The third chapter of Being as Communion is entitled “Christ, the Spirit and the Church”. In the introduction to this chapter, Metropolitan Zizioulas begins by outlining the different emphases on Chistology and Pneumatology in recent Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology. In broad strokes it might be said that Catholics emphasise the former and Orthodox the latter, and yet both face unresolved issues in this regard. This is illustrated by Orthodox criticism of the ecclesiology of Vatican II in which “it was observed that the Holy Spirit was brought into ecclesiology after the edifice of the Church was constructed” on a Christological basis, and which had important consequences for issues such as “sacraments, ministry and ecclesial institutions”. (123) However, the proposal of two Orthodox observers to the Council that a focus on the Holy Spirit and on “Christian man” was sufficient is, in the eyes of Zizioulas, “a clear indication that Orthodox theology needs to do a great deal of reflection on the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology”. (123)
Zizioulas proceeds to note the contribution of Khomiakov, which was paralleled by that of Möhler in a Catholic context, who injected such a strong dose of Pneumatology into ecclesiology that it effectively made the Church a “charismatic society” rather than the “body of Christ”. This led later Orthodox theologians such as Fr Florovsky to emphasise the Church as “a chapter of Christology” leaving the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology as a question to be addressed.
The Orthodox theologian who addressed this issue in the most thorough way was Vladimir Lossky. Zizioulas sees two aspects of his thought as worth noting. Firstly, there is a distinct “economy of the Holy Spirit” alongside the economy of the Son. Secondly, Pneumatology involves the “peronsalisation” of the mystery of Christ, or what one could call the “subjective” aspect of the Church in contrast to the “objective” aspect that is found in the sacramental structure of the Church. However, Lossky does not pursue the problem of how the institutional and charismatic aspects of the Church are to be worked out and his views are not without problems.
The recent contributions of both Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Boris Bobrinskoy have stressed that the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit belong together and should never be seen in separation, although both give a priority to Pneumatology.
The question, however, remains still open as to how Pneumatology and Christology can be brought together in a full and organic synthesis. It is probably one of the most important questions facing Orthodox theology in our time. (126)
Thus, Zizioulas argues, while it is often thought that Orthodox theology can help to correct the West excesses in ecclesiology – and this is not untrue – Orthodox theology also has work to do in this regard and this is the challenge that this chapter will address.
A vow of conversation 
December 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I used to speak to a charismatic “Evangelical” about this “lack” of pneumatology in the Orthodox Church. At first I was sympathetic to his views feeling that some of Orthodoxy was too gloomy and stifling of creativity. But then I saw that without a very strong foundation of repentance and conquering of the passions, it is very easy to get caught up in emotionalism and delusion, thinking one is caught up in the Spirit when one is really in prelest. Orthodox are very cautious about opening themselves up to the next level of experience, beyond the common warming of the heart that so many speak of, and I’m beginning to see the wisdom of that. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Church hasn’t changed very much.
But there are more “Spirit-filled” sounding Orthodox like St. John of Kronstadt and St. Seraphim, but their ardent habit of asceticism precedes the miraculous. I think the Church is still so young in the west that a lot of purging must come before we talk of charismatic gifting. Still, I haven’t read that much of the authors you mention so I would like to see how they frame this emphasis on the Holy Spirit and hope you will keep exploring it. Thanks for taking the time.
December 2, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Andrea Elizabeth,
Thanks for your comment. I think that the general perception (which I have generally picked up and which Metropolitan Zizioulas seems to be engaging, although he notes the danger of seeing it too simplistically) is that it is the West rather than the East that is deficient in the attention that it has given to the role of the Holy Spirit, especially in ecclesiology. I suspect that one could make a good case for arguing that the charismatic and pentecostal movements have been reactions to a western neglect of the Holy Spirit.
However, I do agree with you on the dangers of what often passes for the “life of the Spirit” and on the importance of repentance and conquering the passions. What you say relates very well to a guest post at Koinonia that I read earlier today (which you may well have read by now), which also highlights the differences between East and West in this regard.
December 2, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Thanks for that clarification. I think I was reading the post as defined by ‘“a clear indication that Orthodox theology needs to do a great deal of reflection on the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology”.’ But now rereading it, I see that some of the reverse was also laid out.
I have not yet read that (long) post at Koinonia, but I hope to shortly.