This document discusses whether secular societies can manifest a "pneumatological consensus" or cooperation with the Holy Spirit. It suggests we can observe how well a pluralistic society's culture, history, society, economy, and politics 1) sanctify, 2) orient, 3) empower, 4) heal, and 5) save its people. However, any realization of the Kingdom's values in society are still unfolding and imperfect. It also cautions against too sharp a distinction between the eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel imperatives in politics and other realms.

1. A Pneumatological Consensus?
by John N Veronica on Saturday, 28 May 2011 at 12:26
In a pluralistic country, might we perhaps discern how much,
on the whole, its people cooperate with the Spirit?
Might we observe how well its:
1) culture sanctifies
2) history orients
3) society empowers
4) economy heals &
5) politics save ----------- its people?
Might the secular there manifest, for better or worse, a
"pneumatological consensus" with its implicit theology,
eschatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology & soteriology?
Of course, we are talking about proleptic (anticipatory)
realizations of Kingdom values that are yet unfolding toward a
future fullness.
This would clearly differ from any overly dialectical
perspective that would essentially run counter to a robustly
incarnational and profusely pneumatological approach to all of
reality, even while recognizing significant differences in any
degree of cooperation with the Spirit. Of course, failures to
cooperate might result from either inabilities (due to poor
formation or even deformative influences) or refusals (known
to God alone).
Also, this might differ, somewhat, from any Niebuhrian realism
that would draw too sharp a distinction between the
1

2. eschatological and temporal significance of Gospel
imperatives? For example, nonviolence then but not now?
Or from any exegetical interpretations that would too sharply
distinguish between our personal vocations and political
statecraft? For example, coercion there but not here? Or that
would suggest so-called dispensational distinctions? For
example, signs & wonders then but not now, there but not
here)?
And we might introduce a distinction between the Gospel's
robustly unitive norms (how to live in loving intimacy with
God and others) and general revelation's merely moral norms
(how to live in harmony with God, others, creation & self,
pursuing what's good and right, avoiding what's evil and
wrong), morality realized as a by-product of the former, an
end-product of the latter, necessary in any case. Because of
our radical human finitude and sinfulness (personal, social &
institutional), any sanctioned departures from these unitive
norms would represent, then, no theoretical theological
capitulations (eisegesis even) but, rather, practical pastoral
accommodations (for example, regarding any use of coercive
violence). At any rate, these unitive norms - and not any
essentially moral norms, which are otherwise transparent to
human reason without the benefit of special revelation(s) differentiate the Gospel brand in the marketplace. Love is a
suitable means to the ends of justice but its unitive aims
clearly exceed those, even breaking open a new category.
2