the Western world in search of the answer(s) to this question - if you haven't read it and want a way in I'd strongly recommend James Smith's book How (Not) To Be Secular as a good introduction and guide before you dive in.

One particular part of Taylor's analysis struck me as having renewed importance in our current cultural moment.  Taylor suggests that there are not two great forces in our culture - the religious and the irreligious, say - but three: "There are secular humanists, there are neo-Nietzscheans, and there are those who acknowledge some good beyond life." (636)  By 'secular humanists', Taylor means those who restrict meaning purely to the 'immanent frame' - i.e., nothing transcendent, nothing spiritual that exists above and beyond our human conceptualism of the world - and yet remain optimistic about the power of humanity to shape its own existence to benign ends, and are invested in the project of human improvement.  Broadly, this would align politically with secular progressives.  Then there are the religious, or at least those who look beyond the world as we see it for meaning and direction; they are typically also progressive in some sense, in that they believe in the capacity for things to get better, even if the end goal of that 'better' is not found within the horizons of this world.  They will, of course, debate with the secular humanists as to what 'good' means, but they agree that there is good and that it is worth pursuing.

The third group Taylor calls 'neo-Nietzscheans', or "the immanent counter-Enlightenment". (636)  This group denies the progressive tendency in both other camps; there is no 'good' per se which can be pursued, and humanity as such is not reformable.  All we can do is harness the evil tendencies of humanity to something which will benefit the species.  Various species of political Darwinism belong here, and we might point to particular figures who represent this tendency - Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson, and to an extent Donald Trump spring to mind.

Taylor's point is that this is a genuine three-way fight.  The secular humanists and the neo-Nietzscheans are agreed, against the religious, that there is no transcendent source of meaning or ethics, and that decisions have to be made purely on the basis of what we can see around us.  But on the other hand the religious often find themselves agreeing with the secular humanists when it comes to pursuing some good intention within the world.  (We might suggest that this is particularly the case in the contemporary West, where the supposedly neutral and universal values which secular humanism considers itself to be pursuing are heavily inflected with historic Christian thought).

But there is a third alliance which often pops up, for "neo-Nietzscheans and acknowledgers of transcendence are together in their absence of surprise at the continued disappointments of secular humanism, together also in the sense that its vision of life lacks a dimension." (637)  Both the immanent counter-Enlightenment and the religious see secular humanism as in a sense naive, and doomed to fail on its own terms.  They both want, for very different reasons, to shake the liberal consensus just to demonstrate that it is without foundation.

At the moment, I think the neo-Nietzscheans are on the march, and secular progressivism is in retreat across the West.  And I think we, by which I mean 'acknowledgers of transcendence' and specifically Christians, need to be careful.  Let's not rejoice too much at the woes of secular humanism.  Let's take care not to line up with the neo-Nietzscheans and think that we can turn our momentary agreement into a lasting alliance.  In the end, there is a lot in secular humanism with which we are in profound agreement; indeed, I would argue that there is a lot in secular humanism that actually belongs to us.  And I think that the forces of the immanent counter-Enlightenment will be very happy to turn their guns on us at the first opportunity.

Thoughts on New Year's Day

Liturgically, New Year's Day is the eighth day of Christmas, and therefore observed (where such things are still observed) as the festival of the Naming and Circumcision of Jesus.  I find that provides rich themes for reflection and contemplation as one year turns over into the next.

For starters, the Lord was given the name 'Jesus' - meaning God Saves - because he would save his people from their sins.  This invites two lines of reflection.  First at the level of salvation history, the coming of Jesus is the faithfulness of God to his covenant people.  The stories which accompany the presentation of Christ at the temple reflect the longing of faithful Israelites for the promised salvation of God.  Simeon sees in this child God's salvation, the rescue and therefore the glory of Israel, the revelation to the world of God's good purposes to and through his chosen people.  Anna speaks of the redemption of Jerusalem, no longer as a distant hope but as a present reality.  It is good at the beginning of a new year to be reminded that God's faithfulness to his purposes and his people runs like a golden thread through each and every year, even when that thread is sometimes hidden from view.  His faithfulness to Israel meant the forgiveness of Israel's sins; and that faithfulness is ongoing.

And then at the personal level, how good it is when reflecting on the last year, with all its many sins and failings, to be reminded that Jesus is God's salvation.  He is the one who is able to deliver us from our sins and the consequences of our sins - and he will deliver us.  That is his very name.

There is also the circumcision, which perhaps seems obscure but to my mind conjures up similar reflections.  Circumcision was the sign of the ancient covenant with Israel, and so when Jesus is circumcised we see God's faithfulness to a promise made to Abraham hundred of years before.  We are reminded again of his constancy through the turning years.  But then again, the circumcision of Jesus is not just the continuation of that covenant, but its fulfilment - in him, the covenant sign becomes a present reality, or perhaps we ought to say that he is the reality which always lay under the covenant sign and gave it life and power.  His circumcision is God's faithfulness to the old, but just as that faithfulness it is also the putting off of every old thing, so that it points to Christ's cross, on which the old man is put to death - not for Christ, but for us, who are circumcised in him.  In Christ, the old is really old and done away with, and the new year can open with a sense of real newness, just as every day is a day of fresh mercy and therefore new creation.

The years go on.  Jesus is the same - yesterday, today, and forever.  Always the one who saved his people from their sins, and will save his people.  Always the one who kept faith, and made us faithful in him.  Always the one who decides and judges what is really old and has to go, and always the one who brings in the genuinely new.

Happy new year!