THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE CAPPADOCIANS: PAST AND PRESENT

Theologians have long recognized that the Cappadocian fathers are a valuable resource for contemporary reflection on the Holy Spirit. The modern use of their work, however, tends to reflect only a thin sampling of their many writings; it shows little awareness of their complicated historical situation; and it generally operates on the false assumption that Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa offer but three versions of the same theological project. This article provides a new comparative assessment of Cappadocian pneumatology in connection with larger Trinitarian concerns and with practical matters of spirituality, monasticism, and the role of divine grace in the Christian life. It highlights the distinctive character of each theologian's approach to the Holy Spirit by analyzing their relationships to prior fourth-century traditions, their respective uses of Origen, and their differing stances in the contemporary debates with the Pneumatomachians. It argues that Basil's work on the Spirit is less fully Trinitarian and ascetically weaker than that of the other two, that Gregory Nazianzen offers the most fully Trinitarian and methodologically insightful pneumatology of the three, and that the Holy Spirit plays only a minor role in Gregory of Nyssa's theological and ascetical system. In conclusion, it identifies three key areas in which the Cappadocians can still make a significant contribution to current work on the Holy Spirit.     

THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY AND THE RHETORIC OF EXCESS

If militarism violates the ideals of liberty and justice in one way, and rapidly increasing social stratification violates them in another, then American democracy is in crisis. A culture of democratic accountability will survive only if citizens revive the concerns that animated the great reform movements of the past, from abolitionism to civil rights. It is crucial, when reasoning about practical matters, not only to admit how grave one's situation is, but also to resist despair. Therefore, the fate of democracy depends, to some significant degree, on how we choose to describe the crisis. Saying that we have already entered the new dark ages or a post‐democratic era may prove to be a self‐fulfilling prophecy, because anyone who accepts this message is apt to give up on the hard work of organizing and contestation that is needed to hold political representatives accountable to the people. This paper asks how one might strike the right balance between accuracy and hope in describing the democracy's current troubles. After saying what I mean by democracy and what I think the current threats to it are, I respond to Romand Coles's criticisms of reservations I have expressed before about rhetorical excess in the works of Stanley Hauerwas, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Richard Rorty. This leads to a discussion of several points raised against me by Hauerwas. A digression offers some of my reasons for doubting that John Howard Yoder's biblical scholarship vindicates Hauerwas's version of pacifism. The paper concludes by arguing that Sheldon Wolin's work on the evisceration of democracy, though admirably accurate in its treatment of the dangers posed by empire and capital, abandons the project of democratic accountability too quickly in favor of the romance of the fugitive.     

THE CHURCH AND REVOLUTION

In the Jirst part of his paper, Professor Wendland sketched the development of the concept of revolution; political, social and total. He examined in some detail the opposition between the Marxist concept of absolute revolution and the view of Stahl that all revolutions are contrary to the will of God. He looked at the nature of the National Socialist revolution in Germany and identged the inadequacy of the response of the “Co fessing Church” to that revolution.