Allen on Sobrino
John Allen has posted an analysis of the issues around the CDF’s notification regarding the works of Jesuit theologian Jon Sobrino. He makes the important point–overlooked in many news accounts–that the notification has little to do with past disputes about Liberation Theology and much more to do with current debates about Christology:
In fact, however, the Notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Sobrino is not quite as “retro” as it appears. A close reading reveals that its main concern is not really old arguments over liberation theology and Marxism, but rather more recent debates over the uniqueness and singularity of Jesus Christ. The text is of a piece, therefore, not with the 1984 “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation,” but rather the 2001 document “Dominus Iesus,” and the proper analogy is not to 1980s-era investigations of Leonardo Boff or Gustavo Gutiérrez, but rather to notifications over the last six years regarding Jesuits Roger Haight and the late Jacques Dupuis…
Surveying the contemporary scene, the Vatican’s core theological concern is that, in the name of cultural and religious pluralism, traditional doctrines about Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the World gradually will be drained of their content. Theologians may continue to use the old vocabulary, but what they mean by it will mutate, and over time the Second Person of the Trinity will be replaced with a merely human Jesus analogous to other great religious founders and prophets.
Christology is, to this way of thinking, the “canary in the coal mine” for the impact of religious relativism on Catholic doctrine. Once the decision is made that it’s arrogant to impute a special truth value to Christianity, then traditional claims about Christ have to be understood as “metaphors” or “symbols,” rather than as statements of fact. If that’s allowed to happen, then Christian doctrines become a sort of religious poetry, rather than a body of teaching grounded in ultimate reality.
Peter, Good to see you posting again. You are right that the message is about Christology.
What is unique about Christianity is the Crucifixion. It is the one element no other religion has. Obviously the resurrection makes the Crucifixion effective. The fact that God’s chosen one underwent the most ignominious death, in disgrace, reviled by all and abandoned by the Apostles, is the heart of the message of Jesus. Along with the unique regard for the lowly of this world.
Over the years Rome had to acknowledge that there is salvation outside the church. Make no mistake it was widely taught. Other things were widely taught like sexual love in marriage being a necessary evil and that one should not take undue pleasure in it.
On this point Roger Haight, and others are right, I believe.
“Obviously the resurrection makes the Crucifixion effective”
What does this mean? And by the way I had thought that the Trinity and the Incarnation were among the things that made Christianity unique.
Peter,
Thank for bringing this to our attention. However, I cannot tell from the text you cite whether or not you understand Allen to be describing the Christological problem, or endorsing the normative evaluation of the problem as presented by the CDF. Reading the rest of Allen’s analysis leads me to conclude that he is not taking a normative stand one way or the other.
I think that the emphasis on Christology is potentially very exciting, in that it provides a real opportunity to explain to Christians and all people of good will the theological significance of the Incarnation. However, I fear that the discussion will amount to little more than a line drawn in the theological stand.
The focus on Christology aligns this notification with the warning about the antichrist recently delivered by Cdl. Biffi.
Fred
Robert Mickens in The Tablet http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/9494/
has a different take.
I find Allen more persuasive.
Joe,
You say: There is a logical and theological difference between understanding nothing of mystery and understanding something of a reality that remains fundamentally a mystery. The distance between the finite and the infinite is infinite, but it does not follow that we can know nothing of the infinite.
I don’t think I said otherwiseYou say: For example, the text on Sobrino refers to the divine Christ as the “bridge” between heaven and earth. In what sense is a bridge necessary? The Jews and the Muslims find no such need for a bridge.
The talk of Christ as a “bridge” is metaphorical. I suppose all the prophets might be taken as “bridges”. Likewise the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity and the Koran. One should not press the metaphor.
You say: Often, Christological claims imply some kind of limitation in God’s relation to the world prior to the Incarnation, a limitation that other theistic traditions would deny, and so would find no need for the Incarnation. Yet, Christians presumably know enough about the mystery of God to affirm these truths about God’s relation to the world.
I don’t think that God, strictly speaking, has a relation to the world. So he cannot have a limited one.
You say: Religious traditions that only have human founders are not obviously deficient.
What are your criteria for saying that a religion is not deficient? What makes a religion satisfactory? In fact, what is a religion?
You say: To argue that a merely human Jesus would place Christianity among these religions is not obviously a problem.
I am not sure what you mean. It is my reading of the New Testament that the first Christians took Jesus to be God and man. As far as I am concerned, if they were mistaken about that, then Christianity starts with a fatal mistake. I think that would be, as you say, a “problem”.
You say: If a Jesus who is not fully divine is a theological problem, as opposed to an ecclesiological problem, then one should be able to identify the problem in non question-begging terms (that is, the problem cannot simply be that such a Jesus is not divine, for it is the necessity of divinity that is in question).
Let me try again: If Jesus is not both human and divine, Christianity is founded on a mistake. In other words, for Christianity to be what Christians have taken it to be, Jesus has to be both God and man. Christians worship Jesus Christ. If he is not God, they are making a big mistake.You say: I am not necessarily arguing against the divinity of Jesus. What I am arguing is that that this idea, more than any other idea, is one for which Christians ought to be able to provide a clear explanation. Christians, that is, should be able to provide a clear explanation of the mistake that is made, beyond simply a departure from tradition, when one either fails to emphasize, or even denies, the divinity of Jesus.
That is where we talk about mystery. No human being has, strictly speaking, a clear idea of what God is, or of what the Trinity is, of how Jesus can be both God and man. At best you can show that there is no inconsistency in our notions on these subjects. But anyone who believes, as I do and many others do, that Jesus is both God and man, both divine and human, must think that anyone who denies this is mistaken. If I did not thnk that someone who denies this is mistaken, then I would be inconsistent. That would bother me.
Joe G
What should bother us is how the entire Catholic bishopric of the US had to be forced to do what is right by the courts. And they are still stonewalling. What should bother us is the reason Christianity has had very little success in Asia is because Rome virtually told them God is Western. And it is truly unbeleivable that we would presume that God condemns all those other religions, including the Jews, as the RCC has done until Vatican II.
This is a good teaching point on what is called the Church of Dogma. Rome has to talk about what must be held, mentally and outwardly while the Sermon on the Mount is merely advisory and to act like the Good Samaritan is good but not necessary.
The early Christians all thought the world was ending. That does not mean we should be bothered by that. Kung points out: “The decisive element in christology is that it is a reflection on this history of suffering and death which constitutes the central event of salvation.” (Incarnation of God 448)
Below are some pertinent statements by Kung on christology in his book “Christianity.”
“One cannot talk of a self-divinization of Jesus in the gospel of John any more than one can talk of a divinization by the disciples” (p. 90).
“John’ statement that the Father and Jesus are ‘one’ is not meant as a ‘metaphysical statement about the unity of the Father and the Son… it is about ‘unity in activity’” (p.90).
“For Paul, Christ is the crucified wisdom of God in person, not personified pre-existent wisdom… There is no trace of a real pre-existence christology, far less of a ‘triune God’ in either Paul or John” (p 93).
“Paul, in his christology, did not for a moment shake Jewish monotheism” (p 94).
“Why is there never talk of the ‘triune God’? Should there not be mention of this ‘triune’ or ‘threefold’ God, of the Trinity, particularly in the New Testament, if here the ‘central mystery’ of Christianity is to be discussed? (p. 94).
“Jewish Christianity always insisted on the historical fact that the Messiah and Lord Jesus of Nazareth was not a divine being, a second God, but a human being from among human beings” (p. 97)
Joseph:
You are kind to consider my various points and to move them into this thread. Hopefully, these thoughts will add something to the conversation.
If the “bridge” that Christ is between heaven and earth is only metaphorical rather than metaphysical, and is a metaphorical bridge common to prophets and texts alike, then Christ as bridge is not distinctive, not salvifically unique, which would be a mistaken conclusion from the CDF viewpoint.
If God does not strictly speaking have a relation to the world, then God does not know or love the world, nor does God act within the world in a manner that is constitutive, or creative, of anything in the world. Knowledge, love, and creative acts are metaphysically relational. Otherwise, God is an unmoved mover.
I was not quite clear in the point to be made regarding “obviously deficient.” I was not seeking to clarify what made for either a deficiency or a religion. My point was only that the grounds for criticizing a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ could not simply be that divinity is better. Rather, one would have to explain WHY divinity makes for a true salvific figure, as opposed to the pretenders advanced by other religions. The emphasis was on explaining why a denial of Christ’s divinity is obviously wrong.
You suggest that such a denial reduces Christianity to a mistake, a mistake perpetuated by the NT. I, confess, that I strongly disagree with you at this point. Nothing said about Jesus in the the synoptics/Acts, and even most readings of John and Paul is lost by denying the divinity of Jesus. Nothing in the Didache is lost if Jesus is not divine.
The NT does not speak with one voice. While the vast majority of texts do not speak of the divinity of Jesus, there are texts that can be read to affirm his divinity. Yet, most of these texts lead to notions of divinity that are hardly orthodox. John’s Logos seems clearly subordinate to the Father, and the Hymn to Christ in Philippians is flagrantly gnostic (being made in human likeness? being found in the appearance of man?).
While I have no doubt the actual faith you live, pray, study and contemplate has a depth that goes far beyond mine, the way you describe the mystery of faith as something that has no inconsistancy seems to reduce the definitive substance of Christianity to a metaphysical gamble with very tight epistemological constraints.
If we made two columns, one for all the characteristics that would describe the merely human Jesus, and one for the characteristics of the fully human/fully God Jesus, what aspects of the life, ministry, teachings, healings, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus could only go in the second column? If the first column gets everything except divinity, then it is not clear what divinity adds to Jesus.
The move against Sobrino has put the CDF in the position of explaining exactly why the divinity of Jesus is not only true but also essential to understanding our life before God. Peace.
Correction:
You say: Often, Christological claims imply some kind of limitation in God’s relation to the world prior to the Incarnation, a limitation that other theistic traditions would deny, and so would find no need for the Incarnation. Yet, Christians presumably know enough about the mystery of God to affirm these truths about God’s relation to the world.
I said: I don’t think that God, strictly speaking, has a relation to the world. So he cannot have a limited one.
I was wrong here. I was thinking of a different issue, whether a relational predication such as ‘God created the universe’ implies any change in God. It does not. But that is not the point here. I should have said something along these lines. God revealed himself through Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Over time that that revelation was more and more understood and elaborated. The consummation of God’s revelation, in the Christian view, is Christ himself who is both God and man. Judaism rejects that idea because it seems to imply that there is more than one God. If the father is God and the Son is also God are there not two Gods? The Christian answer is Trinitarian theology. You ask why there is a need for the Incarnation. I would say first of all that it is a fact. Was it necessary? Certainly God was under no constraint. But I would say that it was a necessary component of God’s plan, that it was hypothetically necessary.
The idea that “Judaism” rejects the Incarnation is rather misleading. To be sure, they do, but the way it is put suggests that they just can’t get passed a metaphysical difficulty. Moreoever, there is no single voice for “Judaism” to speak on this matter.
Christianity began as a Jewish religion and ended up a Gentile religion. There are lots of historical and theological reasons for this. Despite its eventual Gentile majority, Christianity still needed to explain both how it was consistent with Judaism, and also superior to it. There are times when the Incarnation seems like a metaphysical trump card designed not so much to show how Christianity is true, but rather to show how the Jews were wrong.
Christianity is at its strongest when it is proclaiming the gospel not when it is defending facts. For this reason, proving or disproving the divinity of Jesus is not particularly interesting from a Christian point of view. Rather, helping to open ourselves and others to the grace of God is of greatest interest. The questions that I have been asking are intended to explore why affirming the metaphysical divinity of Jesus, as opposed to perhaps his symbolic divinity, is necessary for this highest of pastoral callings.
In honor of St. Patrick’s Day, I would like to try to make my point with a song. What is lost spiritually and theologically if this song is sung by someone who has no interest in whether or not the hypostatic union is true or not? [I left out the battleshield verse, as does Fernando Ortega when he sings this song. I highly recommend his performance of it to anyone with iTunes, etc.]
Be Thou My Vision
Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.
Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.
Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.
High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.
At the risk both of exposing my own ignorance and of saying things that are not really relevant to this discussion, let me mention a few matters that seem to me to bear on the issue of Jesus’ divinity.
First, one of the important documents of Vatican II confirmed the view of Congar, DeLubac, etc. that Scripture and Tradition form one one source of Revelation, not two distinct sources. Furthermore, it is in and through the Tradition, that Scripture receives its authentic interpretation.
Second, Congar, DeLubac, et al. recognized the great importance of John Henry Newman”s work on the development of Christian Doctrine. In the course of this development, light gets shed on the full meaning of the Tradition as well as on Scripture. Nonetheless, I can’t see that this development could rightly rebut the Church’s teaching about the divinity of Jesus and still rightly be called a “development.”
Two more loosely related musings. First, in the Eastern church, as is evident in “One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification” by Veli-Matti Karkkainen and in the works of Meyendorf, the Cappadician Fathers agreed with and elaborated the point made by Gregory of Nyssa that “God united Himself to our nature in order that our nature might be made divine through union with God.” Gregory Nazianus echoed this view when he said that to the extent that Christ became a real man, so we become real gods. If I am not mistaken, this view requires that we pay attention to the history of salvation, a history in which the supernatural is not just added to the natural, but actually transforms the natural into something it would otherwise not be. None of this would make sense if Jesus were not divine.
Second, apropos the exchange of letters in the March 8 issue of Commonweal between Michael Sheppeck and Cathleen Keveny, it seems to me that what Sheppeck calls the participation theology’s account of what salvation amounts to does not count against What Keveny says there. The participation account does, though, strike me as more profound and not well reflected in sermons, etc. It opens the way for taking seriously the liturgy of Holy Week’s ecstatic cry “O Happy Fault.”
With reference to the Fathers of the Church, whether it be Gregory Nazianus, Basil of Caesarea or Ambrose, it should be understood that they did not always agree with each other. Augustine had some real problems with Cyprian though he treaded ever so lightly.
Secondly, since they did disagree, therefore, some or many of them were wrong. I know in our upbringing we were taught that the words of the Fathers of the church were gospel. Even today some Catholics still say that if a saint said it it is true.
As to what is in important in the Christian life Jesus did give much criteria, as opposed to any divinity, and they were centered on behavior. “By their fruits you will know them.” And who is our neighbor? Would that story today be the Good Iranian, the Good Syrian instead of the Good Samaritan? The Good Mexican?
With respect to the issue of the development of doctrine, I think there is a genuine problem, but not necessarily an irresolvable one. Scholars like Roger Haight who demonstrate that tradition is far less univocal on this than it may seem would become a real resource rather than dissidents. Moreover, insofar as the Churches cannot identify a soteriological rationale for affirming the traditional view, they get put on the defensive; not a good position for an evangelical religion.
I wonder if it is at all possible for Christianity to move in a direction similar to Buddhist pluralism. Buddhism begins emphatically emphasizing that Gautama was a human who became enlightened. This made it possible for the rest of us (albeit with a million plus lifetimes to get it right) to become enlightened through our own efforts. Later developments in Buddhism often found the Buddha being affirmed as a divine being whose merit could be passed on to those who follow him and so assist them on their path to enlightenment. This move seems to be common in religion (Muhammad regularly insisted to his fellow Muslims that he was only human and that they should not do to him what he took the Christians to have done to Jesus). However, the pluralism within Buddhism is inspiring because while there is genuine disagreement between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism on the nature of the Buddha, scriptures, etc. you rarely find one Buddhist insisting that another Buddhist has no right to call him or herself a Buddhist. One reason for this is their ability to agree on the core texts of the Pali Canon which do not require taking a stand on the more controversial issues. Could Christians find common ground in scripture and leave affirmation (or not) of various creedal traditions up to different Christian communities?
Regarding divinization, I have great respect for Eastern theology. However, while I find the idea of greater union with God to be a very sound idea, I am less convinced that become a god is a good thing for which to hope. It sounds rather L. Ron Hubbardish, or at least too Greek; certainly not Jewish. Additionally, it serves to create yet another poetic non sequitur in Christology. There is no reason why Jesus had to be fully divine in order for us to become divine, at least the metaphysical mechanics that would make it necessary are not at all obvious.
>>I wonder if it is at all possible for Christianity to move in a direction similar to Buddhist pluralism.<<
And we have a winner.
More seriously: neither you or Bill do any favors for your causes. There is now a deep (and apparently justified) suspicion that many people with “liberal” views about practical matters in church governance also harbor non-Chrisitian views about the nature of God, doctrine, revelation, Christology, etc. And lo–you confirm all their worst fears.
I do appreciate your candor though. I wish it was shared by others.
As usual Mark L Johnson offers rebuke without a scintilla of reason. Heaven forbid that Mark L would offer support for his views. He adds zero to the conversation, unfortunately.
At any rate, while we must acknowledge that God comes to people in other ways than through Christianity, I uphold the uniqeness of Jesus. He is sent by God and may be called “the fullest expression of God on earth.”
That is important but what makes Jesus is that there is no one like him. No contest. Unlike the deviousness of some of his followers, his life was totally lived for God and neighbor, he practiced what he preached. He showed us how to empty ourselves to God so that God can come to us in all richness.
He favored the poor, the downtrodden and the uneducated and showed the wealthy how to follow the Way. Even people who have no use for organized religion are attracted to him like no other because he is real in every sense of goodness and his life stands up for what he preached.
He showed us God and makes our life more abundant. For that reason one is most fortunate to be within his embrace and to be a Christian.
Wow! Mark, I sure thought you would be in on this thread a lot sooner. What kept you?
Two questions:
1) What EXACTLY is your objection to Christian pluralism, especially if that pluralism includes a normative commitment to the importance of something like Imitatio Christi?
2) Would you mind having a go at the core theological issues of the thread; namely, what is the soteriological significance of either 1) the death of Jesus on the cross, or 2) affirming the full divinity of Jesus.
Mark,
Just to be perfectly clear. At no point in this thread has either the full divinity of Jesus or the universally salvific character of his death on the cross been denied. Rather, a request has been made for wiser theological minds to clarify the soteriological importance of affirming these claims. Perhaps yours is one such wiser mind.
Joe P
Perhaps your view is different. But I do say clearly that Jesus is fully human whose relationship with God is unparalled.
Secondly, Mark L does make an important point about the “worst fears” of our fellow Christians who fear that “Low Christology” threatens the faith. I say to them that people who hold this view are just as committed to Jesus as any one who pursues the orthodox approach.
When they start raping your children, abusing women and promoting war, then there is something to fear. “By their fruits you will know them” is the yardstick. Not pledging orthodoxy to those who are into domination rather than the Spirit.
Bill,
I am very sympathetic to all that you write. My theological concern would be to unpack the meaning of “unparalled” from a low Christology perspective (something that is rather easy from a high Christology perspective). In what way unparalleled? I have met countless Jews whose understanding of Scripture makes Chistian exegesis look childish. I have met so many Muslims and Jews who appear to me searching for oneness with God in ways far superior to most Christians that I know. Thus, if I am going to make a claim that I follow one whose relationship to God is unparalleled (and so implicitly suggest that the leaders of these other faiths follow someone whose relation to God is someone inferior) I would like to be quite confident in the reasons for my claim.
I do not wish to frighten anyone. I have every respect for those with high Christology, and I do not seek to create a world where they would not be able to continue to affirm such Christology. I do, however, become impatient when it is suggested that high Christology is obviously true, especially when the only defense of it becomes mystery and a formal appeal to tradition (as opposed to some theological rationale from within the content of tradition, that rationale is all I have been asking about).
Bill,
Sorry, I missed your previous post where you do say a little about the unparallel nature of Jesus. However, while I am quite you identify very important features of what makes Jesus so important, I am wondering what makes these features truly unparalleled.
Bill. briefly. That there are disagreements among the Fathers is no news. But there is a difference between disagreements WITHIN the Church’s Tradition and disagreements with the Tradition itself. Just as there are disagreements among Thomists, there are disagreements among the Fathers. But the differences between Thomists and HObbesians, say, are of another order. So too within the Tradition people can disagree about when and how Jesus the man learned about His divinity. But to deny His divinity is to fall outside the Tradition.
Joe P, I’m not at all clear about what you are asking for when you talk of the “metaphysical mechanics.” Surely you don’t fault an affirmation in the belief in Jesus’ divinity just because one can’t give a satisfactory philosophical account of it? Or do you? If you do, I think that you have a defective grasp of the difference between faith and philosophy.
Let me also suggest to both Bill and you that the issue of how Jesus’ death-resurrection- ascension- sending of the Holy Spirit is the ultimate source of salvation for anyone remains an issue to be clarified through the ongoing elaboration of the Church’s Tradition. Within the Tradition, there has long been the view that people who lived before Jesus were saved through His salvific activity, and indeed in the case of His Jewish ancestors the covenants that God had made with them contributed to their salvation. (I realize that this last sentence needs some theologian to polish it.) If so, I find reason to hope that, by some form of analogy, the Church’s Tradition can articulate what in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. facilitates their adherents’ acceptance of salvation. I take it that this is something that Fr. Dupuis was looking for as is Fr. Peter Phan. I’m out of my theological depth here, but this is the best that I can do.
Mark, just for your information, my friends find me pretty “liberal” on matters of Church governance. But I do recognize that in these and in all matters of policy and practice, there are always more than one reasonable way to “skin a cat.”
Cheers to all of you.
>>Perhaps yours is one such wiser mind.<<
One thing we can all agree upon is that I am no such thing. My training in theology and two dollars might get me on a bus. I am trained in the social sciences.
I agree with what Bernard’s written, minus his thoughts about DePuis and Phan.
Bernard,
Thanks for the chance to clarify. At no point have I meant to suggest that faith requires a coherent metaphysical account of the Incarnation. I have tried very hard to keep the focus on the theology of salvation, not metaphysics. My reference to “metaphysical mechanics” was specific to the notion of deification. Even here, I was not interested in the metaphysics of the process itself, I was only trying to point out that to argue that Jesus must have been fully divine in order to make deification possible for the rest of us is, on my reading, a non sequitur. What is it about Jesus’s divinity that is necessary for our deification? An analogy might be when people say that Jesus had to be divine in order to perform miracles. I see no reason why this follows. Same with Eastern appeals to the divinity of Jesus and deification.
Regarding other religions, my only hesitation with your point is the suggestion that the salvation of those in other religions is not complete without Jesus. If one is going to make such a bold claim, perhaps one should provide a reason or two why it is true. Seems only polite, as well as intellectually rigorous.
A note to all, sorry about some of the typos in earlier posts. I hope the content of the claims is not obscured by them.
Joe:You say: If the “bridge” that Christ is between heaven and earth is only metaphorical rather than metaphysical, and is a metaphorical bridge common to prophets and texts alike, then Christ as bridge is not distinctive, not salvifically unique, which would be a mistaken conclusion from the CDF viewpoint.
The alternative to metaphorical is not metaphysical but literal. A metaphysical bridge would be a metaphorical one. Christ is unique because he is God. The Prophets were not.You say: I was not quite clear in the point to be made regarding “obviously deficient.” I was not seeking to clarify what made for either a deficiency or a religion. My point was only that the grounds for criticizing a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ could not simply be that divinity is better. Rather, one would have to explain WHY divinity makes for a true salvific figure, as opposed to the pretenders advanced by other religions. The emphasis was on explaining why a denial of Christ’s divinity is obviously wrong.
The denial of Christ’s divinity is not obviously wrong–there is nothing obvious about its being wrong–but it is wrong in the sense of erroneous because he is in fact God. Religions are about our relation to God. It seems to me fairly obvious that a religion whose human founder is also God has an edge over a religion whose human founder is merely human.You say: You suggest that such a denial reduces Christianity to a mistake, a mistake perpetuated by the NT. I, confess, that I strongly disagree with you at this point. Nothing said about Jesus in the the synoptics/Acts, and even most readings of John and Paul is lost by denying the divinity of Jesus. Nothing in the Didache is lost if Jesus is not divine.
As you know, the Didache is not canonical. I believe that the canonical New Testament taken as a whole affirms the divinity of Christ. There is hardly space here to go through all the texts. That would take a book. I recommend An Introduction to New Testament Christology by Raymond E. Brown.
You say: The NT does not speak with one voice. While the vast majority of texts do not speak of the divinity of Jesus, there are texts that can be read to affirm his divinity. Yet, most of these texts lead to notions of divinity that are hardly orthodox. John’s Logos seems clearly subordinate to the Father, and the Hymn to Christ in Philippians is flagrantly gnostic (being made in human likeness? being found in the appearance of man?).
The New Testament is a collection of books by several human authors and they do not all have the same theology. I don’t know of any passage that says that Jesus was not God. As to John’s prologue, there is a clear affirmation that “the Word was God”. The article makes it clear that logos is the subject. As for your citation from Philippians, why is it “flagrantly gnostic”? The language might be susceptible of a gnostic interpretation, but it can also be given an orthodox one. The diction is that of a hymn.You say: While I have no doubt the actual faith you live, pray, study and contemplate has a depth that goes far beyond mine, the way you describe the mystery of faith as something that has no inconsistancy seems to reduce the definitive substance of Christianity to a metaphysical gamble with very tight epistemological constraints.
I never gamble. I do believe that we can arrive at a knowledge of God by reason. In this I follow Thomas Aqunias, although I think the Five Ways need a little improvement. Fundamentally I think they reduce to one cosmological argument. As for what goes beyond that, faith is a gift. I once tried to argue my way out of it and thought I had succeeded, but after a long time, when I thought I had succeeded, I found that I had not succeeded. My point about consistency was that mystery does not provde cover for believing inconsistencies. Consistency however does not show that any position is true, only that it is not logically impossible.
You say: If we made two columns, one for all the characteristics that would describe the merely human Jesus, and one for the characteristics of the fully human/fully God Jesus, what aspects of the life, ministry, teachings, healings, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus could only go in the second column? If the first column gets everything except divinity, then it is not clear what divinity adds to Jesus.
This is a subtle question. I think you are taking it as a hypothesis that Jesus is man + God as though they were two kinds of thing with distinct characteristics. If someone were to say that Jesus was both a (human) shepherd and a sheep, literally, then it would be fair to ask how he could really combine the qualities of a man and a sheep. I think we would conclude it was not possible. But being God is not being a thing of a certain sort. God is not a god, i.e., not a member of the species god. Jesus could not be a man and a god, although he might be a god who appeared to be a man, i.e., took on a human form, as, for example, Zeus is supposed to have taken on the form of a bull on one occasion and a swan on another. I would say that if God were a thing of a certain sort, then Jesus could not have been God. Only because God is not a certain sort of thing is it possible that the man Jesus was also God, logically possible, but that not does not mean that we know how it was done, so to speak. So I would say that Jesus is one agent, one person. who is both man and God. In all his acts he is acting as a man who is God. It is true that in Jesus sometimes the divinity is not in evidence, and at others he does things that suggest more than human powers. For one who looked with the eyes of faith it seemed that these acts showed that he was God. But the evangelists say that not all were convinced. You say: The move against Sobrino has put the CDF in the position of explaining exactly why the divinity of Jesus is not only true but also essential to understanding our life before God. Peace.
The CDF hold, I guess, that Jesus is God and that this is part of our faith. I agree. What they might want to show is that what Sobrino says formally and explicitly denies that (and so is erroneous) or at least looks like it denies that (and so is dangerous, to use their terminology). Whether they have done that I am not prepared to say. If it is true that Jesus is God and this is part of our faith, then I guess you could say that it is “also essential to understanding our life before God.”
Shalom.
Joe says: The idea that “Judaism” rejects the Incarnation is rather misleading. To be sure, they do, but the way it is put suggests that they just can’t get passed a metaphysical difficulty. Moreoever, there is no single voice for “Judaism” to speak on this matter.
I respond: I am not sure what to make of this. Certainly the Jews who rejected Christianity thought that Jesus was not God. I suspect that part of this was that they thought he was either claiming to be the one and only G-d, which would have indeed been implausible, or else claiming to be another G-d, which would have been contrary to their firmly held conviction that there was only one. Metaphysics did not enter into it. You tend to overuse the word “metaphysical”.Joe says: Christianity began as a Jewish religion and ended up a Gentile religion. There are lots of historical and theological reasons for this. Despite its eventual Gentile majority, Christianity still needed to explain both how it was consistent with Judaism, and also superior to it.
I respond: Early preaching did not represent Chritianity as superior to Judaism. It aimed to show that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. There is a difference.
Joe says: There are times when the Incarnation seems like a metaphysical trump card designed not so much to show how Christianity is true, but rather to show how the Jews were wrong.
I respond: Can you support this with a text? Joe says: Christianity is at its strongest when it is proclaiming the gospel not when it is defending facts. For this reason, proving or disproving the divinity of Jesus is not particularly interesting from a Christian point of view.
I respond: No one can prove or disprove that Jesus is both God and man, but it is what we believe and it is fundamental to Christianity. If I did not believe it, I would look into Islam. If you do not, I recommend you do likewise. Islam is very concerned about the poor, as is Christianity.
Joe says: Rather, helping to open ourselves and others to the grace of God is of greatest interest. The questions that I have been asking are intended to explore why affirming the metaphysical divinity of Jesus, as opposed to perhaps his symbolic divinity, is necessary for this highest of pastoral callings.
I respond: I have no idea what either the metaphysical or symbolic divinity of Jesus would mean. If you do, you are wiser that I am. I think I do know what his divinity tout court means.
Bill,
We have been over this ground before, and as before, we disagree. Your citations from the work of Hans Kung do nothing to convince me. I am persuaded by John Henry Newman and Raymond E. Brown, among others, that development of doctrine in the sense of development of understanding of what has been revealed in Christ is a reality. The education of humanity is a gradual process. If Kung does not believe that Jesus was God and man and that God is triune, he ought to look into Islam. I really think that is the logical step to take. Is it not true that Mohammed claimed that the Jews first, and then the Christians had taken the wrong path and he had been sent to set things aright?
Joe G,
Your response to Joe P has more substance, in my opinion, than any responses you have ever made to me. At any rate about your statement to Joe:
“You say: You suggest that such a denial reduces Christianity to a mistake, a mistake perpetuated by the NT. I, confess, that I strongly disagree with you at this point. Nothing said about Jesus in the the synoptics/Acts, and even most readings of John and Paul is lost by denying the divinity of Jesus. Nothing in the Didache is lost if Jesus is not divine.”
I agree with you here but I wonder if Joe P does not agree also.
As far as development of doctrine is concerned it may well be that the notion of tradition is wrong. The fact that hierarchs held something for 1700 years does not mean that it was correct. No dissension was allowed. The early church thrived under diversity. Something the Constantinian chuch did not tolerate.
More importantly Athanasius had his own agenda. He decided that by declaring Jesus God that would make Christianity superior. Nice political thinking but wrong theology. As far as John the evangelist is concerned one has to grasp the tenor of the times where everyone practically considered their founders God. “It was in the air”, as many scholars assert. Further, it is not an accident that the corruption of the fourth century in the church coincided with the fact of Christians killing each other for the first time.
Those who do the will of God are the followers of Jesus or are his sister, mother and father as he puts it.
I am surprised that you would refer to other religions as pretenders. We cannot limit the goodness of God to one religion, especially when we have had the rogues we have had leading it too many times. It is finally time that the hierarchy has to earn its stripes. That is by persuasion and invitation through the Spirit. Methods used by Jesus and Paul. Not by haughtiness and dominion which leads right into all the scandals they are responsible for.
Thankfully, they are not getting away with this one.
Secondly, even if Jesus is not God there is no reason to look into Islam or any other religion. I have pointed out in another post why Jesus remains Lord of our lives. One should respect another’s beliefs and pray with them when possible. But only a fool stays with a faith s/he does not believe in.
Faith is indeed a gift and it remains the same regardless of which side of this question one is on. That faith is in the one true God and the message of Jesus.
Whew! Go to Target and the grocery store and look what happens.
Joseph, I shall do my best to respond to both of your posts, but I am not going to copy your texts, as it seems this might be leading to some confusion.
1) On bridges metaphorical and otherwise. I repeat my earlier question, In what sense is a bridge necessary? If other religions do not see a need for such a bridge, if they see no gulf between God and humanity, it seems theologically incumbant upon Christianity to explain why a bridge is necessary. Otherwise, the predicate is theologically empty.
2) On the “fairly obvious” edge that Christianity has over other religions because its founder is God. Well, if this isn’t playing an Incarnational trump card I do not know what is. What is the content of the edge? Are there truths within Christianity essential to salvation that are known only because Jesus was God? If so, what are those truths? I know of no such truths. If there are none, calling Jesus God at this point is just another way of saying “Our religion is true. Really.” Just to note, the Jews and the Muslims think the founder of their religion is God, too.
3) On scripture, I will only say two things. First, since we agree that the NT does not speak with one voice, then we at least have to raise the possibility that some canonical texts were written by people who did not think Jesus was God. The fact that it is not noted in most seems to my simple mind a bit of a give away. After all, given your claim that divineness of its founder makes a religion obviously superior, then you would think that more of texts would mention this. Second, obviously one can read texts that do not assume Jesus to be divine through the lens of texts that do (e.g. read the synoptics through the lens of John). When it comes to textual interpretation, I think the burden is to explain why the divinity of Jesus is not MORE obviously proclaimed in the texts.
4) On the Jews. My understanding is that the division with the Jews in the early decades of Christianity had to do with whether or not Jesus was the Messiah and whether or not he rose from the dead. Not whether or not he was God. Simon bar Kochba was widely held in the second century to be the Messiah. He and his followers, however, made the big mistake of gathering out in the desert, which made it really easy for the Romans to kill all of them. The fact that lots of Jews thought bar Kochba was the messiah did not mean that ALL Jews thought he was the messiah.
The notion that fulfillment is not a claim to superiority is rather odd. If the Jews did not think that their religion needed Jesus, then they did not think that there was anything that Christianity added to their religion. Christianity took it upon itself to explain the the Jews that Judaism needed fulfilling. The Jews disagreed [On this one, I confess to also being impressed by what seems to be the sincere but ultimately fraudulent technique used by some Christian writers of appropriating Jewish texts, sometimes mistakenly, and crafting their accounts of Jesus around these texts. I have never met better scripture scholars than Jewish ones, and I think the Jews during the time of the gospels did not need non-scripture scholars telling them how to understand their texts.]
5. I was not clear on the whole two columns thing. I did not mean to ask how two natures could come together in one person. Think instead about low Christology vs. high Christology. My point is this: List all of the things that can be said about Jesus from a low Christology in one column. Then list everything that can be said about Jesus from a high Christology EXCEPT those things which were already said of him in the low Christology column. If the only thing that is left in the high Christology column is that Jesus is fully divine, then the predicate does not tell us much.
6. Let me close with this. The Jews had no problem with the idea of a Son of God, but they did not think such a person was God. Christians have a very non-Jewish idea of the Son of God, in fact, they have a very Greek version of the idea. While I have no real desire to prove one side correct, I would like to know why it is theologically required to go with the latter understanding. I have tried very hard to focus the discussion on the “good news” of Christianity. I do not think the good news is “Jesus is God.” Rather, I think it is “Follow Jesus and you will find God.”
This has been a good dialogue in that we have worked to focus on the issue rather than personalities. It should continue whether on this thread or on others. Obviously, this topic will be center stage for a while since BXVI has indicated that he will issue something on the Historical Jesus fairly soon.
Wording the issue in terms of low christology and high christology seems like a useful endeavor.
Meanwhile I began the posting on this thread by agreeing that the issue was about the nature of Christ. That may be so but it might be quite useful to recall the sorry history of Ratzinger et alii in San Salvodor. Of all the countless people Karol W declared saints why he did not feel it important to include Oscar Romero is informative. It seems to show a deference to the dictators of that country.
Ditto for the six Jesuit martyrs who were killed in November of 1989 which spared Sobrino only because he happened to be giving a lecture that same evening.
Here is the url for the above post.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sobrino15mar15,1,2060671.story
MLJ: Are you going to answer Joe’s questions to you? I think it would be awfully helpful to those of us trying to understand your point of view.
Should anyone still be reading this and interested, Joseph and I have continued the conversation a bit on the earlier Sobrino thread.
Mark. You should have no difficulty spotting a heresy or two.