Catholicism and the Spirit: Imagining a More Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology

By Stephen Ebo Annan

The resurgence of Pentecostal, charismatic Christianityepitomized in the global Southhas thrown Catholicism back on itself, and has challenged it to reassess its ecclesial self-understanding. The Catholic Church has been accused of having forgotten the Spirit. Despite the progress made by the Catholic Church to redress this so-called pneumatological deficit, it nonetheless remains the case that Roman Catholicism and charismatic Christianity seems to be mutually exclusive. Why and how does the Roman Catholic Church today still lack a fully-developed pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology?Catholicism and the Spirit sets out to address such questions, and argues that the Church must overcome its ultraconservatism and re-envision a robust Spirit-led ecclesiology to meet the demands of ecclesial renewal.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Feb 22, 2018
• ISBN: 9781543470703

Stephen Ebo Annan

Stephen Ebo Annan is a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Sunyani, Ghana. He holds a doctorate in Theology and Religious Studies (Ph.D, S.T.D) from the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Some of his research has been published as Do not Stifle the Spirit: The Vision of Yves Congar for Charismatic Ecclesiology." New Blackfriars 95 (2014); "Make a Complete Break with the Past? Overcoming the Ambivalence of African Pentecostal Ecclesiology towards Tradition" In The Shaping of Tradition: Context and Normativity, edited by Colby Dickinson et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2013; "Rethinking the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Healing in the Light of Postmodern Thought." In Ecclesiology and Exclusion: Boundaries of Being and Belonging in Postmodern Times, edited by Dennis M. Doyle et al. New York: Orbis, 2012.

Book preview

Copyright © 2018 by Stephen Annan.

ISBN:               Softcover               978-1-5434-7069-7

                         Hardcover              978-1-9845-1118-8

                          eBook                    978-1-5434-7070-3

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 02/21/2018

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

770118

Dedication

To my Parents (Francis Kwabena Onoma Annan and Josephine Efua Mansah Gyekye), Siblings (Benedicta Adwoa Maanan, Emmanuel Kofi Annan, Gabriel Ato Kwamena Bosomtwe and Vivian Efua Eduwa) and their families

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Introduction

1   Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology: Contextual Background And Construal

2   Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology: Historical, Theological Trajectory

3   Envisioning Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology: The Thought Of Yves Congar

4   Realizing Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology: Obstructions And Obscurities

5   Imagining A More Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology: Promises And Pitfalls

Conclusion

Bibliography

Foreword

Stephen Ebo Annan’s monograph entitled Catholicism and the Spirit: Imagining a More Pneumatological, Charismatic Ecclesiology, which is his doctoral dissertation defended at KU Leuven in 2015, constitutes an excellent piece of research on a topic that had largely been neglected until the second half of the past century: the pivotal role of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit for any reflection on ecclesiology. In this regard, the monograph represents an important addition to the growing body of scholarship which aims at a recovery of a pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology, offering a valuable resource for theologians, researchers, and students interested in the significance of the Holy Spirit for the doctrine of the Church.

Annan’s book takes as its starting-point a challenging question: how can one explain and overcome the Roman Catholic Church’s own deficiency when it comes to its ecclesiological and pastoral attitude towards the phenomenon of charismatization? In order to respond to such a question, Annan’s five-chapter monograph makes an attempt (i) to detect theological themes and practices that impede the flourishing of a charismatic ecclesiology in Roman Catholicism, (ii) to put forward a solid argumentation which advocates theology’s need to reinstate the ecclesiological centrality of the Holy Spirit as the essential condition for the Church’s renewal, (iii) to show that a pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology offers a corrective to the pitfalls of a Christocentric-oriented ecclesiology. In so doing, Annan’s monograph makes use of Yves Congar’s theology as a heuristic lens.

Without any doubt, the publication of Stephen Ebo Annan’s doctoral dissertation will inform further discussions with regard to the relationship between Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, Christian life and spirituality. His work is well written and the author’s style flows. The chapters of the monographs develop gradually the arguments put forward by the author and allow readers to easily follow and understand the main ideas without any distraction. Informative, constructive and insightful throughout, the originality of the Annan’s monograph lays in the combination of sources and interlocutors and in the development of the topic in relation to the author’s African background.

With all this in mind, I am personally fully convinced that Annan’s contribution deserves a wide and critical reading, especially – yet not exclusively - by those who seek to deliver a reinterpretation of the Roman Catholic Church’s ecclesial self-understanding at the beginning of the 21st century.

Prof. Dr. Peter De Mey.

Professor of Ecclesiology and Ecumenism

KU Leuven, Belgium

Acknowledgements

One day, up in Heaven, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were trying to decide where to go on vacation. So the Father suggests Florida. The Son replies that there are too many old people there and it’s too hot. He also suggests the Holy Land. But the Son objects that he is afraid he would be crucified again. The Father then suggests the Vatican for its history and architecture. The Holy Spirit says Yeah! I’d love to go there! I’ve never been there before!

Such jokes are often recounted to underscore the untruth that the Holy Spirit does not play a significant role or is not given His due credit in the Roman Catholic Church. For others, even though the Spirit is undoubtedly present in the Church, He has been overshadowed or replaced by the Eucharist, Mary or the Pope! This book looks into the myriad reasons for which such views are held and argues for a more robust Spirit awareness and imagination in the Roman Catholic Church.

The monograph is an extensive revision of the dissertation I presented in 2015 to the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, for a doctorate in Theology. For this reason, I wish to sincerely thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Peter De Mey for his immense support and fatherly guidance. Not only did he incite my interest in pneumatology and ecclesiology, he also lived through every single line of this work and provided me with substantial input and encouragement to press on. To be sure, at some difficult moments during this research, he proved himself a real Doktorvater and ‘go-to-person.’ To him I say Beste professor, ik dank u heel hartelijk. Of equal measure is my appreciation for the Dissertation Committee: Prof. Dr. Johan Leemans, Prof. Dr. Kristof Struys (both of KU Leuven), Prof. Dr. Bernd Jochen Hilberath (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen), and Dr. Andrew Meszaros (St. Patricks College, Maynooth) for their constructive, critical reading. They contributed in no small measure to ‘balancing’ and keeping in check my reflections.

The sustainability and viability of most of my reflections were tested not only at conferences and seminars but also in lively conversations and debates with erudite theologians and pastors on the ground. I am especially grateful to Prof. Paul Lakeland (Fairfield University, Conneticut), Prof. Dennis Doyle (Dayton University, Ohio), Prof. Gerard Mannion (Georgetown University, Washington D.C), Rev. Dr. Raymond Aina, Rev. Dr. Ignatius Edet, Rev. Dr. Idahosa Amadasu, Rev. Dr. Edward Mushi, Rev. Dr. John Kofi Takyi, Rev. Dr. Thomas Oppong-Febiri, Rev. Fr. Felix Bournwin, Rev. Fr. Andrew Takyia, Rev. Fr. Francis Anane Yeboah among countless others. I also want to unreservedly thank Dr. Andrew Meszaros, Dr. John Lounibus and Dr. AnneMarie DiSiena for proofreading the penultimate draft of this book.

It would not have been possible to undertake this research without financial assistance. I am therefore grateful to the Missionswissenschaftliches Institut Missio Aachen, Germany, for their generous support in this endeavor, and the Diocese of Regensburg, Germany, for financially enabling the completion and subsequent publication of this project. I would like to save an unqualified measure of gratitude to my Bishop, Most. Rev. Dr. Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi, and his Vicar General, Msgr. Dr. George Kwame Kumi, for the opportunity and support they offered me to undertake higher theological studies at KU Leuven.

Though this study was carried out in Europe, its history goes far back and involved many people and ecclesial institutions in Ghana. My home parish, Our Lady of Fatima, Wenchi, and the two parishes I served before leaving for KU Leuven, namely SS. Peter & Paul, Kwasibourkrom, and Holy Spirit, Sunyani (both in the Sunyani Diocese) were the primary contexts that ignited my passion for this investigation. I would forever be indebted to them not only for the pneumatological awareness they engendered in me, but also for their support in every kind. I cannot forget my family and the many friends and Christian faithful who incessantly egg me on with their prayers and moral support. In particular, I am ineffably grateful to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Francis Annan, who did not have the benefit of a sustained formal education and yet supported me in every imaginable way in my education. To friends and colleagues such as Rev. Dr. Benedict Adu-Frimpong, Rev. Dr. Peter Oppong-Kumi, Rev. Simon Gyan-Obeng, Rev. Raphael Amoako Tawiah, Rev. Benjamin Obour, Rev. George Boachie-Nyarko, Rev. Stephen Kow Bosomafi, Rev. Augustine Oppong-Tabiri, Rev. Anthony Kofi Sackey, Rev. Gordon Asare Kyeremeh, among many others, I say thanks so very much for journeying with me all this while.

Life in Europe comes with its joys and challenges. I am therefore very grateful to every single person who has provided me with warmth and hospitality in making life far away from home like home. My gratitude also goes to friends and colleagues who helped me in diverse ways during my years of graduate study in Belgium. Notably among them were Rev. Justice Baffour Osei-Fosu, Rev. Dr. Joshua Gariba, SVD, Rev. Benjamin Asare, SVD, Dr. Nora Nonterah, and many other Ghanaian students, not forgetting Mr. and Mrs. Nana and Comfort Kwan, Ms. Mary Camara and Mr. Yaw Ampong Mens (all of Brussels).

I also acknowledge the kind support and friendship I enjoyed from the staff, inhabitants and worshippers at the Holy Spirit College, Leuven (where I lived throughout my time in Belgium), the Francophone Worshipping Community (St. Leo XIII, Leuven), the African English–Speaking Catholic Community of St. Martha (The Hague, Netherlands), and not least the parishes of St. Johann Baptist, Großschönbrunn and St. Jakob, Schwandorf, both in the Diocese of Regensburg. I particularly wish to thank Elizabeth and Frank Amrhein, Eva and Gert Walter, Petra and Georg List, Stephanie und Mathias Lederer, Ingrid and Bernhard Wiesneth, Gerlinde and Georg Mayer, Manuela Schimminger, Pia Heissig, Martha and Hans Wittman, Karin and Hans Högl (all of Germany), Msgr. Emmet Nevin, Sr. Pat Hogan, O.P. Cathy Saladino, Marge Peltz, Sheila Reita, Rosalie and Pat Valenti, Barbara and Tom Caruso, Wanda and Ephraim Ortiz, Colleen and John Comito, Margareth and Michael Ryan (all of New York), and all who have helped me in one way or the other on this very enriching journey. I pray for God’s abundant blessings upon them all.

Above all, and most importantly, the successful completion of this modest work has ultimately been made possible by the grace of the Alpha and Omega God, whose Spirit has always inspired and strengthened me. Ebenezer Nyame, me da wo ase a εnsa.

Stephen Kwabena Ebo Tawiah Annan

Schwandorf, Diocese of Regensburg, Germany

December 8, 2017

Abbreviations

Introduction

The phenomenal progression of charismatic Christianity in the global South needs no further telling.¹ Neither does the proliferation of Pentecostal, charismatic churches and the creeping of these churches’ ethos and patterns into the so-called mainline churches, the Roman Catholic Church included. Indeed, the face of Christianity especially in sub-Saharan Africa has veritably changed into a charismatic one.² Ghanaian Presbyterian scholar Asamoah-Gyadu affirms the reconfiguration of African Christianity when he notes that charismatic and Pentecostal churches have taken over from the older historic mission churches as the representative face of African Christianity.³ Such a development is not good news for the Catholic Church, especially for a Church which professes that it has the fullness of everything leading to salvation. Against this backdrop, Cardinal Walter Kasper challenges the Church to rethink its ecclesial self-understanding in view of the unanswered questions posed by pentecostal-charismatic churches to the Roman Catholic Church. Cognizant of detectible pitfalls in these churches, upon which the Church has in the main focused, the eminent German cardinal advocates a self-critical approach, urging a counter-questioning from what is wrong with charismatic Pentecostal churches to what is wrong with us [Roman Catholics]?⁴

This self-critical question from the German ecclesiologist invites reflection on many levels. On one level, it is important to ponder the theological and pastoral responses that have thus far been proffered to the challenge of charismatic Christianity. While some responses are resistant and repulsive, evincing—for want of a better word—ultraconservatism, others enthusiastically champion it and adapt it to unimaginable levels. The German ecumenist’s critique is also worth considering on the level of the effects of this trend on the Church. For one thing, it is ironic that regardless of the adaptation of the Pentecostal-charismatic ethos in the Church, which has somewhat curtailed the exodus of many Catholics from the Church, some of the faithful still either vacillate between the Church and Pentecostal-charismatic churches, or eventually disaffiliate from the Church to other churches, demonstrating the irresistible gravitational pull of the Pentecostal-charismatic ethos. Perhaps most importantly, Cardinal Kasper’s question merits close scrutiny on the level of searching for the theological-ecclesiological reasons that account for the gravitation toward charismatic sensibilities in general, reasons that have arguably been downplayed or not emphasized enough by the official magisterial Church.

It is argued for one reason among countless others that charismatic Christianity appropriately identifies with the pneumatological, supernatural, cosmological particularized worldview of its members and accordingly responds to the existential felt needs of its members. For another, it is contended that there is a wider participation in the liturgy by the laity and recognition of the faithful’s potentials and charisms, thus giving a practical meaning to the reformation maxim, priesthood of all believers.⁵ Further still, these churches have developed a very [pneumatological], charismatic ecclesiology,⁶ says the Jesuit John Haughey, and the very survival of the mainline churches, including the Catholic Church, has come to depend on how open they are to a charismatic ecclesiology and culture,⁷ writes Asamoah-Gyadu. All these reasons are contrasted against the theological-praxis of the Church, which is seen either as unwilling or ill-adapted to tackling the contextual, existentially felt needs of its members, or as overly rigid in its Christological, institutional, sacramental expressions, to the detriment of its pneumatological, charismatic expressions.

Such argumentation issues in at least three critical challenges for the Church: practical, methodological, and theological. Practically, far too little attention has been paid to what this charismatic ecclesiology might imply within the purview of Catholicism.⁸ Apparently, the official magisterial Church is failing to systematically account for a new situatedness in the Church by not responding appropriately to this major paradigmatic shift to charismatic Christianity, as Omenyo would call it,⁹ despite sporadic supportive rhetoric. This major paradigmatic shift, which coincides with the southward shift of Christianity, as Jenkins underscores in his The Next Christendom, is yet to be precisely reflected in official magisterial theological reflections. Methodologically, a systematic articulation of how such an ecclesiology per se could be construed does not readily lend itself to prioritization in Catholicism, in view of the Church’s unpleasant encounter with charismatics in the past. More cogent, however, is the real conundrum that such an ecclesiology presents theologically. At its core, presupposed in this ecclesiology is the argument that it is robustly pneumatocentric, seen as a corrective to the mostly one-sided arid, institutional, Christocentric ecclesiology operative in the Catholic Church. Yet does such an ecclesiology, at first glance, not run the risk of falling into pneumatomonism,¹⁰ judging by its obsessions with the Spirit — to say nothing of its cravings for a materialistic and triumphalist projection of Christianity.

Be that as it may, one cannot but associate oneself with Kasper in posing the fundamental question à nouveau: What are some of the fundamental limitations in the Roman Catholic Church’s ecclesial self-understanding, on account of which some of the faithful—whether they remain in the Church or not—are impelled toward charismatic Christianity? What is a pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology, and what are its identifiable characteristics? Why and how does the Roman Catholic Church today still lack a fully developed pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology? What are the virtues of a pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology? That is to say, how would the limitations of the Roman Catholic Church be rectified by such an ecclesiology? Why and to what degree might these virtues facilitate a renewed understanding of the Church and thereby respond appropriately to the challenge of Charismatic Christianity? Last but not least, given its robust Spirit-discourses, how would such an ecclesiology present a holistic ecclesiology, such that it does not obscure Trinitarian presuppositions nor become entrapped in pneumatomonism?

My primary contention in addressing these questions is this: in light of the argumentation that Pentecostal-charismatic churches espouse a so-called pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology that, among other reasons, purportedly propels the growth of Charismatic Christianity, the Church should redress, for want of a better category, its own traditionalism, ultraconservatism, and other ecclesiological methodologies, and re-envision a pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology without falling prey to pneumatomonism or the uncritical parodies of Pentecostalism. This is based on my conviction that glib answers by Church authorities at the local and universal level to the problematic of Charismatic Christianity, such as encapsulation strategies, which sometimes evince parodies of Pentecostalism, do not suffice any more than would sticking purely to traditionalism or ultraconservatism. Likewise, it is not enough to reserve expressions of Charismatic Christianity to the aficionados of the charismatic movement. At its core, the phenomenon of Charismatic Christianity expresses a way of being Church. That is why it is not surprising that most Catholics, even as they choose to remain in the Church, espouse tenets of Charismatic Christianity. Seen in this light, the phenomenon, which I shall in due course characterize as crisis, presents the Church with a kairos moment to prioritize its pneumatological consciousness and directs it to a transformative overhaul of its ecclesial self-understanding.

AIM AND SCOPE

This book has a two-fold intent. First, it aims to answer Kasper’s aforementioned self-critical question "what is wrong with us?" by identifying some limitations in the Church’s ecclesial self-understanding. Second, it argues for a prioritization of pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology in light of the krisis-kairos of the charismatization.

By contending that a developed pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology has virtues for ecclesial renewal in light of the krisis-kairos of Charismatic Christianity, I do not, however, argue that such an ecclesiology becomes a model for the Church or replaces the more traditional ecclesiology that for the most part is Christologically oriented, for the Christian message is ultimately about the Christ and not about the Spirit. The Church is never referred to as the Body of the Spirit; it is always the Body of Christ. What I argue for, conversely, is the view that pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology forcefully complements and redresses any imbalances in Christocentric ecclesial self-understanding.

In like manner, I do not intend to elaborate a complete pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology, on which no single book of this nature can embark, but to focus upon theoretical and methodological instances or images of charismatic ecclesiology in view of its attenuated reception in Catholic imagination. Neither am I comparing Catholicism to Pentecostalism. For one thing, Pentecostalism in general does not have its own formally developed ecclesiology per se; rather, Pentecostals have in general drawn uncritically from the free-church tradition.¹¹ Nor am I strictly focusing on the Charismatic Renewal movement in the Church, because, as I shall point out, the realities involved in the charismatization process in the Catholic Church go far deeper than the mere restoration of the Renewal movement qua group within the Church. To some extent, it could be said that the renewal movement serves as emblematic of such an ecclesiology, for as it were, it represents the suppositions of charismatic ecclesiology writ large. The challenges posed to the Church by the symptomatic features of the movement could be discerned, but these are not our primary focus. The first chapter, for instance, outlines some of these features, but primarily as they enable the clarification of broader issues under charismatic ecclesiology.

If anything, my modest goal is to illustrate that the Roman Catholic Church ought to pay particular attention to what the Spirit is saying to the churches, and prioritize its pneumatological-charismatic dimension. While arguing for a pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology in a positive way so as to overcome some of the difficulties associated with it, I shall examine its pitfalls in the same breath. Nonetheless, I contend that the widespread forms of Charismatic Christianity as the ecclesiological impetus of Christianity in the global South a fortiori impels the Catholic Church to respond more appropriately to it with a pneumatological-charismatically based ecclesiology, such as I endeavor to explore.

In undertaking this project, I hope to contribute to the discussion on the Church’s pneumatological, charismatic nature. Methodologically, it makes a modest contribution to ecclesiology and Congarian scholarship by emphasizing that a pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology is to be discerned in Congar’s works. Theologically, this book contributes to the development and understanding of Trinitarian ecclesiology by asserting that if Christology is the what of ecclesiology, pneumatology is the how. Thus understood, I am of the view that developing Trinitarian and communion ecclesiology per se may not serve as a single dose to the neglect of a robust, pneumatologically driven ecclesiology. Rather, such an ecclesiology could be further developed by giving the Holy Spirit His full profile in the life of the Church without dissociating it from its Trinitarian moorings.

Second, it is hoped that this reflection will contribute to ecclesial renewal, without claiming it to be universally representative, though its importance for the universal Church is not in doubt. After all, every theology develops in a context, and contemporary arguments demonstrate that in the end all theology is de facto contextual. Accordingly, I shall be reflecting chiefly with illustrations from Ghana,¹²not only because this is a pastoral and geographical domain in which the phenomenon occurs exponentially but also because it is a region with which I am naturally and pastorally intimately connected. It is my attempt to grapple with certain developments and understandings from inside my own ecclesial background, which actually motivated me to undertake this project. Thus, though studied from an African perspective of pneumatology and the Church, it is believed that this critical-constructive survey has the potential of shaping pastoral and ecclesiological perspectives on both sides of the global divide. of shaping pastoral and ecclesiological perspectives on both sides of the global divide.

METHODOLOGY

Informed by pastoral concerns and concrete circumstances in the Church in dialogue with the Christian faith’s foundation, this work draws on an interrelated inductive-deductive approach. Instead of a purely theoretical, noetic approach (deductive), this investigation departs from experience-based praxis of the Church (inductive) by offering a descriptive-constructive illustration of the subject matter under consideration and undertaking close textual analysis of primary and secondary literature.

Within the framework of this grounded theorizing approach, and in pursuit of the motivating questions stated above, the oeuvre of the French Dominican theologian Yves Congar will be used as heuristic lens not only to foreground a developed and balanced pneumatological charismatic ecclesiology but also to query its viabilities and attendant threats. In particular, I shall zoom in on his postconciliar writings that focused explicitly on the role of the Spirit in the Church, notably I Believe in the Holy Spirit and The Word and the Spirit without, however, losing sight of some of his important preconciliar formulations. While this selective approach is obviously not exhaustive, the towering figure of Congar makes him particularly favorable for this investigation. Several reasons underscore Congar’s role.

First, Congar’s theology was always in response to particular problems and challenges in the Church—a disposition that informs my own manner of theologizing. He was not merely interested in doing theology in the abstract. Second, the French ecclesiologist, more than most (at risk of sounding clichéd), had a deep awareness of the inseparability of the Christ and the Spirit, culminating in his pithy statement No Christology without pneumatology and no pneumatology without Christology, although his own apprehension of the charismatic movement of his time falling into pneumatomonism led him to be still Christocentric, as I shall point out in due course. Third, Congar, as an undisputed master of ecumenism, reform and tradition,¹³ endeavors to blend pneumatological, charismatic renewal with critical, living tradition, giving further credence to the assertion that Congar’s efforts at ecclesiological and pneumatological renewal are balanced.

These aforementioned Congarian attributes are well known. But less known are his efforts at constructing what we are exploring: a pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology. Drawing on insights from the Protestant and Orthodox traditions, and attentive to what the spirit was saying to the churches, as Patrick Mullins notes, Congar very much wanted to develop a pneumatological and charismatic ecclesiology,¹⁴ a theme hardly dealt with in Congarian studies.¹⁵ Thus his determination at constructing such an ecclesiology offers us a promising linchpin at furthering his efforts. As a consequence, I will also argue in part that the possibility of an ecclesiology structured around the category of a pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology can be discerned in Congar’s oeuvre, and that this has the potential for, and indeed envisions, the sort of ecclesiology to which most Christian faithful in contemporary Catholicism aspire, not least in the African context.

As I do not intend to enter into the invidious comparison of Catholicism to Pentecostalism, I will not methodologically compare Congar with any particular Pentecostal or Orthodox theologian. For one thing, critical and important as pneumatology is in the discourse of Orthodox theology, John Zizioulas admits that their own pneumatological ecclesiology has not been fully worked out.¹⁶ In this light, I shall rather be dialoguing with Congar with the help of other scholars on certain suppositions held to be fundamental in pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology. Neither am I comparing and contrasting pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology with Christological ecclesiology. To be contrasting such ecclesiologies, in my view, is to start on a wrong footing, for the Spirit and the Christ belong together in the inexplicable mystery and missions of the divine Trinity. What is pursued in this book is an exploration of a way of being Church from a pneumatological-charismatic perspective—in simpler words, a Spirit-led ecclesiology, not unlike the aspirations of the adherents of charismatic Christianity.

STRUCTURE

This book is divided into five chapters. The first chapter—in line with our inductive approach—provides a brief descriptive analysis of the ongoing phenomenon of charismatic Christianity. More than a mere reprise of a banal phenomenon, this chapter will significantly, from the methodological point of view, serve not only as background but also as the entry point into the discussions that will ensue. In analyzing and evaluating the viabilities of various responses to this krisis-kairos phenomenon, we will encounter one of the reasons why pneumatological ecclesiology is underdeveloped in Catholicism, namely, ultraconservatism, impelling us to ask all the more what is wrong with us? Although this chapter will operate with some sense of what the nature of a pneumatological charismatic ecclesiology might mean, it will not claim, as stated above, to offer a definitive or comprehensive account of a pneumatological charismatic ecclesiology.

Since charismatic Christianity seeks a rigorous retrieval of pneumatological charismatic spirituality and ecclesiology, chapter 2 will investigate the historical, theological, and ecclesiological reasons that led to its decline. In particular, we will x-ray the so-called Geistvergessenheit (oblivion of the Spirit or pneumatological deficit) thesis and its attendant causal factors that eventually led to the decline of pneumatological-charismatic sensibilities in the Church. To wrap up the chapter, we will follow through the decline to its retrieval through the epochs till Vatican II.

Our main concern being the exploration of a pneumatological ecclesiology and of Catholicism, chapter 3 will look into the nature of such an ecclesiology by critically engaging with the works of Yves Congar. Here, I will demonstrate that the later writings of Congar, detectible in most of his works and exemplified notably in I Believe and The Word and the Spirit, put into relief the aspirations of a pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology. By teasing out relevant pneumatological themes from Congar’s oeuvre, such as the Spirit as co-institutor of the Church, the nature of the Church as continual epiclesis, I will point out that Congar’s innovative ideas on the Spirit and the Church are key in advancing the cause of pneumatological ecclesiology. In effect, this chapter analyzes and critiques the work of Congar as a theologian who ardently championed the cause of this ecclesiology even though he scarcely employed the term sensu stricto. Nevertheless, Congar’s effort at developing such an ecclesiology is not in doubt, as examples from his myriad writings will demonstrate.

In chapter 4, I shall—in line with our primary motivating question what is wrong with us?—look into some factors that really hamper the development of a charismatic ecclesiology. Particularly, I will investigate so-called blueprint and reified ecclesiologies, as well as certain presumed aspects of our sacramental system which seem to enfeeble a robust Spirit-led ecclesiology. Further, I will zero in on one of our core concerns in this book, namely, the status quaestionis of the Holy Spirit in Catholicism. That is to say, I will look into the question of whether or not the Catholic Church is still liable to the charges of Spirit forgetfulness, to a deficit of the Spirit, or even to the current danger of obsession with the Spirit. This is in view of the fact that some scholars hold that ideas of the Spirit are still faint ideas (blassen Denkfigur) or empty wording (Leerformel) in the consciousness of some Catholics, while for others, attempts at overcoming Geistvergessenheit have led into Geistbesessenheit (obsession with the Spirit). Whether or not pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology a priori falls into pneumatomonism will here be taken into focus by investigating the relationship between Trinitarian ecclesiology, Christocentric ecclesiology, and pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology.

The book proceeds to the final chapter to explore the viabilities and pitfalls in the kind of ecclesiology we are exploring. Here, in order to provide a meaningful dialogue with the perennial tension between the world of ideas and realities, I shall ground these in pastoral, real life-world situations with illustrations from an African perspective, bringing into clarity many themes around which the whole discussion revolved. I shall, for instance, pay attention to issues such as whether or not African pneumatology is convoluted with syncretism. By way of conclusion, I shall proffer a précis of my thoughts, formulating them into key concentric sub-theses.

To appreciate this work, further, the following terms need to be understood in their proper context.

Charismatization or Pentecostalization denotes the same thing in this book: the expansion of Pentecostal, charismatic churches and movements as well as formal or informal grassroots absorption of these churches and movements’ spiritualties and modes of life into the Catholic Church.

Charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity—borrowing from the words of Asamoah-Gyadu—refers to any form of Christianity that values, affirms, and consciously promotes the experiences of the Spirit as part of normal Christian life and worship.¹⁷

Christocentrism refers to the exclusive usage of Christological categories without giving much room and consideration to the Spirit. Its extreme form is Christomonism, which is viewing the Godhead only in terms of the Second Person of the Trinity.

Church—except where obviously referring to the universal Church of Christ, the ecclesia—refers to the Roman Catholic Church.¹⁸ Although our central focus is on this Church, the suppositions and claims therein also have the entire Christian communion in full view.

Pneumatocentrism refers to a single-minded focus on the Holy Spirit and its mission without due regard for the Christ, i.e. the theological preoccupation and accentuation of the Spirit to the detriment of the Son in Trinitarian discourse. The extreme form of this is pneumatomonism, the danger of viewing the Godhead only in terms of the Holy Spirit.

Pneumatological, charismatic ecclesiology, pneumatological-charismatic ecclesiology, or for the sake of abbreviation, pneumatological ecclesiology / charismatic ecclesiology, are all interchangeable in this book. It connotes the expressive imagination and aspiration of a robustly pneumatologically and charismatically driven Church.

Chapter 1

PNEUMATOLOGICAL, CHARISMATIC ECCLESIOLOGY: CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND AND CONSTRUAL

The Church is beset with deep challenges in our time on both sides of the global divide. In the global North, especially in Europe and to a lesser extent America, the Belgian fundamental theologian Lieven Boeve underscores the evolved disjuncture between faith and culture after more than 1,500 years of evangelization, as a result of which disaffiliation from the Church is accelerating and church attendance is in stark decline. Only when the Church, he argues, is able to update its spirituality, ethics, and practice can it survive in the wake of the ravages of secularization, relativism, and detraditionalization, among other factors.¹⁹ By a similar token, the Church in the southern hemisphere—particularly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia—deplores the divergent trajectories traversed by the Christian faith and local cultures. Despite centuries of Christianity’s existence and its unabated growth in these cultures, it is claimed, the Christian message is still only skin deep; an unbridgeable gulf still exists between faith and culture, in view of which a better inculturation of faith is still demanded. Amid the fundamental problems of the Church’s struggle to hold on to nominal adherents or (re)define itself in a contextually meaningful way in a secularized world is situated a proliferation of multiple and diverse spirit-based spiritualties that seems to counter the secularization theory.²⁰ A major form of these spirit-accentuated religiosities is pneumatic, charismatic Christianity. Despite trends of decline or stagnation among many forms of Christianity, charismatic Christianity seems to experience unabated growth and strong appeal at the expense of, among other churches, Catholicism. Such a development, to which the Church has paid little attention, obviously calls for ecclesiological lament.

LAMENT AS AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC

The Fordham theologian Bradford Hinze has recently argued poignantly for a theology and hermeneutics of lamentation as an indispensable facet in ecclesiological method and in our pastoral practices. For him, in every generation, there are some who grieve the state of affairs in the Church, to which particular attention is not paid or adequately addressed. But lament is not the last word. It is from lament through discernment that would lead to peace and joy in the Christian community, for the resurrection of Jesus begins with a lament.

²¹

In step with this, it is not out of place to lament the phenomenological reality which has not received much official magisterial attention, namely the trend of Charismatic Christianity in Christendom.

Lamenting a Sign of the Times: The Challenge of Charismatic Christianity to Catholicism

The trend of Charismatic Christianity in our time both in spiritual life and academia is in tandem with the renewed hankering after the Spirit ushered in at the turn of the past century.²² Though this craving is phenomenologically a worldwide experience, its growth and impact, coinciding with the southward shift of Christianity is felt in the context of the developing global South. This heightened yearning after the Spirit is vividly expressed in the gravitational pull toward Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, which poses stark challenges and unanswered questions to the Church. In common with the general pneumatologically based spiritualties, charismatic Christianity appears to be overcoming some of the challenges encountered by the Church: surging in irreversible growth, revitalizing Christianity, and influencing essentially the nature and face of the Church. Drawing adherents on both sides of the global divide, the pervasive trend of Charismatic Christianity takes on different shapes and forms,²³ and seems to be reenergizing certain aspects of the Church, leading to what has been characterized as the charismatization of worldwide Christianity.²⁴ But most undoubtedly, this reality is "fundamentally and dominantly a Third World phenomenon,"²⁵ which also coincides with the southward shift of Christianity. In his authoritative book The Next Christendom, Philip Jenkins affirms the inexorable shift of Christianity’s center of gravity to the South and its coincidence with the resurgence of charismatic Christianity.²⁶ As an authoritative tour d’horizon of contemporary world Christianity, Jenkins maintains that the coincidence of charismatization of worldwide Christianity with the growth of Christian populations in the South is an ecclesiastical reality that cannot be disregarded without undercutting one’s own ecclesial self-understanding and relevance.

This progression and trauma of growth,²⁷ as Ogbu Kalu labels it, which has been noted in the African context, has effectively overawed the resistance of the mainline churches.²⁸ The result is that "[t]oday in Africa, as in other non-Western contexts, the force of Pentecostalism has led to the Pentecostalization of historic mission