Economy, Ecology, Ecumenism

7/28/2019 Economy, Ecology, Ecumenism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/economy-ecology-ecumenism 1/25

Journal of Pentecostal Teology 19 (2010) 219–242 brill.nl/pnt

Pentecost Communal Economicsand the Household of God

Daniela C. AugustineL Univrsity, 1120 N. Oo St, Clvland, N 37311, USA

[email protected]

Abstract Modrn onomi history has bn dominatd by th no-lassial onomi modl whih hasprodud ontmporary ‘markt soity’ with its all prmating ommodifying logi. Contrary to th traditional apitalist priority of onomi slf-intrst, Christian spirituality of soialtransformation upholds th nssity of ovnantal ivil soity that prioritizs th wllbing of th othr as an indispnsabl part of a just global futur.

In viw of that, th prsnt work offrs an xploration of th thologial foundations of thPntost modl of ommunal ologial onomis and its undrlying spirituality as following th pattrn of God’s gnrous rdmptiv slf-sharing with humanity and th rst of ration. It

furthr xamins th rlationship btwn Pntost, santifiation and moral onomi rspon-sibility, and xplors th funtion of th Euharist in th faith ommunity as a pdagogy of dis-iplining dsirs and tahing rvrnt onsumption.

KeywordsPntost, Communal Eonomis, Euharist, Houshold, Santifiation

Introduction: From Neo-Classical and Ecological Economicsto Pentecost, Communal Oikonomia in the Likeness of God

Tr fundamntal trms, pakd with soio-politial signifian and tnsion,hav thir tymologial origin in th Grk word oikos , translatd ‘hous’ or‘houshold’. Ts ar ecology , economics and ecumenism .1 Trfor, applying

1 Exploring th onntion btwn thology and onomis, various sholars hav rfltdon th tymology of ths trms. Notworthy is Salli MFagu’s ida of undrstanding ology as ‘words about hom’ bing fundamntal in dvloping ologial litray and umniity.Salli MFagu, A New Climate for Teology: God, the World and Global Warming (Minnapolis,MN: Fortrss Prss, 2008).



220 D.C. Augustine / Journal of Pentecostal Teology 19 (2010) 219–242

our linguisti imagination, w an think about ology as ‘words or disoursabout th houshold’, of onomis as th ‘managmnt of th houshold and

its rsours’, and of umniity as ‘th togthrnss and intronntivity within th houshold’. In our urrnt plantary ondition of onomi andsoio-politial globalization, with its salating omprssion of tim andspa, w xprin strongr than vr th funtional onntivity btwnths thr dimnsions of human xistn. W raliz that our prsonal andsoital wll-bing is intriatly onntd to th wll-bing of th glob andthat w shar ah othrs’ drams and nightmars in ways that on upon a tim wr mrly a spulation of sin fition. T pross of globalizationhas hallngd us with th ralization that w all shar a houshold and a

rsponsibility for its halth and funtionality.M. Douglas Mks dfins oikos as ‘ass to livlihood’.2 For hom

is whr vryon knows your nam. Hom is whr you an always ount onbing omfortd, forgivn, lovd, and ard for. Hom is whr thr is always a pla for you at th tabl. And, finally, hom is whr you an ount on sharing

what is on th tabl.3

If w apply this poti dfinition of hom to plant Earth as th oikos of ontmporary global soity, w may onlud that almost two-thirds of th plant’s population is homlss, for thy liv in povrty—in sub-human

onditions with sar ass to livlihood.4 As Danil G. Groody rmarks, whn lookd at from ‘blow’, ‘it boms all th mor vidnt that onomidvlopmnt in th global villag has not always ld to gratr human dvl-opmnt. Most of th world laks th basi nssitis for dignifid humanlif’.5 Eonomi justi has bom th ntral qustion of th oikonomia of th global villag, and riving justi is riving ‘ass to hom’.6

T inadquais of onomi dvlopmnt ar furthr highlightd by thgrowing awarnss of th intrdpndn btwn ologial, onomi,and soial sustainability. Trfor, onrns for onomi justi hav

bom losly linkd with th dmand for ologial justi as authors likSalli MFagu hav idntifid natur as th ‘nw poor’ in th North Atlanti

2 M. Douglas Mks, God the Economist: Te Doctrine of God and Political Economy (Minnapolis, MN: Fortrss Prss, 1989), p. 33.

3 Mks, God the Economis t, p. 36.4 For statistis on povrty in th global villag s Danil G. Groody, ‘Globalizing Solidarity:

Christian Anthropology and th Challng of Human Libration’, Teological Studies 69 (2008),pp. 250-268.

5 Groody, ‘Globalizing Solidarity’, p. 258.6 Mks, God the Economist , p. 36.



D.C. Augustine / Journal of Pentecostal Teology 19 (2010) 219–242 221

7 Salli MFagu, ‘An Eologial Christology: Dos Christianity Hav It?’ in Ditr . Hssl

and Rosmary Rdford Ruthr (ds.), Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Being of Earthand Humans (Cambridg, MA: Harvard Univrsity Prss, 2000), pp. 29-45 (30). S alsoMFagu’s work Life Abundant: Rethinking Teology and Economy for A Planet in Peril (Minnapolis, MN: Fortrss Prss, 2001), pp. 33-37.

8 Adam Smith, Te Teory of Moral Sentiments (London: Murray & Co., 1872), p. 304. Inthis partiular work Smith advoats a onntion btwn human grd and divin providnin God’s ‘ar of th univrsal happinss of all rational and snsibl bings’ (p. 210). For furthrrading on Smith’s idas about th funtion of slf-intrst s his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Nw York: Modrn Library, 1937).

9 Munyaradzi Flix Murov, ‘Prptions of Grd in Wstrn Eonomi and Rligiousraditions: An Afrian Communitarian Rspons’, Black Teology 5.2 (2007), pp. 220-43.

10 Mks, God the Economist , p. 38.11 Mks, God the Economist , p. 38.

onomis and alld for its manipation and inlusion in th plantary houshold.7

A signifiant portion of modrn onomi history has bn dominatdby th so-alld no-lassial onomi modl that larly nglts thonntion btwn onomy and ology and rdus all othr soial rla-tionships to onomi funtions of xhang and onsumption navigatdby slf-intrst. T fathr of no-lassial onomis, Adam Smith, insistdthat ommon good is an vntual outom of th prsonal pursuit of walth and onomi slf-intrst. Smith assrtd th guidan of soity through ‘th invisibl hand’ of divin providn in aomplishing th bttr-mnt of all whil indulging individual intrsts and dsirs.8 Othr thinkrs

of th tim agrd with Smith that prsonal grd funtions as a virtu in thismodl of markt onomy sin its final nd lads to a rihr soity as a whol.9

Tis is th modl that has produd ontmporary ‘markt soity’ whrmarkt logi has prmatd all dimnsions of human xistn and trans-formd thm into ralms of stok xhang in satisfying prsonal nds anddsirs. T laim of markt soity is that vrything an potntially b om-modifid and sold at th markt, and that sin th markt is nutral, impr-sonal, and automati, it an funtion ‘without systms of justi basd on

natural law’.10

As Mks points out, ‘th grat fasination of th markt is thassumption that w hav finally found a way to organiz mass human bhav-ior without dominion, authority and orion’.11 Howvr, th all ompr-hnsiv ‘objtivity’ of th markt is blind to th ration of non-marktablpopula whih is alinatd from th yl of prodution and onsumption,by virtu of laking markt valu. T wak, th young, th ldrly, and th




disabld ar among this ‘surplus’12 humanity xludd from th bliss of mar-kt soity.

T no-lassial modl of onomis is basd on traing th movmnt of xhang and trad of labor, goods, srvis, and othr forms of apitalbtwn houshold units and ompanis. Within it, th houshold is mrly a partiipating omponnt that maks possibl th ontinual fr-markt ylof supply, prodution, xhang, and onsumption. T survival of th hous-hold dpnds on th dgr of its onvrtibility within th rlationships man-datd by markt logi. Trfor, th houshold as a whol and its individualmmbrs ar ommodifid and asribd an xhang valu whih onvrtsthir intlltual, biologial, and rativ abilitis into markt ommoditis.

Tis is a d-prsonifid valu, dtrmind by supply and dmand. Tis o-nomi modl manags humanity as on among th ssntial natural rsoursthat failitat th ontinuity of onomi prodution and srvs as an intgralfator in dtrmining th sop and haratr of prodution. Howvr, thno-lassial onomi modl dos not proprly aount for th input andoutput of nrgy and mattr, thus rating th illusion of an onomi pro-ss that funtions as a perpetuum mobile —a prft losd slf-prptuating systm (ngin) of prodution and onsumption that xists irrsptivly of th surrounding nvironmnt. Trfor, this modl dfis th Sond Law of

Trmodynamis and lavs us with a mathmatial impossibility. Furthr, by ignoring th nvironmnt, th no-lassial modl dos not aount fornatur’s partiipation in th onomi pross (for xampl, as th sour of nrgy and natural rsours) and dos not aknowldg th nvironmntalffts of prodution (for xampl, matrial pollution and nrgy wast). Italso dos not tak undr onsidration th fr ontribution of ration in thpross of prodution and onsumption (for xampl, b-pollination, watryl and filtration, ozon layr prottion, and so forth).

In ontrast to th no-lassial modl, ologial onomis highlights th

intr-onntivity and intrdpndn btwn soity, th nvironmnt,and th onomi pross. It brings to th surfa th issus of ology asintgral to th wll-bing of humanity and th sustainability of onomis.T rovrd sns of intrdpndn btwn ology and onomismaks this modl mor organi and ommunal. T flourishing of th spa-rat individual boms inxpliably onntd to th flourishing of th whol

12 In his work M. D. Mks dvlops th onpt of ‘surplus popl’ who do not fit in th

logi and yls of markt onomy. S ‘T Churh and th Poor in Supply-Sid Eonomis’,Cities (Fall 1983), pp. 6-9.




(in all of its anthropi and non-anthropi omponnts).13 Whil th no-lassial modl rflts th markt logi and its priority of slf-intrst rsult-

ing in omptition for rsours, ologial onomis is ‘a human ntrpristhat sks to maximiz th optimal funtioning of th plant’s gifts and srv-is for all usrs’.14

In furthr ontrast to th no-lassial modl, ologial onomis viwsth onomi and soial sphrs not as indpndnt ralms but as o-dpndant and positiond within th vastr nvironmntal sphr. Whilrflting th omplxity and intrdpndn of soial, nvironmntal, andonomi xistn and mphasizing human moral rsponsibility for th nvi-ronmnt, ologial onomis still trat th houshold unit as just an lmnt

within th onomi pross of prodution, onsumption, and sustainability. Yt, for 2000 yars, Christianity has sustaind a diffrnt vision of hous-

hold—th vision of th world’s ultimat dstiny as boming a hous of prayr, worship, and haling in whih all nations ar bondd in a ovnantalglobal ommunity (Rv. 7.9-10). Tis osmopolitan vision is sustaind by a spirituality inarnatd within th ommunity of faith that livs out th rality of th Kingdom as a faith-praxis of th Body of Christ on bhalf of th world.T inarnation of this vision is th harismati rativ work of th Holy Spirit, who transforms human bings and ommunitis into Christ-liknss.

T Spirit guids humanity towards its shatologial dstiny—th CosmiChrist—th rdmptiv telos of ration who is th ruth that sts us fr andmaks us whol as human bings, as ommunitis, and as a world.

Contrary to th traditional apitalist priority of onomi slf-intrst,15

th Christian vision of houshold insists on th prati of politis and o-nomis as an xtrnal matrialization of innr spiritual lif and, thrfor, as‘th prati of morality’.16 Christian spirituality of soial transformationupholds th nssity of ovnantal ivil soity 17 that prioritizs th othr

13 Salli MFagu, A New Climate for Teology: God, the World and Global Warming (Minn-apolis, MN: Fortrss Prss, 2008), p. 88. I am using ‘non-anthropi’ as a synonym to ‘nothuman’ in dsignation of th part of ration that dos not inorporat th human soium andinluds all of th rst of th trrstrial ratd things and bings.

14 MFagu, A New Climate for Teology , p. 89.15 For a mor dtaild politial and onomi xposition on th walth aumulating and

onsumption rflx of apitalism, s Alx Callinios, An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto (Cambridg,UK: Polity Prss, 2003), pp. 35-39.

16 Valav Havl, ‘Politis, Morality and Civility’, pp. 391-402 in Don E. Ebrly (d.), Te Essential Civil Society Reader: Classic Essays in the American Civil Society Debate (Nw York:Rowman & Littlfild, 2000), p. 397.

17 Jonathan Saks, Te Politics of Hope (London: Vintag, 2000). T author dsribs thso alld ‘third-stor institutions’, thos sustaining th ivil soity, in th onditions of lat




and th diffrnt as an indispnsabl part of a just global futur. Tisspirituality draws ourag from th prsn of th othr and spaks th

languag of hop on thir bhalf. It involvs ivil rsponsibility for th othrthat in turn dmands ‘intrnal rstraints,’18 for xampl, a form of rsponsi-bl and rvrnt onsumption ommittd to onomi and ologial jus-ti.19 It ultivats th ivi virtu of fasting from onslf on bhalf of thfllow human and th rst of natur. In this spiritual disiplin on is om-mittd to sharing possssions with on’s nighbor and rdistributing walthaording to human nds rathr than politial and onomi bnfits. Tdvlopmnt of this typ of ivi onsiousnss rquirs our prsonal spiritualtransformation. ‘W an hang th world if w an hang ourslvs’.20

Ultimatly, th hang dmandd is that of humanity transfigurd in th lik-nss of God.

T Pntost ommunal onomi modl, as artiulatd by Luk in th Ats of th Apostls, xmplifis prisly this transfiguring spirituality withinth Spirit-filld koinonia of blivrs. T Spirit transforms thm into Christ-liknss, making thm partakrs of th divin natur and translating thminto th lif of th rinity so that in turn thy an bom an inarnation of th divin ommunal lif on arth. T ommunity of faith boms ‘thhoushold of God’ so that through th agny of th Holy Spirit it may par-

tiipat in God’s work of transforming th ntir world ‘into a houshold in whih all of God’s raturs will find ass to lif’.21

In viw of th abov, th prsnt work offrs an xploration of th thologi-al foundations of th Pntost modl of ommunal ologial onomisand its undrlying spirituality as following th pattrn of God’s gnrousrdmptiv slf-sharing with humanity and th rst of ration. It furthrxamins th rlationship btwn Pntost and santifiation as dvloping of Christ-lik onsiousnss and moral onomi rsponsibility, and xplorsth funtion of th Euharist in th ommunity of faith as pdagogy of disi-

plining dsirs and tahing rvrnt onsumption.

apitalism. H alls th rlationships thy form ovnantal (vs. ontratual) and ss thm asfoundational for just soity. Jan Bthk Elshtain also highlights th nd for a ‘nw soialovnant’ in ‘Dmoray on rial’, in Te Essential Civil Society Reader , pp. 101-22, sp.pp. 117-20.

18 Saks, Politics of Hope , p. 268.19 imothy Gorring, ‘T Prinipalitis and Powrs: A Framwork for Tinking about glo-

balization’, in Ptr Hslam (d.), globalization and the Good (London, UK: SPCK, 2004), pp.79-91.

20

Saks, Politics of Hope , p. 269.21 Mks, God the Economist , p. 45.




Teological Foundations of Pentecost Communal Economics

Te Self-sharing of the Creator and His Creation

If w look losly at th funtion of ration within th onomi pross w will noti a diffrnt form of onomi partiipation that dos not follow markt logi. Cration is not ompnsatd for its ontribution—thrfor itdos not partiipat in th onomi xhang but follows a modl of sharing itslf (and its rsours) with humanity. It follows th modl of th slf-sharing and hospitality of its Crator.

T Word of God brought forth th non-anthropi ration as a tangibl

matrialization of its prsn in th osmos. Tis ontology rminds us of thspiritual origin of mattr but also points to th ration’s funtion as a mat-rial dimnsion of God’s lov towards humanity and th rst of his raturs inHis rativ slf-giving and slf-sharing with th othr. T world thrforpoints bak to th Word (Psalm 19.1-6) and, as Dimitru Staniloa assrts,boms a witnss and sign of th Word, baring in itslf th Word’s divinprsn and tlologial intnt.22 Trfor, mattr has a spiritual origin,ontnt, and purpos whih ar indispnsabl from its dsign. T osmos isfilld with th Word’s imprint whih idntifis not only th authorship but

also th ownrship of God. God givs th world to humanity in slf-sharing as a gift of lif in substan and bauty so that humanity in turn may larn toshar it with th othr and th diffrnt. T world is a gift with a pdagogialfuntion—hlping humanity ‘to grow spiritually’23—to grow in th liknssof God. Tis pdagogy dvlops through th ‘dialogu of th gift’ that bringsGod and humanity togthr in th gstur of slf-sarifiial giving.24 Sinhumanity dos not hav anything of its own to giv to God, it larns to givbak to th Crator from th ration (for xampl, th tith, th Sabbath).T gratst gift in this xhang is that of giving onslf, giving on’s own

22 Dimitru Staniloa, Te Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Teology , vol. 2, Te World:Creation and Deification (Brooklin, Massahustts: Holy Cross Orthodox Prss, 2005), p. 21.

23 Staniloa, Te Experience of God , p. 22.24 Staniloa, Te Experience of God . ‘T paradox [of th rturn of th gift] is xplaind by th

fat that th gift rivd and rturnd draws th prsons los to on anothr to suh an xtntthat th objt of th gift boms somthing ommon and oms to b th transparnt mansfor th fullst ommunion btwn prsons. And not only is th gift somthing ommon, but itis also inrasd through th lif whih th prsons ommuniat to on anothr through thlov manifstd in th gift thy mak; in this way th prsons giv thmslvs as a gift, and

through this giving thy grow spiritually’ (p. 22). ‘T dialogu of th gift btwn God and thhuman prson lis in th fat that ah bstows himslf upon th othr’ (p. 23).




lif. Tis is also th ultimat all to th liknss of God for humanity om-muniatd in God’s slf-giving in Christ.

In his book, Te rinity and the Kingdom , Jürgn Moltmann givs us a om-plling imag of God as Crator pitomizing th ssn of divin lov. Tis isth imag of God’s ‘withdrawal of himslf’, His ‘slf-limitation’, in opning spa for th xistn of ration.25 It is a gift of unonditional hospitality—God stablishs His slf-limitation on bhalf of th othr. Tis is an at of fasting from onslf in ordr to nurtur th othr and srvs as th modl of striving towards God-liknss (in Christ-liknss). Trfor, bing holy asGod is holy (1 Pt. 1.15-16) inluds unonditional ovnantal lov towardsth othr as on’s nighbor. (Eph. 1.4)

In light of this, hospitality as obligation an b ontrastd with hospitality as a gift from th Spirit (Rom. 12.13). Bing th ration of th Holy Spirit, thfaith ommunity xhibits this slf-sharing hospitality in th Body of Christ asan xtnsion of God’s wloming th othr xprssd in baring forth thfruit of th Spirit (Gal. 5.22-23). Tis fruit is produd in intr-soiality forth sak of th othr and th diffrnt, as an at of Christ-lik slf-giving inlov. Tis is a distint typ of prodution whih implis a diffrnt politialonomy—on that builds its forms and rlationships as an xtnsion of thovnantal bonds ndd for baring forth this nw soial apital. Christ-lik

produtivity brings forth a onsiousnss that prioritizs th nds of thothr and mts thm in hospitality of faith, hop, and lov. Tis hospitality dmands th r-spaing of th slf and th rdistribution of on’s rsours. Itrats nw onditions for th host in whih th supplying of his or hr pr-sonal nds boms a funtion of supplying th nds of th othr. Tirown nurtur boms indispnsabl from ‘doing th will of th Fathr’ andaomplishing ‘His work’ as an xtnsion of Christ on arth (Jn 4.34).

Ultimatly, it is th hospitality of God that is offrd and rivd by thothr through th agny of th Spirit. Tis is th Crator’s hom-building,

slf-sharing hospitality whih maks th osmos a houshold for all—a hom whr all hav a pla at th tabl in th unonditionally loving mbra of th rinity.

Pentecost and Sanctification as Attaining the Likeness of God

In ontinuity with th Inarnation of th trnal Logos in th prson of Christ,th vnt of Pntost rprsnts an xpliit anti-gnosti statmnt—th Spirit

25

Jürgn Moltmann, Te rinity and the Kingdom (Minnapolis: Fortrss Prss, 1993),p. 59.




mbraing th matriality of ‘all flsh’ (Ats 2.17) within th lif of th riunGod. As Vladimir Lossky points out, th ‘profound maning of th Inarnation

rsids in th physial and mtaphysial vision of natur mtamorphosizd by gra, in this rstoration hnforth aquird by human natur, in this brahopnd through th opaqunss of dath that lads to difiation’.26 TEastrn Orthodox undrstanding of difiation (theosis ) as attaining th lik-nss of God in Christ-liknss is affi rmd as th ultimat alling and purposof all humanity.27 T path towards th liknss of God dmands on’sontinual Christi transfiguring whih alls for santifiation of prsonal willand dsirs, for fasting from onslf on bhalf of th othr in xprssion of aninarnatd lov towards God and nighbor. T frdom of human will in th

imag of God is a prrquisit for attaining th divin liknss. As Lossky assrts, it taks on will to rat humanity, but two to santify it. ‘A singl will to ris up th imag, but two to mak th imag into a liknss’.28

Trfor, santifiation dmands th synrgisti ollaboration btwn thdivin and human will. Tis synrgy is impossibl apart from Christ’s inar-nation, ruifixion, rsurrtion, and asnsion. H is th Way (Jn 14.6) thatbridgs th hasm btwn humanity and God—th hasm of ‘dath, sin andfalln [human] natur’.29 His inarnation ovroms th abyss of falln natur;His ruifixion ovroms th hasm of sin; and as dath is xhaustd by His

rsurrtion, th On who is th Rsurrtion and th Lif (Jn 11.24) ovr-oms and dstroys ‘th last nmy’ (I Cor. 15.26).30 Finally, in His asnsionChrist units havn and arth as thir ultimat dstiny in and with God,bringing humanity within th koinonia of th rinity, making us ‘partakrsof th divin natur’ (2 Pt. 1.4) and transfiguring us into its liknss. Tisvision of human dstiny xtnds byond th nssity of salvation into thshatologial goal of union with God in th Cosmi Christ (Eph. 1.10).Unitd with Christ w partiipat in th immann of His sond oming,xprining th transfiguration of th osmos in ‘th trnal splndor of th

kingdom’.31

26 Vladimir Lossky, Introduction to Orthodox Teology (Crstwood, NY: St. Vladimir’sSminary Prss, 1978), p. 92.

27 Christophoros Stavropoulos, ‘Partakrs of Divin Natur’ in Danil B. Clndnin (d.),Eastern Orthodox Teology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Bakr Books, 1995),p. 183-184.

28 Lossky, Introduction to Orthodox Teology , p. 73.29 Stavropoulos, ‘Partakrs of Divin Natur’, p. 188.

30 Stavropoulos, ‘Partakrs of Divin Natur’, p. 188.31 Lossky, Introduction to Orthodox Teology , p. 85.




Trfor, santifiation as attaining th liknss of God manifsts itslf only as a rsult of th work of Christ (I Cor. 1.30)—as an outom of divin

gra in and through th agny of th Holy Spirit (I Pt. 1.2). ‘T Holy Spirit is th main and ssntial bginning of santifiation’32—th On whoapplis what is objtivly aomplishd in Christ to th lif of th individualblivr and th ommunity of faith, forming Christ’s Body on arth.

Pntost inaugurats th bginning of th santifying work of th Holy Spirit in th koinonia of rdmd humanity.33 T vnt of Pntost ouldb viwd as th inarnation of Christ in th ommunity of faith through thagny of th Holy Spirit.34 As th third prson of th rinity pours Himslf ovr th on hundrd twnty in th uppr room, thy bom both Christ-

barrs and a living xtnsion of His rsurrtd Body on arth. SrgiusBulgakov has givn us th imag of Jsus’ onption as bing ‘th Pntostof th Virgin’.35 As th Holy Spirit dsnds on Mary in rspons to hr will-ingnss and radinss for srvi (Lk. 1.38), sh is transformd into an instru-mnt of God’s Word boming flsh in our midst (Jn 1.14). For Bulgakov, ittaks a willing human instrumnt to authntiat th humannss of Christ inth inarnation.36

In a similar mannr, as th Spirit dsnds upon th disipls, Christ isonivd in thm and thy ar mpowrd (Ats 1.8) towards Christ-liknss.

Individually and orporatly, thy bom Christ-barrs and bar forth anmbodid gospl as a hop ralizd in th midst of a dstitut humanity.

T vnt of Pntost ould b undrstood in rlation to th promisdfulfillmnt of a rnwd ovnant with God and nighbor (Jr. 31.33) that isbrought about through God’s transformational slf-giving.37 T ovnant has

32 Stavropoulos, ‘Partakrs of Divin Natur’, p. 188.33 Lossky, Introduction to Orthodox Teology , p. 85.34 For mor on th thologial signifian of th vnt of Pntost s my work on

‘Pntost as th Churh’s Cosmopolitan Vision of Civil Soity’ in William Storror, PtrCasarlla and Paul Mtzgr (ds.), A World for All? Global Civil Society in Political Teory and rinitarian Teology (Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, forthoming).

35 Srgius Bulgakov, ‘T Virgin and th Saints in Orthodoxy’, in Danil B. Clndnin (d.),Eastern Orthodox Teology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Bakr Books, 1995),p. 67.

36 Bulgakov, ‘T Virgin and th Saints in Orthodoxy’, p. 67.37 Rflting on th onntion btwn th giving of th orah and th lbration of

Pntost, Luk . Johnson stats that: ‘Aftr th dstrution of th tmpl in c.e. 70, it is larthat Pntost was univrsally undrstood by th Jws to b th lbration of th giving of thorah on Mt. Sinai’ (Te Acts of the Apostles , p. 46). Rogr Stronstad points out that th fast of

Pntost was historially lbratd as ‘th sond of thr pilgrim fstivals in Isral’sliturgial alndar’ (Te Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Teology




bn stablishd in God’s slf-giving in Christ and sald with His slf-giving in th Spirit that brings th blivrs into th koinonia of th rinity. Trfor,

th Pntost thophany of th Spirit authntiats th rdmption aom-plishd by God in Christ Jsus. Christ is th nw Adam (1 Cor. 15.45), thprft ion and rprsntation of God (Col. 1.15, 2 Cor. 4.4). In Himhumanity is rstord to its propr position in rlation to th divin and thrst of ration. Human soiality is rdmd in ommunion with th othras a rfltion and xtnsion through th Holy Spirit of th trinitarian lif of God.38 Trfor, th harismati koinonia of th blivrs, as th ration of th Holy Spirit, rprsnts a rnwal of th ivi, ommunal ovnant withinth salvifi ovnant.

In its unity with God, th Body of Christ rprsnts a nw Christ-lik on-siousnss on arth. Tis global and osmi onsiousnss of th Kingdom isxprssd in a rdmptiv rlationship with th othr—as lov for God andnighbor (Mt. 27.37-40). Sin Christ’s mssiani mission is fulfilld in slf-giving to th othr, th onsiousnss formd by th Spirit in His Body is anantidot to slfishnss and gontri dsirs. Whil slf-ntrd onsious-nss ommodifis, onsums, marginalizs, and vn liminats th othr foron’s own bnfit, th mssiani onsiousnss of Christ’s Body prioritizs thothr and thir wll-bing.

T Body follows th movmnt of th Spirit from ‘th innrmost bing’(Jn 7.38) to th ‘nds of th world’. Inarnation is th mod of this xtro-vrtd movmnt, and th Spirit is its agnt, ngin, and navigator.

[Shffi ld: Shffi ld Aadmi Prss, 1999], p. 54). Rgarding th possibility of Luk’s aounton Pntost to b inflund by th rabbini tradition quating th fast of Pntost with thgiving of th Law, Stronstad suggsts that it is unlikly, sin this rabbini tradition dvlopdlatr than th Pntost narrativ in Ats (Te Charismatic Teology of St. Luke [Pabody,Massahustts: Hndrikson, 1984], p. 58). T rabbini tradition vntually dvlopd th

blif that whn th law was givn, it was hard not only by Isral but by th 72 nations listd inGn. 10.2-31. In his ommntary on Ats, F.F. Bru its th Midrash anhuma 26 C, that atSinai th voi of God dividd into ‘svn vois and thn wnt into svnty tongus’(Commentary on the Book of Acts [T Nw Intrnational Commntary on th Nw stamnt;Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans, 1979], p. 60). In opposition to Stronstad, Johnson points outthat ‘Luk rtainly ould hav mad th onntion’ btwn th Pntost fast and th giving of th orah, on his own, in spit of th xistn or not of suh a tradition prior to his aountof Pntost in Ats.

38 For an in-dpth disussion on th rinitarian soiality as xprssd in th human soium,s: Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: Te Church in the Image of the rinity (Grand Rapids, MI:Erdmans, 1998). Also s Владимир Соловьëв, ‘Трочное Начало и его Общественноe

Приложение’, pp. 243-334 in Чтения о Богочеловечество (Санкт-Петербург: Азбука,2000), sp. in haptr 10, Soloviov’s passag on th Soial rinity.




T Spirit’s mission (in ontinuity with th haratr and natur of God) isralizd through slf-sharing—God pours Himslf upon all flsh. In sharing

His lif, H boms th sour of lif that sustains th spiritual ology of th faith ommunity.

In viw of th abov, th immdiat thologial impliation of th o-nomi modl of th Pntost ommunity (Ats 2.42-47, 4.34, 5.1-12)xprssd in shard ownrship of possssions is th organi ontologial andshatologial unity of th faith ommunity with Christ. As Luk . Johnsonpoints out, ‘T sharing of all things was a dirt sign of th unity gnratdby th Spirit; it was a Spirit-filld gstur’.39 Tus, th lif of th first blivrs‘is th lif of th Spirit’.40 Luk’s aount of this inarnation of th divin lif

in th Body of Christ is plad in th ontxt of onvrsion. Boming a Nw Humanity in Christ with a nw Christ-lik onsiousnss prds sharing of matrial xistn. As Johnson onluds, hr Luk uss possssions ‘as thxprssion of innr lif’.41 Trfor, th Pntost ommunity’s ommunalproprty is a dirt outom of its onnss with Christ and on anothr by virtu of bing His Body. If thr is on Christ, thr is on Body and a singlownrship of its possssions. Ty ar th possssions of Christ Himslf—thy srv His purpos and mission on arth and ar an xprssion of Christ’sslf-sharing in His Body. As H ovrflows into th blivrs, thy ovrflow

into on anothr in th organi orporal lif of th Spirit-filld koinonia .If ‘possssions ar symboli xprssions of ourslvs baus w both ar

and hav bodis,’42 thn surrndring our possssions to Christ is apting His idntity (and that of His Body) as our own. T Fathrs of th Churhsaw th imag of God in humanity as inorporating th totality of th humanbing—of its spiritual and matrial xistn.43 Trfor, th liknss of Godalso annot xlud th body and its matrial xtnsion of possssions.Sriptur ontinually mphasizs th rality of th body whn artiulating thmandat for santifiation (I T. 4.3-8, 5.23, Hb. 9. 13-14, Rom. 6.19). T

santifying work of th Spirit involvs th totality of th human xistn with all of its soial and matrial xprssions in ations, rlationships, anddsirs.

39 Luk . Johnson, Te Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Missoula, M: SholarsPrss, 1977), p. 208.

40 Johnson, Te Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts , p. 185.41 Johnson, Te Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts , p. 184.42 Luk . Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadlphia: Fortrss

Prss, 1981), p. 40.

43 Lossky, Introduction to Orthodox Teology , p. 71, Stavropoulos, ‘Partakrs of DivinNatur’, p. 186.




Pentecost and Moral Economic Responsibility

As th Inarnation, so also Pntost affi rms th ontologial rlationshipbtwn mattr and Spirit and opns th door to undrstanding ‘th matrialondition of othrs as a spiritual mattr’.44

T onomi paradigm of th Pntost ommunity affi rms this undr-standing and outlins th soial rsponsibilitis of holinss as an xtnsion of th lif of th Spirit in human flsh. Saintlinss manifsts itslf as srving thmatrial nds of othrs with on’s own possssions. Sharing possssions,thrfor, boms an xprssion of partiipation in th lif of God and a matrialization of shard spirituality.

Edith Wyshogrod offrs th following idntifir of sainthood: A saintly lif is dfind as on in whih ompassion for th Othr, irrsptiv of ost to th saint, is a primary trait … Tir [th saints’] livs xhibit two typs of ngation: th ngation of slf and th lak of what is ndful but absnt in th lifof th Othr.45

Salli MFagu argus that prsonal matrial possssions an blind human-ity for th matrial nds of othrs as bing a spiritual mattr. Sh assrts that‘slf-mptying, slf-dnial, allows us to s diffrntly and hn to liv diffr-ntly … it is oftn th first stp toward univrsal lov of othrs, toward sing othrs as valuabl and all as intrrlatd’.46

Viwd as slf-dnial on bhalf of th othrs, th ats of sharing possssionsstand among th gsturs and imags that summon our moral rsponsthrough th hagiographis of th saints as imitators of Christ. Tir rdmdhumanity is dfind not ‘by onsumption but by kenosis ’ that flows out of ‘partiipation in th fullnss of th rinitarian lif’—of mutual slf-giving andriving.47 As th saints mpty thmslvs in th Body of Christ thy bomHis Body on arth and ar transfigurd into His Nw Humanity taking thform and shap of thir dstiny and mission in Christ-liknss. Tis imitation

is intrprtd as a fulfillmnt of th broadr mission of th ommunity of faith—th ministry of roniliation. T pa-making of th sons and

44 Salli MFagu, ‘Epilogu: T Human Dignity and th Intgrity of Cration’ in Darby Kathln Ray (d.), Teology that Matters: Ecology, Economy and God ( Minnapolis: FortrssPrss, 2006), pp. 199-212 (209).

45 Edith Wyshogrod, Saints and Postmodernity: Revisioning Moral Philosophy (Chiago: TUnivrsity of Chiago, 1990), xxi.

46 MaFagu, ‘Epilogu…’, pp. 209-210.

47 William . Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire (Grand Rapids,MI: Erdmans, 2008), p. 86.




daughtrs of God in this world is larly not limitd to th ssation of warand physial violn. It points to shalom of omprhnsiv justi that

involvs all humanity and th rst of ration. Trfor, th dfinition of pa also inluds ‘providing th arth and its popl with th basis of xist-n,’48 thus affi rming thir dignity and idntity as bing part of our ownommon dstiny.

T brif Pntost intrruption of th historial onomi yl xposdth profound nd of th santifiation of humanity and its dsirs andpointd to th intrnal struggl of human onsiousnss whn fad with thvision of th Kingdom in th midst of th tmptation and promiss of this world’s onomi systms. As Cavanaugh assrts, our tmptation is to spiritu-

aliz our union and solidarity with th poor, th opprssd, th suffring, to mak our onntion to th hungry a sntimntal at of imaginativ sympathy.

W ould thn vn imagin that w ar alrady in a ommunity with thos wholak food, whthr or not w atually mt thir physial nds. W might vn

wish to tll ourslvs that our purhas of onsumr goods do in fat fd oth-rs—by rating jobs. But w hav no way of knowing if suh jobs rat dignity or mrly tak advantag of othrs’ dspration.49

T tragi story of Ananias and Sapphira (Ats 5.1-10) illustrats this point.Tir dath ould b sn as a pointr to th ultimat nd of th spirituality

bhind it—it dos not hav a futur in th Kingdom of God. It is a spiritual-ity that nds rdmption and atonmnt, for th wags of sin is dath.Slfishnss is ontrastd with slf-giving; sin is ontrastd with saintlinss, andat th hart of this dmaration ar matrial possssions. Rjting th ndsof othrs and roniling on’s onsiousnss with slf-ntrdnss is pladin th ontxt of lying to th ommunity of faith—an at dsribd as lying to th Holy Spirit (Ats 5.9). If th Spirit is th author and intrnal dynamiof th Pntost onomi modl, thn falsifying th visibl sign of ommu-nal unity is ‘to falsify th Spirit itslf’.50 Lying to th ommunity of faith

bing undrstood as lying to God mphasizs th unity btwn Christ andHis Body. Tis ommunity is an xtnsion of th lif of God on arth; it is thdoing and prsn of th Spirit in th midst of th human socium .

Trfor, onomis ar a spiritual mattr and an xtrnal xprssion of th individual and ommunal innr lif. Tis is why povrty, as lass-rlatdrality, may b viwd as an outom of a givn spirituality that ushrs and

48 MaFagu, ‘Epilogu…’, p. 209.

49 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed , p. 56.50 Johnson, Te Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts , p. 208.




sustains onomi modls whih maintain and dpn onomi gaps andfurthr lass-division. Tis spirituality stands in ontrast to th thraputi

masurs in th Old and th Nw Covnants, aimd against furthr lass-dis-loation and towards rstoring moral onomi and ivi rsponsibility insoity at larg. T onpt of Jubil is a striking xampl of th dmand fora soial ovnant that xuts onomi justi and sustains human dignity.T forgivnss of dbt and rstoration of prsonal frdom ar pointrs toth spiritual dstiny of th ovnant popl and thir soial bonds.51

T vnt of Pntost indus an onomi modl of distributiv justi asa witnss of Christ’s rsurrtd lif in th Spirit-filld ommunity (Ats 4.32-33). As Maria Riggs stats, ‘[C]orporat good rquirs sustainability. T

mans toward sustainability is th sharing of rsours—that is distributiv justi. Distributiv justi mans that all hav th basis to surviv andflourish’.52 Tis modl is basd on rvrnt onsumption, whih shars thonrn of wll-bing for all (Ats 4.34-35). Historially, Marxist thinkrshav qustiond th sustainability of this modl and hav idntifid th shar-ing of produts without sharing th mans of prodution as th primary ra-son for its dlin and vntual disapparan.53 T primary issu in th At’saount, howvr, is onrnd with sustainability of unity, human dignity,and lov as bing th fundamntal bonds of th Pntost soial ovnant and

tangibl xprssion of th partiipation of th faith ommunity in th om-munal lif of th rinity.

T pouring of th Spirit on all flsh givs a global dimnsion to th sha-tologial vision of Pntost. All flsh is bondd togthr in and through thlif of th Spirit and mad partiipant in its soio-onomi rality. Tis glo-balizd thos is indispnsabl from th antiipation of th plantary sprad of th Kingdom of God—th rality of th lif of God translatd in th soio-politial and onomi dimnsions of matrial xistn on arth. Tis is a rality in whih onomis bom an outom and an xtnsion of th divin

lif through th agny of th Holy Spirit. As suh, onomis is an xtnsionof justi as th fundamntal rlationship to th othr (things and bings).Trough th Spirit all flsh is brought into this omprhnsiv justi that

51 For a study of th Jubil thm in th Synopti Gospls and its impliation for this sSharon H. Ring, Jesus, Liberation and the Biblical Jubilee: Images for Ethics and Christology (Philadlphia: Fortrss Prss, 1985).

52 Maria Y. Riggs, ‘T globalization of Nothing and Cration Ex Nihilo’ in Teology that Matters , pp. 141-153 (148).

53 Rosa Luxmburg, ‘Soialism and th Churhs’, Marxist Classics , http://www.nwyouth.om/arhivs/lssis/luxmburg/soialismandthhurhs.html




raligns mattr with its spiritual origin and purpos. Tis is a radial transfig-uring of th fundamntal rlationships that onstrut th human soium—

from matrial want and dsirs undrgirding prodution and onsumption inth ontxt of anxious awarnss of th dpltion of matrial and nrgy rsours to spiritual lif that prmats rdmptivly all matrial xistnand translats it in th omprhnsiv shalom of th Kingdom. Tis is lif inth Spirit that is mor abundant. It is lif fr from far and omptition forsurvival—a lif in whih thr is a hom for all (Jn 14.2). In it God is thsour of all ndd for xistn and, in ontrast to th doom of ntropy, Hopns th door of all nrgy and mattr, making th horizon of imaginationand daydraming on again availabl and opn for all. Crativ ngagmnt

with this opnnss brings forth visions and drams into an imaginativ invi-sioning of th world and its futur—a daydraming inspird by th SpiritHimslf.

T vnt of Pntost ushrs ‘th rvaling of th sons (and daughtrs) of God’ for whih ration longs and groans (Rom. 8.20-23) in antiipation of justi, haling, and rstoration. T Holy Spirit dsndd upon Jsus in His watr baptism as a publi statmnt of His idntity as th Son of God—a statmnt of th lov and approval of th Fathr for His only bgottn Son(Mt. 3.17). T dsnt of th Spirit upon th Mssiah was th idntifir

givn to John th Baptist who prolaimd publily Jsus’ divin idntity andmission (Jn 1.32-33).

In th sam mannr, th dsnding of th Holy Spirit upon th on hun-drd twnty on th Day of Pntost is a publi statmnt from th Fathr toHis hildrn of lov and affi rmation. Ty ar indd th sons and daughtrsof God and ar, thrfor, th ripints of th promis of th Fathr (Ats2.39). Tis is th long antiipatd shatologial unviling of th idntity of thos who in thir orporat xistn as th Body of Christ on arth bomth instrumnts of God’s justi, haling, and rstoration not only to human

soity but also to all th rst of ration. Trough thm th onsquns of th lif of God, in-flshd in th ommunity of faith, ar translatd to th rstof th ratd osmos. T first Adam was rsponsibl for th urs that pr-matd ration and its onsqunt pollution and distortion that has progrs-sivly intnsifid with humanity’s multi-gnrational distan from Edn. Tlast Adam st fr from th urs not only humanity but also th rst of ra-tion. T mbodimnt of this librating truth in th Body of Christ on arthmandats it to arry forth th distributiv justi of God towards ration.Tus, th ministry of roniliation and its ffts nompass not only th

human soium but ‘all flsh’ (Ats 2.17)—all matrial xistn is broughtinto th rdmptiv mbra of th rinity. Trfor, as Frank Mahia




points out, Spirit baptism ‘ralls God’s rinitarian opnnss to th world andth drama of how God would vntually pour th divin prsn out in ordr

to indwll all things through th rol of th Son as th Spirit Baptizr’.54

Pntost marks th rvaling of th hildrn of God and thir prsn onarth is manifstd through God’s thraputi justi xrisd throughthm toward all ration summond by th shatologial vision of thCosmi Christ. Trfor, th Day of Pntost xhibits th tlologialtnsion of th ‘alrady’ and ‘not yt’ of th Kingdom rality and points to itsapoalypti ‘ulmination with th Day of th Lord’.55 As God brings allthings in Christ (1 Cor. 15.28), H dlivrs ration from dath unto trnallif, by indwlling it with His own lif in th Spirit and ‘making all things

nw’ (Rv. 21.5).Pntost rvals th hildrn of God and thir prsn on arth is mani-

fstd in God’s thraputi justi xrisd through thm toward ration.Sharing possssions boms th first sign of this divinly indud rality of haling all ration. It donstruts th urg to onsum and stor for on-sumption; it plas human matriality and dsirs in th prsptiv of thimpossibility to add to on’s lif through anxity about th futur and thmatrialization of this anxity in aumulating matrial possssions byondon’s immdiat xistntial nds (Lk. 12.15-34).

T Pntost ommunity’s prioritization of sarhing first for th Kingdomof God has not lft vn on ndy among thm (Ats 4.34)—a tstimony of th soial transformation of matrial xistn whn transfigurd by its union with th Spirit.

Tis rdmptiv shatologial union with God in th Cosmi Christ isboth xprind and antiipatd in th ‘liturgial anamnsis’56 of th om-munity of faith. T anamnsis of Christ (1 Cor. 11.24-25) is not a mntalrolltion, but an natd liknss. It is hoosing ‘to b’ and ‘to do’ likHim, boming His xtnsion on arth through th inarnational agny of

th Holy Spirit. Trough th Body of Christ, havn dsnds on arth andrstors th unity of th Crator with His ration as th liturgial lbrationtranslats th fortast of th divin fullnss of lif in and through th Spirit-baptizd koinonia .

54 Frank Mahia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Teology (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondrvan, 2006), p. 125.

55 Mahia, Baptized in the Spirit , p. 102.

56 Margart R. Pfil, ‘Liturgy and Ethis: T Liturgial Astiism of Enrgy Consrvation’, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 27.2 (2007), pp. 127-49 (136).




Te Eucharist as Pedagogy of Disciplining Desires

T Euharist is th foal point of th liturgial lbration of Christ’s on-nss with His Body. As Mks points out, th Euharist ‘is God’s onomiat par xlln in th houshold of Jsus Christ. In it is mad prsnt God’sown slf-giving, God’s own onomy by whih God intnds to mak th world into a hom’.57

T Euharist assrts th innon of th non-anthropi ration whihoms to th tabl of God prior to th human ommunity and wloms it asth visibl form of divin nourishmnt in th houshold of God. Trough itsinlusion within Christ in th at of th inarnation, ratd mattr ntrs

rdmptiv partiipation in th lif of th rinity. In th inarnation Godmbras mattr, taking its lmntal strutur and ontnt into th divinintr-soiality through th body of th Son. T trnal Word that spok mat-tr into xistn runits with mattr so that th ontologial rlation btwnCrator and ration may b rdmd in th shatologial rality of thCosmi Christ. As Alxandr Shmmann assrts, ‘In th world of inarna-tion nothing nutral rmains, nothing an b takn away from th Son of man’.58 In th inarnation, ‘th grat sandal of mtaphysis,’59 mattr is san-tifid and santiond as an instrumnt of gra in th onsration of th

osmos.T Euharist provids pdagogy of disrning and liturgial anamnsis of

th ontologial, sotriologial, and shatologial intrrlation btwnhumanity and th rst of ration. It instruts us towards disiplining ourdsirs in prioritization of th wll-bing of othrs and points us to th pra-ti of liturgial astiism of rvrnt onsumption (I Cor. 11.27-34).

T Euharist fftivly donstruts th logi of fr-markt onsumr-ism, for as th individual partaks in th Euharisti lmnts, sh ‘dos notsimply tak Christ into hrslf, but is takn up into Christ … T at of on-

sumption is thrby turnd insid out: instad of simply onsuming thbody of Christ, w ar onsumd by it’.60 As ‘w all partak of th on brad’

57 Mks, God the Economist , p. 45.58 ‘T Missionary Imprativ in th Orthodox radition’ in Danila B. Clndnin (d.),

Eastern Orthodox Teology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids, Mihigan: Bakr Books,1995), pp. 195-210 (201).

59 Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Teology: An Introduction , (Crstwood, Nw York: St. Vladimir’sSminary Prss, 1978), p. 91.

60 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed , p. 54.




(I Cor.10.17) w stand as on Body, for w hav all bom partakrs of Christ and in Him—of ah othr. Trfor, prioritizing on’s prsonal

dsirs ovr against th nds of othrs and onsuming th othr for on’sown slf-gratifiation within th Body of Christ boms dvouring onslf.

T ultimat hallng of th Euharisti logi and pdagogy is that by boming th Body of Christ, w ‘must bom food for othrs’.61 Shmmannontmplats this xtrovrtd missionary orintation of th Euharist inrflting upon th thr liturgial movmnts of its lbration. It starts witha movmnt of asnt as th hurh is arrid by th Spirit to havn in ‘itsntran into th nw “aon”’.62 T hurh xprins th fullnss of th lifof th ommunity of th rinity at th tabl of th Lord, and bing filld and

illumind by th divin prsn sh is alld to dsnd bak to arth. Tissond movmnt of dsnt is part of hr missiologial idntity, for unlssth hurh rntrs this world thr will not b ‘havn on arth’. Yt, thhurh rturns on arth for th sak of th world and hr final liturgial mov-mnt is from th intriority of th tmpl to th xtriority of all th world—vn to its ‘uttrmost’ parts—th farthst, th darkst, th most diffrnt fromus. Trfor, ‘th Euharist transforms th hurh into what it is, transformsit into mission’.63 In fulfilling hr alling, th hurh ntrs th osmos as thliving gospl in th Body of Christ that givs itslf daily to fd and hal a

starvd and brokn world.

Pentecost and the Ecological Economics of Household

Lik th non-anthropi ration, th onomi modl of Pntost followsth pattrn of sharing vrsus trading of goods and labor—it follows th pat-trn of th Crator’s slf-sharing. T ommunal omposition of th Pntostmodl movs from th soial-onomi prdiamnt of th markt to that of th houshold. T rlationships of th houshold ar not basd on th

amount of apital or possssions th mmbrs hav but on thir family bonds.In ontrast to th markt, th houshold dos not produ and maintain lassstrutur. T soial position of th mmbrs of th houshold is basd uponfamily rols and any privilgs that prtain to ths ar appropriatd withinth undrstanding of mutual alling to on anothr as a part of th sam

61 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed , p. 55.62 Alxandr Shmmann, Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy and the West

(Crstwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Sminary Prss, 1979), p. 215.63 Shmmann, Church, World, Mission , p. 215.




family. T mmbrs blong to on anothr: thy ar ah othr’s brothrs,sistrs, mothrs, hildrn, and so forth. Ty ar alld togthr in a shard

family idntity. T family’s walth is th walth of all its mmbrs, who sharfrly in its bnfits. Houshold matrial possssions ar utilizd by th hous-hold mmbrs for th ommon bnfit of th houshold unit. T wll-bing of th houshold as a whol guarants th wll-bing of all its mmbrs. It isnot aidntal that th family tabl is th ntrpi of th houshold and itsonomi modl. It symbolizs sharing of th fundamntal nssitis of lifbtwn quals in idntity and purpos. T family is nurturd and sustaindas its mmbrs brak brad togthr and shar possssions—thy shar lifand mak lif togthr.

T ommunity of Pntost as th houshold of God xhibits this family-lik pattrn of sharing lif whih also naturally inluds sharing of posss-sions. Tir idntity as hildrn of God, born into on family by th samSpirit, outwighs any partiularitis of gndr, thniity, and onomi lass.It stablishs instad th dynami of th traditional family rols, inluding ar-giving, nurtur, prottion, and provision for th nds of all. T bring-ing of th mmbrs’ possssions at th ft of th apostls (Ats 4.32-35) sym-bolizs thir rognition of bing alld togthr, blonging togthr as onfamily in th houshold of God.

T houshold of God inluds all ration. T houshold imag, thr-for, summons to rsponsibility th mmbrs of th family of God to ar forration and its nds. T wll-bing of th ntir houshold dmands thisar. T houshold of God xtnds byond th visibl and brings togthrhavn and arth into on Spirit-ommunity. Car, ompassion and lov, inth ontxt of rognition of mutual blonging, ar haratristis of th fam-ily bonds in th houshold.

T rspons to th othr as an at of onomi and soial justi inPntost ommunal onomis is not an outom of soio-politial prsua-

sion but of spirituality that xtnds on’s partiipation in th lif of God andHis prsn on arth in th ommunity of faith. Tis spirituality prioritizsth nds and wll-bing of th othr as indispnsabl from th wll-bing of th ntir houshold whil xrising disrnmnt btwn prsonalnds and dsirs and disiplining ons dsirs in th liknss of God.Tis slf-limiting asti spirituality stands in a lar ontrast to th motivsof th sular gsturs of on’s r-spaing undr th lgislatd and institution-alizd forms of rdistribution of walth assoiatd with th apitalist andsoialist arrangmnts. Nikolai Brdyav assrts that both apitalism and

soialism ar ultimatly motivatd by individualism, and thir displays of onrn for th ommon good annot b sparatd from this prioritizing of




slf-intrst.64 Both apitalism and soialism hav substitutd th spiritualgoals of lif with matrial mans and ar thrfor unabl to sustain authnti

human rights and frdom (sin ths rprsnt high spiritual goals and hava spiritual origin).65 Brdyav points out that ‘th historial matrial for is a part of th spiritual historial rality’ and that ‘th ntir onomi lif of humanity has a spiritual bas, a spiritual foundation’.66 Trfor, th indi-vidualist invrsion of soial vision, as wll as th sularization and ftishismof matrialism and onomism is, aording to him, ‘a violation of th naturalhirarhism of human soity’.67 Eonomi individualism substitutd truth with mammonism by prsnting itslf as suprior in th pursuit of truth andattaining frdom from illusions.68 ‘Eonomi Matrialism’, in turn, ‘has for-

mulatd this in a most prft way by dlaring th ntir spiritual lif of thhuman as bing an illusion and a fraud’.69 In viw of this, ‘soialism is only a furthr dvlopmnt of th industrial apitalist systm; it is th final lbra-tion of its bginnings and a triumph of thir univrsal sprad’.70 Brdayv onluds that both ‘Capitalism and Soialism ar aompanid by dlinand dflaming of spiritual rativity, as a rsult of th rssion of spirituality in human soity’.71 Trfor, any xptation of soial transformation thatfailitats authnti human frdom and justi would dmand a ‘rvolutionof th Spirit’.72 Only th Spirit rats a brothrhood and sistrhood that ar a

ralization of tru frdom—as frdom in Christ. In th Christ-ntrdspiritual togthrnss (sobornost ) thr is no ‘mhanial quality’. Tr isalso no ontradition and diffrn btwn ‘a right and an obligation’.73 Tprsonal frdom in th Spirit’s sobornost dos not ontradit th frdomof th othr for it is not basd on omptition for th limitd rsours of th matrial rality. It is basd rathr on th trnal and infinit rality of divin lov and gra.74 In this divinly initiatd and infusd sobornost , th

64 N. Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , vol. 2 of Collected Works (Sofia: Zahari Stoyanov,2003), pp. 526, 530-31.

65 N. Brdyav, Philosophy of Inequality (Sofia: Prozortz, 1923), pp. 110, 116.66 N. Brdyav, Te Meaning of History (Sofia: Zahari Stoyanov, 2003), p. 313.67 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 531.68 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 531.69 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 531.70 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 531.71 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 532.72 Brdyav, Te New Middle Ages , p. 522.

73 Brdyav, Philosophy of Inequality , p. 115.74 Brdyav, Philosophy of Inequality , p. 115.




hospitality of God is inarnatd in th ommunity of Christ as a gift of thSpirit, a gift of frdom to th othr to b and to bom.

On th day of Pntost th sobornost of th soio-onomi rality of thKingdom of God is birthd in th womb of th hurh by th Spirit of God.T outom is holy, for it is th doing of God Himslf. As th Spirit tabr-nals in th ommunity of God, th Body of Christ boms a tmpl, a Holy of Holis of His prsn on arth. Nothing impur an surviv in it,for in Him thr is not a shadow of darknss (I Jn 1.5). As th bauty of thisbrilliant light finds an xprssion in th sharing of possssions, humanity isfrd for its dstiny of Christ-liknss in sharing onslf with th othr—a saramnt of slf-giving and partaking in th othr as partaking in God.

Conclusion

T Pntost ommunity, as an outom of th soio-transformativ work of th Spirit, boms th mbodimnt of God’s hospitality and slf-sharing with th othr within th prsnt (Ats 2.43-47). Tis divin hospitality is anall-inlusiv justi. It runits onomis with thir spiritual foundations inth nw Christ-lik onsiousnss of th blivrs. T onsqun is a nw

form of onomi rlationships, that is, rlationships that mbra th othrand provid for thir nd out of on’s own rsours. T rsult is ‘having allthings in ommon’ (v. 45) and sharing possssions as a visibl matrial xprs-sion of th oikonomia of God’s houshold. Ts nw onomi rlations stth Pntost ommunity apart from th onomis of th world. Tus, onnountrs in th midst of th world th doing of th Spirit75 who has birthdth blivrs into th soio-politial rality of God’s Kingdom and has trans-formd thm into an xtnsion of that rality on arth. T Spirit is th on who initiats and sustains th onditions that mak this radial onomi jus-

ti possibl, for suh justi is an outom of on’s at of worship in Spiritand ruth. Trfor, as was provn by th Eastrn Europan Marxist xpri-mnt, th sularization of this vision is dstind to failur.

Braking brad togthr (v.46) as both daily ommnsality and Euharistilbration of th unity of th Body of Christ boms a symboli ntrpi

75 Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Teological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashvill: Abingdon Prss, 1996), pp. 228-29. For an xtnsiv study on thspiritual mandat of sharing possssions, s Luk . Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and

Symbol of Faith (Philadlphia: Fortrss Prss, 1981). T author disusss th topi also in rla-tion to th vnt of Pntost (p. 21).




of living out th just soio-politial rality of th Kingdom within th hous-hold of God.76 As Brian Blount points out, ‘T first-ntury, Palstinian tabl

symbolizd muh mor than a mal; it was a rprsntation of ommunity’.77

Jsus had alrady xtndd th hospitality of God to th Gntils, inviting thm around th tabl of God in th fding of th four thousand in thrgion of Dapolis (Mk 8.1-10).78

Likwis, th Pntost ommunity as th Body of th risn Christ ontin-us His ministry of slf-sharing hospitality to a starvd and dstitut human-ity. Undr th mssiani anointing of th Spirit, th ommunity of Christ ismpowrd daily to follow th Lord who givs His brokn body so that othrsmay liv. Trough th inarnational agny of th Spirit, th Pntost om-

munity boms an xtnsion of this Mssiani slf-giving and lays down itsbruisd and brokn Body as a tabl whr th nations an om and fastfrly. Aftr thy hav tastd th Lord, nothing ls may satisfy thir hungr.From th bginning, ‘it was God’s intntion to bring all things in havn andon arth to a unity in Christ, and ah of us partiipats in this grat mov-mnt’.79 Tis pross of transformation of all rality has its ultimat goal inChrist, th ‘omga’ of all xistn. T pross is on of ‘th ‘Christifiation’of th whol osmos’.80 Byond th historial horizon stands th osmiChrist. His immannt prsn alls into qustion th onsiousnss and

76 In hr book Of Widows and of Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids,MI: Erdmans, 2007), Rta Haltrman Fingr offrs an in-dpth study of th daily ommnsal-ity of natural and fitiv kin groups in first ntury Palstin. Sh xamins th passags in Atsonrning th onomi lif of th arly Christians on th bakground soial onomi pra-tis of th day and from th ontxtual viw-point of th poor (spially widows and thirdaughtrs who whr on of th most onomially dstitut dmographi groups). Sh mpha-sizs th ommunal daily braking of brad both as sharing btwn kin in a ommunal ating as wll as a saramntal prati, th origin of whih is in th mals Jsus shard with both Jws

and Gntils. Som authors hav distinguishd btwn th ‘koinonia’ in Ats 2:42 and thbraking of brad as btwn ommunal and Euharisti mals. Howvr, it is th prsn of Jsus Christ that transforms a mal into a Lord’s Suppr. Trfor, th saramntal natur of sharing th mal in th nam of th Lord in voation of His prsn in th unity of His Body on arth in thanksgiving is translatd in both daily ommnsality and th Euharist.

77 Brian K. Blount, ‘T Apoalyps of Worship: A Hous of Prayr for all Nations’ in BrianK. Blount and Lonora ubbs isdal (ds.), Making Room at the able: An Invitation to Multicultural Worship (Louisvill, KY: Wstminstr John Knox, 2001), p. 20.

78 Blount, ‘T Apoalyps of Worship’, p. 21.79 Dsmond utu, No Future without Forgiveness (Nw York: Doublday, 1999), p. 265.80 Jürgn Moltmann, Jesus Christ for oday’s World (Minnapolis: Fortrss Prss, 1994), p.

101. Moltmann piks up th ida of osmi volving towards Christ from ilhard d Chardin’s‘Christ th Evolvr’ in Christianity and Evolution (trans. R. Hugu; London: Collins, 1971).




onomi rlationships of this world, xposing thir onflit with th ultimatdstiny of humanity. It is th vry natur of th riun God to wlom th

strangr, th wandrr, th marginalizd, and th displad in an mbra of divin hospitality whih is inarnatd by th Spirit in th Pntost ommu-nity, in that ommunity’s idntifiation with Christ as th telos of all ration.Trfor, th ommunity of Pntost ntrs th prsnt as th futur of th world—as th ralization of its soial dstiny, and mbras it in slf-giving hospitality, transfiguring th human villag into th City of God. In thisdivin hospitality w find that w blong togthr, and this is a hopfuldisovry for a world traumatizd in its global omprssion and xhaustdpolitial and onomi imagination. It is a hop for a futur of divin hospi-

tality in a ovnantal global ommunity—th futur of humanity in th lik-nss of God.



Copyright of Journal of Pentecostal Theology is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Economy, Ecology, Ecumenism

Documents

Transcript of Economy, Ecology, Ecumenism