Beth Felker Jones, God the Spirit: Introducing Pneumatology in Wesleyan and Ecumenical Perspective. Wesleyan Doctrine Series, Edited by Randy Cooper, Andrew Kinsey, D. Brent Laytham, and D. Stephen Long (Cascade Books, 2014), ix + 132 Pps., $18.00.
Beth Felker Jones is Associate Professor of Theology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. In this tiny yet powerful book, Jones seeks to introduce the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Wesleyan tradition in ways that are friendly to a broader ecumenical audience. She does this over the course of nine succinct chapters, all of which cannot be covered in this short review. However, in what follows, salient points shall be mentioned that might bring the reader of this review to want to read it in its entirety, as I have. Note from the start that I too am Wesleyan, so my sympathies are with Jones in this endeavor.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is the most neglected of all Christian teachings. It is Jones’ intention, as noted in the introduction, that because of who the Spirit is, we may approach the study of the doctrine with confidence, faith, and joyous anticipation. In chapter one, Jones sets forth some of the reasons that the early ecumenical councils postulated that the Spirit was divine, equal to both the divine Son, and the Father. In recognizing the full divinity of the Spirit, the Wesleyan tradition is in continuity with the ancient creeds and with Scripture. In discussing the Spirit’s Procession from God, Jones favors the Augustinian approach, whereas I prefer to read Wesley through more of an Eastern influence of thought.
Jones is keen to point out that the Spirit has already transformed us, although God is not yet through working that transformation in us. Wesleyan theology speaks well of the Spirit wooing all of humanity to him, bidding all to come of saving knowledge of God’s grace through Christ. John Wesley understands salvation as a process – a via salutis – and the Spirit is present from the onset of salvation to the very end of salvation, the redemption of our bodies and minds.
I must admit that though I have allot of praise for Jones dispersed throughout this review, it does concern me that she adheres to the filioque, as well as her preference to speak of embodied “souls” or “ensouled” bodies (chapter three). Rather, as an emergentist, I view the brain-mind dichotomy to be more than sufficient to account for the non-scientific talk of “souls”. So then, I disagree with her that “final redemption includes bodies and souls,” though I would easily concede that final redemption includes bodies and minds. However, these little quibbles aside, this is a formidable little text, one that I can recommend without hesitancy to a broad audience, and those of a Wesleyan-bent in particular.
Bradford McCall
Holy Apostles College and Seminary