The recognition of a biblical "ecology of angels" would act as a safeguard against any form of rationalistic, psychological reductionism of spiritual realities.^[5] We should not, as Vincent Rossi has noted, rely on Jungian psychoanalysis to provide us with a proper understanding of the angelic realm. More than that, an appropriate angelology demands a radical re-evaluation of the basic anthropological presuppositions underlying all our therapeutic "sciences." Medical knowledge must be open to the possibility that pathological causes may not be limited to merely the physical or the psychic, but also the spiritual.^[6] It is, therefore, legitimate and necessary to embrace the insights of the Pentecostal-charismatic renewal in regard to the ministries of healing (physical and "inner") and exorcism. In one sense, they are no more than a re-appropriation of the ministry of Jesus, the Apostles, and the desert Fathers. And in this regard, our contemporary experiences and reflection in these "charisms" must enter into a critical and constructive dialogue with biblical and patristic wisdom that deal with the complex inter-relationship between sin, disease, the demonic and the self.

Lawrence Osborn reminds us that Christian angelology has apologetic significance for the Western contemporary New Age culture, with its emphasis on a more holistic anthropology and openness toward spiritual realities.^[7] If angels exist, our naturalistic, scientistic conceptions of human nature must be suitably modified "to take full account of the fact of angelic visitation and communication."^[8] At the same time, we must be on the defense against an "uncritical naïve spiritualism" which "exposes its adherents to disappointments, delusions and even worse dangers."^[9] Barth's caution against inordinate attention to the angelic realm, for there is no "special, autonomous or abstract experience of angels in and for themselves."^[10] True Christian encounter with an angel, as Osborn points out, "directs us to God."^[11] In this area, the resources of contemporary systematic theology, with its propensity to divorce spirituality from theological reflection, are insufficient for a theology of spiritual discernment. Here, we need appropriate the collective wisdom on the Tradition, from Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, Ignatius of Loyola's Spiritual Exercises and St. Athanasius' Life of Antony to instruct us in this area.

Echoing Justin and Tertullian, Calvin identifies the "the angel of the Lord" as epiphanies of the Son of God, who was fulfilling "the office of Mediator," to the OT patriarchs.^[12] In this way, he affirms that God is Father to both humanity and angels through Christocentric filiation.^[13] St. Basil reminds us that angels do not possess an essential holiness, but are "sanctified by the Holy Spirit in proportion to their excellence."^[14] A doctrine of the imago Dei that includes the angelic realm grounds Christian angelology, as it should, within the doctrine of the Trinity. For, when the Church proclaims that the "one God" has created "all that is, seen and unseen," [italics mine] she is affirming nothing less than a doctrine of angels, which is circumscribed within the trinitarian structure and content of the Nicene Creed. A truly ecumenical theology for the contemporary Church that takes Tradition seriously into account cannot escape the angelological dimension of salvation history.

While we affirm an infinite ontological distance between God and His created angels, G. Landes reminds us that the primary theological significance of OT angelology lies in its enhancement of the doctrine of God ad extra.^[15] The ma'lak Yahweh, therefore, is instrumental in simultaneously establishing divine historical immanence and transcendence in opposition to any pantheistic identification of God with the world. Angels, as personal agents of the Father, not only mirror (though, imperfectly) the intermediary role of Christ,^[16] but function to stress the unity and power of Yahweh - as the heavenly council of angels are subordinated to the supreme One of Israel.^[17] As such, an authentic Christian angelology serves to validate the antinomy of divine unity and distinction within the economic Trinity.

Since the nature of the Church is fundamentally missiological, she participates in the missio Dei, in the prolongation of Christ's work of announcing the kingdom of the Father, in the anointing of their Spirit. While this work is ultimately God's, it belongs immediately to the Church, but not solely because "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" Here, we are reminded that the mission of the Church does not merely involve the visible, tangible work of evangelization and humanization of the world. The work of discerning and combating the principalities and powers, whether on the individual or the systemic, structural dimension in created human structures.^[18] Here, the Church co-operates in an unseen manner with the angels as she prays, speaks and acts against malevolent powers of the air.

Barth, in reaction to St. Thomas Aquinas' abstract, philosophical presentation of the nature of angels as "purely spiritual, intellectual and non-corporeal creatures, with ‘substances' (autonomous beings)" denies them any self-contained ontological content apart from God.^[19] Barth, as such, helpfully distances biblical angelology from Dionysius' neo-Platonic emanationism and Thomistic-Aristotelian substance metaphysic in asserting that their concrete existence lies in their relation to God.^[20] In citing Heb 1:14 as the biblical "definition of the nature of angels," he contends that any biblical angelology that focuses on the nature of angels as "spirits," and not their "ministering" work, necessarily errs.^[21] In his attempt to move away from Aquinas' metaphysical notion of the angel as "pure spirit," Barth has reduced the biblical angelology to a mere functional doctrine, for they are nothing but "pure witnesses."^[22]

Osborn points out that Barth's functional angelology is inadequate since the adjective "ministering" cannot be divorced from the noun "spirits."^[23] Defining the nature of angels in relation to heaven, as Barth and Osborn do, in portraying them as created, spiritual realities distinct from human beings and God, is not altogether sufficient. While this methodological strategy highlights duality of creation - the visible and invisible realms - and preserves the invisibility, otherness and mystery of these heavenly beings, the question now becomes one of the ontology of heaven.

By refusing to cast eschatology in terms of divine retributive justice within a cosmic dualistic framework of good and evil, Barth also injected a conscious imbalance into his dogmatic explication of demonology and angelology.^[24] In doing so, he denies that demons share a common creaturely origin with the angels, and deems the latter merely a "mythological personification of nothingness."^[25] Barth, in a paradoxical manner, affirms the existence of the demonic yet dismisses its personal dimension, and does not grant it equal standing alongside his functional angelology. In doing, he asserts the utter transcendence of God in relation to a created reality which, ironically, is construed in too "anthropocentric" a manner. Although humanity, arguably, lies at the apex of God's creation, to abolish or diminish the personal, ontological dimension of angels (whether holy or fallen) relegates the reality of spiritual warfare to a minor key and grants inadequate recognition to angels the standing of co-creatures with humanity.

Another way of approaching the doctrine of angels is to highlight the correspondence between humanity and divinity. Situating angelology within a context of the doctrine of the imago Dei, defined Christologically, not only emphasizes its intimate connection to anthropology, but also directs the discussion eschatologically, so that a connection between the invisible and visible, heaven and earth is introduced. Thus, Calvin urges us "not to deny that angels were created according to God's likeness, inasmuch as our highest perfection, as Christ testifies, will be to become like them [Matt. 22:30]."^[26]

Monastic life has been viewed within its tradition as the "angelic life." Quite aside from the historical complexities and the spiritual elitism attached to Western monasticism, surely we can affirm that the call to holiness and perfection is extended to all Christians, though none shall attain angelic purity in this life.^[27] Here, we can affirm St. Thomas notion of the "mixed" life of contemplation and action, in our progressive imitation of the angels in their active, contemplative nature.^[28]

In this regard, the notion of guardian angels^[29] - affirmed by the Orthodox and Roman traditions - need not be dismissed in favor of Calvin's idea that "the care of each one of us is not the task of one angel only, but all with one consent watch over our salvation."^[30] Since biblical data is ambiguous at this point, we ought to allow for the possibility of both concepts since there is no necessity to view them as mutually exclusive options. Their work of providing protection and comfort to the faithful, engaging in spiritual warfare, and of offering our prayers to God may be seen in within socio-historical context of universal human salvation or the individual spiritual pilgrimage of a Christian. Citing Origen, J. Daniélou notes the parallelism "between the role of the angels in the historical preparation of Christ and their role in the first formation of the soul."^[31]

Calvin's recognition of angels as created beings, to which no divine honor is due them, is clearly a truth we have to keep in mind.^[32] Angels, viewed functionally as agents and messengers of God, have mission and authority that is derivative. Calvin, therefore, affirms Christ as the unique Mediator and as Head of angels, against any unwarranted human dependence upon them.^[33] This is entirely consistent with the assertion of the Son's superiority in contradistinction to any exaggerated angelology in the early chapters of Hebrews.^[34] Since angels do not exist and function autonomously,^[35] they should be viewed as personal signs pointing beyond themselves to the originator and sustainer of their being and doing - the triune God.^[36] This is consonant with the witness character of the Church, which proclaims Christ to the peoples of world and bids them to follow Him.

This is where anthropology and angelology serve to reinforce each other. For as we function to serve and worship God, mediate His grace, providence and revelation to others, we operate in a manner that harmonizes with the ministry of God's angels.^[37] But when we exploit, victimize, and dominate others; lust after power; participate in falsehood and present reality "as a world of death," from a position of autonomous egocentricity, the boundaries between human and demoniacal activity become blurred. Thus, according to Jonathan Edwards, holiness or "moral excellency" is what separates an angel from a demon.^[38] In the same way, holiness in human beings reflects moral excellency and beauty of God.^[39]

For now, as we "with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory" and by His Spirit "are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory" (2 Cor. 3:18), we do participate, in a limited way, in the angelic life. In the Eschaton, where faith is transformed into the beatific vision, we will not only behold the face of the Son's Father, as the angels do, but enjoy their perfect friendship in the communion of the Trinity.^[40] Not only so, we shall share in that primary liturgical activity of the angels in praising the thrice holy God for eternity. If the ceaseless and excellent activity of a being is an expression of its true nature, then worship and communion befits the nature of human and angelic beings, since we share a common Creator and Father. It is commonly said that good theology necessarily leads to doxology. Can the trajectory of a genuine Christian angelology (and anthropology) be any different?

Notes:

[1] "No one will deny that Dionysius, whoever he was, subtly and skillfully discussed many matters in his Celestial Hierarchy. But if anyone examine it more closely, he will find it for the most part nothing but talk. The theologian's task is not to divert the ears with chatter, but to strengthen consciences by teaching things true, sure, and profitable." See John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated and indexed by Ford L. Battles (The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:14:4, 164.

[2] Régamey considers Dionysius' angelic hierarchy "a remarkable but rigid and very arbitrary system." See Pie-Raymond Régamey, What is An Angel? Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, vol. 47, translated by Dom Mark Pontifex (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1960), 45-49.

[3] Calvin, 1:14:8, 168.

[4] They are "not qualities or inspirations without substance, but true spirits." See Calvin 1:14:9, 169.

[5] Vincent Rossi, "The Ecology of Angels: Angelic Hierognosis in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition," in Epiphany Journal 16/1 (1996), 5.

[6] Heinrich Schlier, Principalities and Powers in the New Testament (New York: Herder & Herder, 1961), 22. "In so-called spiritual or mental illness, and in maladies close to it such as epilepsy, we perceive an element of "possession", that in a wider sense underlies all maladies. This is true even today, when our medical knowledge is still perplexed by the ultimate cause of mental illness."

[7] Lawrence Osborn, "Entertaining Angels: Their Place in Contemporary Theology," in Tyndale Bulletin 45 (Nov 1994), 293-294. Rossi regards this contemporary phenomena as indicative of "a consistent yearning, a hunger, a genuine eros for the spiritual world" which is inevitable since "angels and human beings share a common rational nature, freedom of will and spiritual destiny" - an affirmation which Orthodoxy has maintained through time. See Rossi, 5.

[8] Rossi, 6.

[9] Rossi, 5.

[10] He goes on to say, "It is best not to speak of any experience of angels at all. For the point at issue in the Bible is always an experience of God and of Jesus Christ, and not an independent experience of angels." See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/3. The Doctrine of Creation, translated by G.W. Bromiley and R.J. Ehrlich and edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960), Chapter XI, § 51:3, 477-478.

[11] Osborn, 294.

[12] Calvin, 1:13:10, 132-134.

[13] Calvin, 2:14:5, 488. "Yet this ought to be unwaveringly maintained: to neither angels nor men was God ever Father, except with regard to his only-begotten Son." See also, 3:20:40, 903, where Calvin refers to the first Person of the Trinity as "the sole Father of angels and of the church."

[14] St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, translated by David Anderson (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980), 63. "The angelic powers are not by their own nature holy; otherwise there would be no difference between them and the Holy Spirit...Holiness is not part of their essence; it is accomplished in them through communion with the Spirit."

[15] George M. Landes, "Shall We Neglect Angels?" in Union Seminary Quarterly Review 14 (May 1959), 19-25.

[16] As Davis has helpfully pointed out, the concept of mediation in mainstream Judaism (in the OT and inter-testamental literature) generally stresses the insignificance of the instruments of mediation (whether angels or patriarchs) in favor of the centrality of the content of the mediation - Israel's covenant relationship with God. In the Christianity of the NT, however, "Jesus the mediator himself tended to eclipse or absorb the substance of what he mediated." See Philip G. Davis, "Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology," in Journal of Theological Studies 45 (Oct 1994), 501-502.

[17] Osborn reminds us that while Scriptures "attributes all events ultimately to God...it recognises that many of those events are mediated through creaturely causes and agents." See Osborn, 288.

[18] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College, 2000), 234.

[19] Barth, CD III, 3, Chapter XI, § 51:1, 391. "As we have seen, it belongs to the nature of the case that the doctrine of angels, unlike that of predestination, creation, or man, has in the strict sense no meaning and content of its own. Angels are not independent and autonomous subjects like God and man and Jesus Christ." Cf., 371.

[20] "They are known to us not in their abstract but in their concrete nature as the heavenly entourage of the God who acts from heaven to earth, and therefore not as an abstractly existent heavenly collective of abstractly existent heavenly individual beings but as the concretely operative heavenly collective of concretely operative heavenly individual beings." Cf. § 51:2, 451.

[21] "It was the exegetical error of Thomas Aquinas to show far too lively an interest in the equation of aggeloi and pneumata, and as the results were catastrophic when with the help of a concept of spirit alien to Old and New Testament alike he tried to find in these pneumata, his substantiae spirituales separatae." See Barth, CD III, 3, Chapter XI, § 51:2, 452-453.

[22] Barth, CD III, 3, Chapter XI, § 51:3, 486. See Osborn, 281.

[23] Osborn, 288. Barth himself could not limit his angelology to a purely functional description since he inserted a section on heaven into his treatment of angels, thereby making implicit assertions about the nature of these heavenly beings.

[24] Amy Plantinga Pauw, "Where Theologians Fear to Tread," in Modern Theology 16/1 (Jan 2000), 54. Citing Gabriel Fackre, Pauw notes that a combination of the Reformed stress on divine sovereignty and the Heideggerian notion of Nothingness in Barth's theology clouded his systematic treatment on demonology.

[25] Pauw, 54.

[26] Calvin, 1:15:3, 188. Because the Son was "the common Head over angels and men...the dignity that had been conferred upon man belonged also to the angels. When we hear the angels called "children of God" [Ps. 82:6] it would be inappropriate to deny that there were endowed with some quality resembling their Father." See Calvin, 2:12:6, 471.

[27] Calvin 2:7:5, 353. "I further say that there will be no one hereafter who will reach the goal of true perfection without sloughing off the weight of the body."

[28] "Vocations to the "mixed" life are most angelic, if the contemplation and the active service do not spoil one another. That they may be in harmony, they must obviously have the same aim; the active service must be able, ordinarily, be contemplative. For this it must consist in the transmission to others of God's Truth, or, better, of his epiphany." See Régamey, 17-118.

[29] The biblical texts usually adduced to support the idea of guardian angels are Gen 48:16, Matt 18:10 and Acts 12:15.

[30] Calvin, 1:14:7, 167.

[31] Jean Daniélou, The Angels and Their Mission: According to the Fathers of the Church, translated by David Heimann (Newman Press, 1957. Reprint, Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1988), 12.

[32] Calvin, 1:14:10, 170. See also, 1:14:3, 162.

[33] Calvin, 1:14:12:171-172. Calvin eschews any notion of regarding angels as intermediaries besides Christ: "Farewell, then, to that Platonic philosophy of seeking access to God through angels, and of worshiping them with intent to render God more approachable to us."

[34] J. Daryl Charles, "The Angels, Sonship and Birthright in the Letter to the Hebrews," in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (June 1990), 175. The parallel ideas of sonship (huios) - Jesus as the Son of the Father - and birthright (ho protokos) - the Son as the undisputed lawful heir of all things, are used by the writer of Hebrews to counter a inadequate Christology. See also, Grenz, 222.

[35] "They always look away from themselves, and they invite and command others to look away from every creature, themselves included, to the One who alone is worthy that the eye of every creature should rest on Him, and from whom alone they can really see themselves and their fellow-creatures...The true service of angels, like that of all other creatures of God, is that of witnesses." See Barth, CD III, 3, Chapter XI, § 51:2, 460-461.

[36] St. Basil asserts that the angels very existence depend on the distinct and common work of the Trinity: "So, the ministering spirits exists by the will of the Father, are brought into being by the work of the Son, and are perfected by the presence of the Spirit, since angels are perfected by perseverance in holiness." See Basil, 62.

[37] As ministering spirits, angels are God's courtiers with the ministry of praise and worship; God's deacons in His service; agents of divine revelation and messengers of Christ; and, agents of providence in aiding the faithful, and in guarding the social order. See Osborn, 285-287.

[38] Of angels and being in general, Edwards states, "Herein consists the loveliness of the angels, without which, with all their natural perfections, their strength, and their knowledge, they would have no more loveliness than devils...Strength and knowledge don't render any being lovely, without holiness; but more hateful: though they render them more lovely, when joined with holiness." See Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, edited by John E. Smith, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 257.

[39] Edwards, 256. Of the imago Dei, Edwards opines that "there is a twofold image of God in man, his moral or spiritual image, which is holiness, that is the image of God's moral excellency (which image was lost by the Fall); and God's natural image, consisting in men's reason and understanding, his natural ability, and dominion over the creatures, which is the image of God's natural attributes."

[40] Régamey, 126.


Bibliography:

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/3. The Doctrine of Creation. Translated by G.W. Bromiley and R.J. Ehrlich. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960.

Basil the Great, Saint. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by David Anderson. New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980.

Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated and Indexed by Ford L. Battles. The Library of Christian Classics, Vol. XX-XXI. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Charles, J. Daryl. "The Angels, Sonship and Birthright in the Letter to the Hebrews." In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (June 1990): 171-178.

Daniélou, Jean. The Angels and Their Mission: According to the Fathers of the Church. Translated by David Heimann. Newman Press, 1957. Reprint, Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1988.

Davis, Philip G. "Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology." In Journal of Theological Studies 45 (Oct 1994): 479-503.

Edwards, Jonathan. Religious Affections. Edited by John E. Smith., The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College, 2000.

Landes, George M. "Shall We Neglect the Angels?" In Union Seminary Quarterly Review 14 (May 1959): 19-25.

Osborn, Lawrence. "Entertaining Angels: Their Place in Contemporary Theology." In Tyndale Bulletin 45 (Nov 1994): 273-296.

Pauw, Amy Plantinga. "Where Theologians Fear to Tread." In Modern Theology 16/1 (Jan 2000): 39-59.

Régamey, Pie-Raymond. What is An Angel? Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, vol. 47. Translated by Dom Mark Pontifex. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1960.

Rossi, Vincent. "The Ecology of Angels: Angelic Hierognosis in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition." In Epiphany Journal 16/1 (1996): 2-26.

Schlier, Heinrich. Principalities and Powers in the New Testament. New York: Herder & Herder, 1961.