General Articles

Spirit and Creation
Sjoerd L. Bonting

1. Introduction

Pneumatology, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, is a neglected area in Christian theology. "No primary Christian doctrine has been left so undeveloped dogmatically", yet "the Bible is the Book of the Spirit", wrote Wheeler Robinson in 1928.¹ There existed a vivid awareness of the Spirit in the early Church, as shown by 302 references in the NT against 195 in the OT. Yet, there was little activity in pneumatology in the first four centuries, as christology was the major topic of discussion.² Only after the Council of Nicea (325) had acknowledged Jesus as divine Person beside God the Father, did the Council of Constantinople (381) recognize the Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity. This recognition was apparently based on Jesus' promise that the Spirit would lead the Church into all the truth (Jn.16:13).³ Medieval theology did little to enrich or further the doctrine of the Spirit, and the same can be said for the Reformers.⁴

In recent years renewed attention has been paid to pneumatology, leading to new articulations of the doctrine of the Spirit and its application to other theological topics.^5-8 However, I feel that justice has not yet been done to the full significance of the activities of the Spirit. I shall explain in this lecture how a more complete understanding of the work of the Spirit can be obtained through the dialogue between science and theology.

2. The science-theology dialogue

My approach to this dialogue can be summarized in the following six points:⁹

Science and theology provide two worldviews of a single reality, the cosmos in which we live. Both are God-given in the sense that God not only revealed himself through human minds and hands in Scripture, but also in the scientific insight that God allowed us to develop through our senses and brainpower.
Both worldviews have limitations that must be kept in mind: Science cannot deal with the 'beyond'. It can tell us about mechanisms, but not purpose; it can answer 'how-questions'. Theology cannot properly deal with the scientific aspects of this world. It can tell us about purpose, but little about mechanisms; it can answer 'why-questions'.
A dialogue between the two worldviews is possible, because the two disciplines have much in common. Both seek a rational explanation of basic data, biblical data in the case of theology, observational and experimental data in the case of science.
Both work with certain axioms (unprove assumptions), such as 'Scripture contains the revelation of God' and 'a straight line is the shortest distance between two points'. An axiom common to both is: 'nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect'.
Dialogue requires that each discipline is taken in its integrity. It is not permissible to reject a well-founded theory like the evolution theory in order to uphold a literal interpretation of the six days of creation in Gen.1.
The meeting ground for the two disciplines is to be found primarily in creation theology on the one side and cosmic and biological evolution on the other side.

The pioneers of the science-theology dialogue, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, and John Polkinghorne, have not explicitated their approach in similar fashion. However, from their writings some agreements and differences may be noted. Ian Barbour seeks integration (rather than dialogue) of the disciplines by means of metaphysics.¹⁰ I maintain that attempting to integrate the disciplines violates their integrity and that metaphysics cannot function as a bridge between them. With Peacocke I agree that the realistic intent of language should be used for both disciplines and that metaphors should be avoided or at least explained.¹¹ Polkinghorne rightly states that theology has particular subject matter that is not part of science, such as christology.¹²Only topics of theology that pertain to this world lend themselves to the dialogue. Since the actions of the Spirit take place in our world, I claim that science can be helpful in understanding these actions.

3. Biblical aspects of the Spirit

Scripture speaks more about the function than about the nature of the Spirit. A survey of the biblical references shows that a great variety of activities is ascribed to the Spirit.^13,14

a. Old Testament (OT)

In the OT ruach can stand for wind, breath and spirit. As 'wind' it refers to the natural phenomenon, but with the religious connotation of power of God (e.g., the wind dividing the Red Sea; Ex.14:21). As 'breath' it stands for the source of life (Gen.2:7; Job 34:14f; Ps.104:29f; Ezek.37:7-10). In post-exilic writings ruach is seen as inspiring prophecy (Isa.59:21; Ezek.2:2; 8:3, Hos.9:7, Mic.3:8), and also as God's presence (Ps. 51:11). The Spirit is said to rest on the coming Messiah (Isa.11:2; 32:15; 42:1), and through him will be poured out on all the faithful (Isa.32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 37:14; Joel 2:28f, Zech.12: 10).

In the intertestamental wisdom writings the role attributed to the Spirit diminishes, and Spirit is in a few places equated with Wisdom (Wis. 1:6; 7:22; 9:17). In rabbinic Judaism and the Targums the Spirit is above all the spirit of prophecy, but is also seen as a pledge of the resurrection of the dead.

Association of the Spirit with creation is limited to the life-giving action of God's breath (Gen.2:7); except for the questionable interpretation of Gen.1:2b. Traditionally this verse has been translated. 'the Spirit of God hovering over the waters' and was thought to indicate a role of the Spirit as God's creative agent: However, the question is whether ruach stands here for spirit or wind. After an extensive discussion, Claus Westermann¹¹ concludes: (1) there is no reason to separate vs.2b from vs.2a; (2) taking vs.2b as the first work of creation clashes with the further narrative in Gen.1 where each section begins with 'and God said', indicating the Logos as the creative agent; (3) the verb merachefet means 'flutter', 'flap', 'shake', indicating that ruach here means 'wind', rather than 'spirit' (in Hebrew the verb determines the meaning of the noun); (4) ruach elohim occurs nowhere else in the OT, either as 'wind of God' or as 'spirit of God', so elohim is presumably used as a superlative of ruach: 'mighty wind'; (5) comparison with Egyptian cosmogony reinforces the idea that vs.2b is part of the description of the situation before creation, the primordial chaos. The translation then becomes: a mighty wind swept over the face of the waters, making it a part of the initial chaos. This translation is nowadays finding widespread acceptance, and shows in new bible translations.

b. New Testament (NT)

In the NT pneuma is used for spirit as the equivalent of the OT ruach. John the Baptist proclaimed that the one who was coming (Jesus) would be the bearer of the Spirit (Jn.1:26), and baptize in Spirit and fire (Mt.3: 11; Lk.3:16). After his baptism by John, Jesus was driven by the Spirit into the desert to be tested (Mk.1:12). Jesus proclaimed that the eschatological Spirit, the power of the end, was already at work through him in his words and deeds (Mt. 12:28). The Spirit is portrayed as the moving power behind every activity of Jesus. His recognition of the divinity of the Spirit made him see opposition to the Spirit as the unpardonable sin (Mk.3:29f; Mt.12:31f; Lk.12:10). Jesus promised the Spirit to his disciples during his absence (Acts 1:8) and when in tribulation (Mk.13:11; Jn.14:15-17).

Pentecost was the outpouring of the Spirit on the disciples, their baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:5), which turned them into fearless witnesses to Christ (Acts 2:1-11). After Pentecost the Spirit guides the Church and inspires all its members. The Spirit is the life-giver in marking the beginning of the Christian life (Acts 8:14-17; Gal.3:2f; Jn.3:3-8, 6:63) with a final fulfilment in the resurrection on the last day (2Cor.1:22; Eph.1:13f). The Spirit brings a personal relationship with God, fulfilling Jeremiah's hope (Jer.31:31-34), and making worship and obedience free, vital, and spontaneous (Rom.2:28f; Eph.2:18; Phil.3:3). The Spirit of the new age builds community (Acts 2:17f; Rom.8:9), uniting a group of diverse individuals into one body (1Cor.12:13; Eph.4:3f; Phil.2:1). John emphasizes the personal nature of the Spirit as the paraclete (helper, advocate, comforter) who represents Christ during his absence (Jn.14:16f; 14:25f) and who pleads for us (1Jn.2:1).

The Spirit is central in Paul's thinking. He sees Christ as being active through the Spirit (Rom.8:9; Gal.4:6; Phil.1:19), and after his ascension Jesus is present to us only in and through the Spirit. The roots of Trinitarian thinking are evident in the concluding verse of Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians (2Cor.13:13): The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.. For growth to full maturity in Christ, Paul recommends the exercise of the charismata, the gifts of the Spirit (1Cor.12). The Spirit works in our personal prayer (Rom.8:26-27). The Church and the individual Christian are a temple of the Spirit (1Cor.3:16; 6:19). The Spirit is the giver of eternal life (Rom.8:10-11; Gal.6:8), liberates us from the law (Rom.8:2), brings sanctification (2Thess.2:13), and is manifest in ethical behavior (Gal.5:22-26). But the gifts.of the Spirit must be accepted by us; we must be receptive to the Spirit.

4. Theological development

Whereas the biblical references are dealing with the function of the Spirit, the theological development in the patristic period was focused on the nature and relationships of the Spirit. The baptismal formula at the end of the gospel of Matthew (Mt.28:19), probably an insert stemming from this period, shows the beginning of trinitarian thinking. Athanasius maintained the divinity of the Spirit against the Pneumatomachian sect and against Arius who saw the Spirit as created by the Son. The position of Athanasius was upheld at the Council of Constantinople (381), which defined the Spirit as. 'the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son' and this phrase was added to the Nicene Creed.

Augustine (400) saw the Spirit as the bond of love and unity between the Father and the Son, extending to the Church, which is the temple of the Spirit. Thomas Aquinas (1260) did not contribute significant new insights in pneumatology. In medieval and later theology study of the Spirit's relation to grace raised the question whether the Spirit is an entity or a person. Peter Lombard (1150) identified grace and Spirit, but this was generally rejected in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Whereas the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed speaks about the Spirit 'who proceeds from the Father', the Synod of Braga (675) added to this phrase the words 'and the Son' (Lat. et filioque), wishing to emphasize the equal position of Father and Son,. This was taken over by synods in Gaul and Italy, and later ratified by pope Benedict VIII (1014) at the insistence of Emperor Henry I. This unilateral act of the Latin church was resented by the Greek church, causing patriarch Photius to reject the insertion and to declare the procession of the Spirit 'from the Father alone' to be a major dogma (1078). The et filioque clause thus became a major theological argument in the long-standing political and ecclesiastical disputes between Rome and Constantinople, leading to a schism that has never been healed. I dislike the et filioque clause, because it seems to rank the Spirit below the Father and the Son and to introduce an element of competition between Father and Son.

The doctrine of the Trinity with the Spirit as a divine Person in unity with the Father and the Son has been universally held since its formulation at the Council of Constantinople. In my further discussion I shall accept this, but note that the development of pneumatology sketched here has not provided us with much insight in the function of the Spirit.

5. Spirit and information

From the biblical evidence presented in section 3 it appears that five functions of the Spirit can be distinguished: (1) Life-giver; (2) Unifier; (3) Revealer; (4) Sanctifier; (5) Advocate. How can we bring these under one common denominator? I suggest that the term 'Communicator' could cover all five functions: communicating biological, spiritual and eschatological life, communicating unity and love from God to his creatures, communicating God's message in prophecy and Scripture, communicating sanctity to human creatures, communicating as Counselor of God to humans. All these activities appear to be covered by the term 'God the Communicator'. In the terminology of present-day information theory, the Spirit functions as a transmitter of information, from God to us and from us to God.

How does the Spirit transmit information?. I suggest that science can help us to answer this question, inasfar as the process is taking place in our world. Before presenting my interpretation, I shall describe three earlier attempts at defining the operation of the Spirit.

Wolfhart Pannenberg proposes that the Spirit operates as a divine field of force according to the physical field theory developed by Michael Faraday for the explanation of the long-distance effects of electric and magnetic forces.¹⁵ To this 'field theory' of the Spirit valid objections have been raised by Colin Gunton, who says that describing the Holy Spirit as a divine field of force depersonalizes the third person of the Trinity,¹⁶and by Mark Worthing,¹⁷ who points out that according to current physical understanding the fields and lines of force in the field theory are not a physical reality, but merely a metaphor, in contrast to what Faraday claimed and Pannenberg took over.

Loder and Neidhardt derive from the perichoresis notion of Gregory of Nazianzus (380) for the relational movements within the Trinity the Strange Loop model, which is a mathematical figure derived from topology (a branch of mathematics).¹⁸ While this may provide a metaphor for the interaction of the Persons within the Trinity, it does not give us more insight in the functioning of the Spirit.

Jürgen Moltmann gives the Spirit a near-monopoly in creation, while neglecting the role of the Logos.¹⁹ Actually, he is speaking of the life-giving action of the Spirit, since he concludes from Ps.104:30 (When you send forth your spirit [ruach], they [the animals] are created) that this presupposes that God always creates through and in the power of his Spirit.... He disregards the scientific evidence indicating that some 9 billion years (in our time) of God's creative activity preceded the appearance of the first living organisms.

I suggest that a more suitable metaphor for the operation of the Spirit is the virtually instantaneous, worldwide transmission of information (text, numerical data, images, voice) in digitalized form through the Internet. The variety of information that can be transmitted in this way parallels the variety of actions attributed to the Spirit in Scripture. The life-giving action of the Spirit (Gen.2:7; Ezek.37:1-10) can be compared to our ability to activate from our workplace an apparatus in our home. The Spirit acting as a 'Unifier' finds a parallel in the effect of a message posted on the Internet, which being read by many may lead to concerted action, as alas exemplified by current terrorist activity. Our communal and individual prayers are transmitted to God by the Spirit like an e-mail message is transmitted to an addressee anywhere in the world.

Receptivity to the Spirit can also be described with this model. If we have a wireless connection to the Internet by means of a so-called airport card, then this card must be tuned to the telephone or cable modem in order to receive or send messages. Similarly, our mind must be tuned to the Spirit in order to receive his message to us. The operation of evil spirits, assumed in many of the healing acts of Jesus, can be described in Internet terminology as 'spam', the unwanted messages of frequently dubious quality that we receive on our computer screen.

The interaction of spiritual 'information' with our mind is beginning to be understood through neurobiological research. Incoming information triggers nerve impulses in the neuronal networks in our brain. Depending on the type of information, these impulses are processed in different parts of the brain. Meditation activates first the frontal cortex (site of attention and concentration) and then the limbic system (site of processing powerful feelings), while the parietal lobe (sense of orientation in space and time) is deactivated.²⁰Neurotransmitters are necessary to conduct the impulse from one neuron to the next in the network. Some evidence for a role of the mood-determining neurotransmitter serotonin in the human spirituality level.²¹

The various activities of the Spirit can thus be understood metaphorically as the transmission of information through the Internet Once this information reaches our frontal cortex (the equivalent of the airport card in our computer), it is processed by certain neuronal networks in our brain to elicit awareness and feeling.

6. Spirit and creation

Scripture doesn't mention a role of the Spirit in creation, if we accept the translation of ruach elohim in Gen.1:2b as a 'mighty wind'. We have noted the life-giving activity of the Spirit, but this can only have started some 9 billion years after the 'big bang', the initial explosion. Genesis 1 has creation through God's powerful Word, the Logos. The Jewish philosopher Philo, contemporary of Jesus, saw the Logos as the chief power of God, energeia, through which the world was made.²²Likewise, Maximus the Confessor (580-662) defined the logoi of creation as the energies of God, as distinct from the essence of God.²³

This fits very well with modern cosmological theory, which tells us that the cosmos originated in a tremendous explosion, the 'big bang'. Although the theory cannot explain the origin of this explosion, it must have required a very large amount of energy, at least 10²² kilowatthours (10²² stands for 1 followed by 22 zeroes). Part of this energy served as the kinetic energy for the expanding cosmos, the other part was converted into the primeval matter, quarks and gluons, from which arose the light elements, hydrogen, helium and lithium.²⁴

However, more was needed to order the brute explosive force into a creative process: information in the form of the laws of nature and the fundamental constants. Current theoretical insight suggests that at the instant of the big bang (t = 0) there can have been no information present.²⁵ Quantum-gravity theory tells us that at quantum levels (which applies to the very early universe) the information content is limited to 1 bit per square Planck distance (=10^-35m; stands for 1 divided by 1 followed by 35 zeroes).²⁶ So information can only have been brought in shortly after the explosion. At the latest this must have happened just before the start of the 'inflation', a very fast expansion that in only 10^-30 sec, increasied the diameter of the universe from 10^-30 m to about 10 cm. The inflation determined the entire further course of the cosmos (formation of quarks and gluons; their combination to form hydrogen and helium; condensation of hydrogen and helium to form the first stars that produced all chemical elements that came to make up our Sun and Earth and our bodies.

A simple calculation shows that immediately before the inflation the cosmos could contain 10 gigabytes of information. This is less than what current computer hard disks can hold, but still the equivalent of 10,000 books. This amount of information could easily have contained the physical laws and fundamental constants needed to initiate inflation and guide the further cosmic evolution.

Theologically speaking, it is reasonable to assume that this information will have been brought in by the Spirit. Thus we find a crucial and distinct role for the Spirit as a creative agent, acting in cooperation with the Logos but separated in time by a fraction of a second. Without the benefit of our scientific knowledge, Irenaeus foresaw this in his statement: The Son and the Spirit are the two hands of God by which he created all things,²⁷ except that I substitute the non-incarnate Logos for the Son. We may characterize the actions of the 'two hands' as transmission of energy by the Logos and of information by the Spirit.

Another joint action of Logos and Spirit must occur in the eschatological event. Current cosmological theory tells us that the cosmos will in 10²⁴ years go to complete degradation, ending in a matterless cloud of photons.²⁸ This view is based on the assumption of a 'closed' universe, receiving no energy from an external source. The biblical vision of the new kingdom implies that Christ, the incarnate Logos, will act in providing the energy necessary to deflect the cosmos from its route to degradation to its fulfilment. Additionally, this would - as in the initial creation - require information input by the Spirit.

Not only have we found a crucial role for the Spirit in creation, but we have also obtained a trinitarian definition of creation: The Father acts transcendently through the non-incarnate Logos in empowering his creation.²⁹ The Spirit is immanently active in communicating the information needed for the continuing creation process and its fulfilment. The Son as the incarnate Logos empowers the transformation of the present world into the new kingdom. Thus we may recognize an essential and distinctive role for each of the three members of the Trinity in the total creation process, without a need to invoke any personifications beyond what is taught by Bible and Tradition, and without confusion of the role of the second and third persons of the Trinity.

In full observation of the canons for the science-theology dialogue set forth at the beginning, we have obtained an expanded pneumatology and a trinitarian definition of the creation. I hope to have illustrated the usefulness of this dialogue.

__________________

Notes and References

1. H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit, Nisbet, London, 1928, p.1, 5.

2. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, an Introduction, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 2001, pp.307-318.

3. For the phrase 'into all the truth' there are two Greek versions: eis tyn alytheian and en ty alytheia. C.K. Barrett (The Gospel according to St. John, SPCK, London, 1958, 407-408) comments that there is little difference between them, but he prefers the latter, which implies guidance into the whole sphere of truth, even encompassing science as William Temple says (Readings in St. John's Gospel, MacMillan, London, 1945, 290-291).

4. James E. Loder & W. Jim Neidhardt, The Knight's Move; the relational logic of the Spirit in theology and science, Helmers&Howard, Colorado Springs, CO, 1992, pp.26-31.

5. Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1996.

6. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002).

7. Denis Edwards, Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit, Orbis. Maryknoll, NY, 2004.

8. Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s) in the Natural World, Theology & Science, October 2005.

9. Adapted from: Sjoerd L. Bonting, Creation and Double Chaos, Fortress-Augsburg Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2005, 2-9.

10. Ian Barbour, Religion and Science, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Harper, San Francisco, 1997.

11. Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age, SCM, London, 1993, p.11.

12. John Polkinghorne, Scientists as Theologians, SPCK, London, 1996.

13. J.D.G. Dunn, Holy Spirit, in: New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., InterVarsity Press, Leicester, UK, 1996, pp.1125-9.

14. Michael Schmaus, Holy Spirit, in: Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopedia of Theo-logy, Burns & Oates, London,1981, pp.642-648.

15. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol.2, transl. by G.W. Bromley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1994, pp.76-136..

16. Colin E. Gunton, The Triune Creator, A Historical and Systematic Study, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1998, pp.161-162.

17. Mark W. Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics, Fortress Press, Minneapolis,1996, p.120-124.

18. James E. Loder & W. Jim Neidhardt, The Knight's Move; the relational logic of the Spirit in theology and science, Helmers&Howard, Colorado Springs, CO, 1992, pp.26-31.

19. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation, Harper, San Francisco, 1991, pp.9-13.

20. Andrew Newberg, Neurological research on meditation, online <www.virtualcs.com/meditat/lesson8.html>.

21. Dean H. Hamer, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes, Doubleday, New York, 2004.

22. Logos, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ketar Publishing House, Jerusalem, vol.14, pp.460-462, 1972. Note: The physical concept of energy as a measure of the capacity to do work was first introduced in the 17th century by Galileo, and further developed by Newton; heat was identified as a form of energy by Helmholtz and Joule around 1840. So energy in its present physical meaning was not yet known to Philo.

23. Lars Thunberg, Man and the Cosmos; The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1985, pp.137-143.

24. Sjoerd L. Bonting, Creation and Double Chaos, Fortress-Augsburg Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2005, 17-26.

25. Craig J. Hogan, Observing the Beginning of Time, Amer. Scientist 90 (no.5), 420-427, 2002 Sept./Oct.

26. George Musser, A Pixelated Cosmos, Scient.Amer. 287 (no.4):8-9, 2002; Craig J. Hogan, The Beginning of Time, Science 295, 2223-2225, 2002.

27. Irenaeus, Adv.haer.4.20.1.

28. Charles Seife, Galaxy Maps Support Theory That The Universe Is Flying to Pieces, Science 302, 762-763, 2003 Oct.31.

29. Stephen W. Need, Re-Reading the Prologue: Incarnation and Creation in John 1:1-8, Theology 106 (834), 397-404, 2003) also concludes that the (non-incarnate) Logos is the pre-existent instrument of creation moving in its own realm of creation until its incarnation in Jesus in v.14. This rules out the idea of a pre-existent Christ, who would moreover not be fully human and thus unable to be the Savior of humankind.

3619 words text, 632 words refs.; 26/9/05