Hope and Community

Trinitarian theology of hope

Having discussed the scientific and interreligious environment, Kärkkäinen begins to unfold his Trinitarian theology of hope, which embraces hope for a future transformation and renewal of all creatures and the cosmos itself on both individual and communal levels and impacts “both the afterlife and the life-before-afterlife” (16). Not only in this universal perspective and future orientation but also in the Trinitarian foundation, Kärkkäinen’s approach is indebted to the eschatologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. He contends that only the Trinitarian interaction of Father, Son, and Spirit can furnish a coherent vision of the eschaton as new creation (see ch. 4). Moreover, he argues that God’s love reaches its goal only “with the consummation of the world in the kingdom of God” (75, citing Pannenberg) and that “only in the event of eschatological world renewal” (76) will the question of God’s own existence be resolved.

All eschatological knowledge and vision are rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which Kärkkäinen understands in line with Polkinghorne in the bodily, objective, and physical sense, because only such an understanding can exhibit the transformative character of the resurrection. He unpacks the implications of the eschatological new creation anticipated in the event of resurrection with regard to the understanding of divine eternity and presence in chapter 5, followed by a reflection on the destiny of the cosmos and humanity in chapter 6 and the impact of Christian hope on the flourishing of nature and humanity in this world in chapter 7. With regard to space, time, and eternity, Kärkkäinen defends (1) a “flowing time” conception as being constitutive in Abrahamic religions and (2) a temporalized notion of eternity as the source of current time. Divine eternity is the “boundless temporality of the trinitarian God” (111, citing Russell). While new creation entails discontinuity, Kärkkäinen sees the possibility for identity between the old and new creation in the information-bearing pattern as “a real immanent . . . causal link between the embodied personal life history . . . and the resurrected person” (128). At the same time, Christ’s resurrection gives reason to hope for the liberation of this cosmos, including nature and humanity as a whole.

This reason to hope is also essential for Kärkkäinen’s approach to the problem of theodicy in chapter 8. In his comparative view, he notes that theodicy is a topic in the Abrahamic traditions, but not in Buddhism and Hinduism, since neither of these “traces evil and suffering to God” (172). In contrast to philosophical and theological rejections of the theodicy project, Kärkkäinen regards the question of suffering as “a deep theological question” (165). It requires that we “resist abstract, ‘nonpersonal’ accounts” and integrate “the ‘marginal’ theodicies” that refer to particular contexts and historical developments. While he rejects both the Augustinian account of privatio boni (the absence of good) and original sin and “the Augustinian reluctance to make God responsible for the entrance of evil in the world” (168), his own take is more in line with the Irenaean tradition and its emphasis on the teleological and cosmological perspective. Although the “radical widening in the offer of salvation in the New Testament” (200) gives “hope that as few as possible find themselves in eternal punishment” (201), Kärkkäinen would not support the idea of apokatastasis pantōn (“resurrection of all”; see ch. 9). Once more in contrast to the Augustinian tradition, he welcomes pre- and postmillennial hopes as they could help to “keep in a dynamic tension the human-initiative and God-centered activity as well as this-globe-centered and cosmic expectations” (219). Whether this interpretation meets the self-understanding, however, remains an open question to me. In any case, the way in which Kärkkäinen integrates millennial hopes is one of several examples of his attempt to reconcile different eschatological ideas on the denominational level, whereas on the level of religions “the dramatic differences” between Abrahamic and Asiatic faiths concerning eschatological expectation cannot be reconciled but “have to be highlighted and appreciated” (230).

Ecclesiology

The biggest challenge for contemporary eschatology Kärkkäinen finds, in line with Pannenberg, is the question of how one can “even begin to reconcile Christian eschatology’s expectation of the imminent return of Christ and the bringing about of the ‘new heavens and new earth’ in light of the extremely, almost infinitely long horizons of science” (34). While the author’s argumentation against an epistemological dualism between theology and science and his account of time and eternity include some kind of response, it seems that the role of ecclesiology is also important with regard to this question, because the time of the church is the time to prepare (for) transformation in new creation. This might be the subtext of Kärkkäinen’s ecumenical approach in his ecclesiology. In the introduction to his ecclesiology, he notes that contemporary “doctrines of the church—similarly to ecumenical documents—are still written as if a Christendom model were in place and ‘mainline’ churches were the only players on the field” (240). In contrast, Kärkkäinen includes Pentecostal and Charismatic perspectives. Moreover, his goal is “to work toward a truly comparative doctrine of the church in an authentic dialogue with visions of community of other traditions” (246) and to address the forces of (post)secularism. The comparative exercise begins with a highly informative description of visions of community among Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions (ch. 12). This comparison serves as background for a “distinctively Christian doctrine of the church” (248) grounded in the Trinitarian understanding of God (ch. 13). Much in line with mainline Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant understandings, Kärkkäinen conceives the church of the triune God to anticipate the kingdom of God but emphasizes that the church needs to be distinguished from God’s rule, and that God’s kingdom “is much wider than the church or even human society” (292).

The main challenges for contemporary ecclesiology according to Kärkkäinen’s analysis result from two unresolved issues. One is that many churches are not able to mutually recognize themselves as churches. The second problem is that the mission and ministry of the church is taken as a secondary or subordinate topic in relation to the essence and nature of the church. In a straightforward response to both challenges, the author regards mission as constitutive for the apostolicity of the church and defines the church as mission. In a fundamental sense, mission is understood as the mission of God grounded in the Christ-event and in the mission to evangelize. Evangelism, in turn, is not limited to the proclamation in words but, building on the dramatic character of Scriptures, involves many dimensions such as healing and restoration, social justice and equality, integrity and flourishing of nature, reconciliation and peace building, dialogue and interfaith engagement. The “integral connection between words and deeds” (367) is also mirrored in Kärkkäinen’s interpretation of the four marks of the church in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which in his account describe the church in action. Of these four marks, the first mark (unity) and the fourth mark (apostolicity) are most important for Kärkkäinen’s exploration of the missional existence of the church in chapters 16–20. In chapters 16–18 he explores the different dimensions of apostolic proclamation, including liturgy, sacraments, and ministry. In chapters 19–20 he develops an understanding of the diversified and plural unity of the church as the goal in interdenominational relationship and as a basis for the missional existence of the church in hospitable dialogue with other religions and secularism.

With regard to the ecumenical challenges for a missional understanding of the church, Kärkkäinen is aware of the challenges of colonialism and postcolonialism and the danger of proselytism, which became pressing after 1989. As a response, he distinguishes “authentic evangelism” from proselytism by using the criteria of the 1997 WCC document Towards Common Witness: A Call to Adopt Responsible Relationships in Mission and to Renounce Proselytism. Building on the importance of healings in the New Testament, he describes healing and restoration as the second dimension of mission and an “integral aspect of the church’s mandate as missional communion” (353). Moreover, he affirms the role of body language in worship as another bodily dimension of evangelism.

Sacramental theology

The way in which Kärkkäinen develops his sacramental theology has the potential to reconcile some major controversies in the doctrine of sacraments between mainline churches and free churches. In inexplicit conversation with free churches and Pentecostal churches, he affirms the use of the term “sacrament” and interprets the link and the distinction between sign and thing “in a way that allows for the thing signified to already be present in a true anticipatory manner in the sign” (370). Thus, Christ’s presence constitutes the specific role of sacraments. With regard to the Eucharist, Kärkkäinen affirms the personal and full presence of Christ as essential. While being reserved about speculations regarding the nature and explicability of Christ’s presence, he has sympathy for the modern Catholic explanation of real presence in terms of transignification. With regard to the number of sacraments, which is a major issue in dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and, on the other, with Protestant churches, Kärkkäinen is open to accept sacramental acts in addition to the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist.

In his baptismal theology Kärkkäinen argues with regard to the New Testament witness and early patristic teachings that “believer’s baptism should be adopted as the theological norm and standard” (382). While he does not want to discredit infant baptism, he rejects the Augustinian doctrine of original sin as theological reason and proposes to reach ecumenical agreement about believer’s baptism as the norm in the global church. Correspondingly, he endorses a blessing of young children, which also could include the naming or “christening” (388), but critiques the practice of confirmation, which he, not quite in line with Lutheran and Reformed understanding, sees as a second gift of the Spirit in addition to baptism. Two points in his baptismal theology are of special importance for ecumenical progress for mainline churches, while they entail a challenge to free churches. First, Kärkkäinen claims that baptism “could and should be normally set as a prerequisite” for participation in the Eucharist, “as it has been from the beginning” (399). Second, he is willing to recognize the baptism of those who have been baptized as children. From the perspective of churches who practice infant baptism, it would mean great progress if agreement on this question could be reached on a global level. In the European dialogue between Protestant churches and Baptist churches, for example, agreement has not yet been possible. Kärkkäinen’s vote on this question may be very helpful for further dialogue, given that he combines Pentecostal and Lutheran backgrounds and can speak to representatives of both baptismal traditions.

Theology of ministry

While baptism is of special relevance for free churches and Pentecostalism, the most relevant and controversial topic for the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox churches, and Anglican churches in ecumenical conversations today is ministry. Following on his understanding of the church as mission, Kärkkäinen builds his theology of ministry on a definition of the people of God as the missional ministers and emphasizes the ecumenical consensus about the constitutive role of the priesthood of all believers, which has been achieved in numerous multilateral and bilateral dialogues (402). With regard to the difficult issue of ordination as a prerequisite for administration of sacraments, Kärkkäinen states that “all baptized men and women have the right to baptize and serve the Lord’s Supper” (403), since there are no restrictions in the New Testament. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that “most churches have in the course of history reserved the right [to administer sacraments] to the ordained clergy” (403), and he considers it appropriate that Lutheran ecclesiology “anchored the need for ordained ministers in the need to take care of the public ministry and order” (405). What is more important to the author, however, is that the church is charismatic and that charisms “are first and foremost gifts for the whole church” (407). Thus, “the Spirit, rather than human persons and committees, is the leader of the church” (408).

Kärkkäinen does not discuss in greater detail the “hot” topics regarding ministry in ecumenical dialogue: ordination as a sacrament, the threefold ministry, historic apostolic succession in episcopacy, and the Petrine ministry. Instead, he argues for a legitimate plurality in the ways in which ministry is ordered and strongly defends an inclusive theology and practice of ordination and the ordination of women. In a discussion of the biblical and traditional-historical arguments against female ordination, Kärkkäinen develops “an inclusive view of ordination for Christian ministry” and takes “female ordination for granted” (419) in his constructive ecclesiology.

Mission and unity

In line with the global ecumenical movement, Kärkkäinen emphasizes the unity of the church as being rooted in its divine origin and its eschatological destination to be a foretaste of the kingdom. Drawing on David Bosch, he states that mission and unity belong together and should not be seen as two consecutive stages (424). In his examination of different models of unity in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant traditions, it is especially helpful that the author summarizes the essential aspects from a free church perspective. These aspects are personal faith of every Christian, the importance of the local church, the priesthood of all believers, and “reservations with regard to the idea of visible unity” (427). For Kärkkäinen, it is evident that the goal of ecumenism is not to reach uniformity. Instead, with Küng and many ecumenical scholars, he takes “diversity-in-unity / unity-in-diversity as a main ecumenical guideline” (432). While churches in the ecumenical movement agree that they need to strive for mutual recognition, the understanding of the conditions and requirements of recognition has only recently been discussed in ecumenical work.

Building on the philosophical background in G. W. F. Hegel and Axel Honneth, Kärkkäinen develops guidelines for application of the idea of mutual recognition to ecumenism; they encourage churches to examine historical patterns and practices of nonrecognition and sociocultural and political circumstances. Among the six questions for examination that the author suggests, the second is of particular importance: “Do churches love and care for each other as Jesus’ brethren and friends, respect each other as the Abba Father’s creatures of equal worth on the road, and esteem each other as the Spirit’s indwelled agents and colaborers of the kingdom?” (432). This question reaches beyond the recognition of individual baptized believers as Christians to the level of relationship between ecclesial communities. Kärkkäinen offers three concrete recommendations for further ecumenical progress: (1) to follow the project of receptive ecumenism and discover the beauty and potential in and of other denominations; (2) to strive for humble goals such as partial communion and to acknowledge the provisional character of all denominations; and (3) to pay more attention to nontheological, especially psychological and sociocultural, factors. Thus, the author’s ecclesiology is a strong and well-argued call to the missional existence of the church and its ecumenical responsibility.

Conclusion

The final volume of Kärkkäinen’s constructive theology offers a fresh and learned approach to eschatology and ecclesiology. Both topoi are developed in ways to promote interdisciplinary conversation in the fields of cosmology and sociology. The comparative chapters on the Jewish, Islam, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions foster the perception of the distinctive character of the Christian traditions and provide necessary knowledge for interreligious conversation and hospitable encounter and relationship. In all parts, Kärkkäinen discusses a wide range of opinions and positions. While it is always clear where the author himself stands, his discussion is never polarizing but balanced and sensitive to different theological concerns. Thus, his approach is constructive in its attitude of reconciliation. This appears as a promising way to speak to a pluralistic world.