“We must begin by giving Jesus a demotion. He asked for it, he deserves it, we owe him no less.” These words by Robert W. Funk are cited at the head of Chapter Seven of my book The Limits of Liberalism, which I am currently updating and slightly revising. So, what about it? Should Jesus be demoted?
The
Traditional/Orthodox Position
Jesus
of Nazareth has been a problematic person to many ever since he walked the
shores of the Sea of Galilee and was crucified outside the city walls of
Jerusalem and, according to his followers, resurrected.
Jesus
was a problem for the Jewish religious leaders who thought he was guilty of
blasphemy. Jesus was a problem for the Roman political leaders who thought he
was probably a dangerous insurrectionist.
Jesus
soon became a problem for Christian thinkers as well. There were some who
espoused Docetism, the view that Jesus was a divine being who only appeared to
be human. That idea was explicitly branded as a heresy by Ignatius (A.D. c.35~107).
Then
there was Arius (256~336), who propounded that Jesus was neither fully God nor
fully human but rather a type of demigod. His view was labeled a heresy at the
Council of Nicaea (325), which concluded that Jesus Christ was both “true” God
and a “true” human being.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly the orthodox view, which is also held by most traditional Protestants: “He [Jesus] became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man” (1994 ed., 464).
The
Liberal Position
The
traditional view of Jesus has long been called into question by various Christian
thinkers.
In
contrast to the view of the Catholic Church as well as the Protestant Reformers
and most of their followers through the centuries, according to which the
primary message about Jesus is his death and resurrection which brings about the
atonement of sinful humans, the liberal position emphasizes the life and work
of Jesus before his death.
Liberal
Christians follow Jesus not because he was “God incarnate,” but because he was
and remains an exceptional and exemplary human being. And according to many
liberal theologians, the human Jesus was “promoted” to divinity by the faith of
the early church.
Robert
W. Funk, cited at the beginning of this article, was the well-respected New
Testament Scholar who founded the Jesus Seminar in 1985. Funk (1926~2005) made
that striking proposal in “Jesus for a New Age,” the epilogue of his book Honest
to Jesus (1996, p. 306).
Funk,
and many other liberals, seem to think that a choice has to be made: either Jesus
Christ must be acknowledged as an eternal divine being or as a “humble Galilean”
sage who lived some 2,000 years ago.
But
why does it have to be either/or?
The
Paradoxical Position
Last
week I happened to run across an article by Daniel P. Horan, a youngish (b.
1983) Catholic theologian. His fine piece is titled “The
heresy of oversimplified Christianity.”
Horan
says well what I have said and taught for decades—but maybe not so clearly. For
example, he explains that heresy results from “mistaking part of the truth for
the whole truth in a matter of faith or doctrine.”
He
then asserts that this explanation “reveals what is so appealing about heresies
and why so many Christians inevitably fall for them.” Heretical positions are
usually oversimplified and reductionistic statements.
Thus,
and these are my words, heresies are always appealing because they are easier
to understand and to affirm than the traditional/orthodox position.
To
quote Horan again, “The truth is that Christianity is not a religion for those
who seek easy answers or black-and-white thinking.” He goes on to assert that “false
Christianity promotes ‘either/or’ approaches to faith and morals” whereas “true
Christianity has always been a ‘both/and’ tradition.
That
is why in Chapter Seven I insist that we don’t have to take an either/or
position with reference to Jesus Christ as Funk and many liberals do. As I say
there, “Surely our minds can expand to the extent necessary to affirm and
embrace a paradoxical view of Jesus Christ as both human and divine.”
Just the councils you mention in this blog are reminders that the concept of "heresy" is a political concept. It is a concept Christianity would be better off without.
ReplyDeleteAnton, thanks for bringing up the matter of heresy. I was hoping someone would do that, and I am not surprised it was you. I wanted to say more about heresy in this morning’s post, but didn’t because I didn’t want to make it longer than it already was.
DeleteIn contemporary Christianity, not much is said about heresy—and for good reason. There has been so much harsh treatment/punishment of “heretics” through the centuries that most Christians don’t want to talk about heresy now. That is why I was surprised to find the article linked to above published by National Catholic Reporter this month.
It is certainly true that the so-called First Ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea in 325, was very complex. It was convoked by the Roman Emperor for political reasons, but that does not mean that there was not an important theological issue discussed and decided upon at that Council. How the Arians were treated after 325 is problematic, but I think the theological decision made at Nicaea was a good one—and Christian churches from then until the present have made considerable use of the Nicene Creed. I also think that the faith of the New Testament Christians would have been greatly weakened and perhaps largely destroyed if the Arian position had prevailed.
Further, the first heresy I mentioned was combated by Ignatius, long before any Church Council was convoked, so his struggle to combat heresy was not linked to political power. And heresy in Horan’s article that I cited is definitely not a political concept.
Today, as in the day of Ignatius, "heresy" whether it is called by that name or not, needs to be combated--but the "weapons" used must be rational, theological arguments rather than political power.
Aberration/heresy is a real problem. Politics and heresy is also a very serious problem. I have been called a heretic 3 times for the color of my skin. That is a very serious aberration. I have nothing to do with those groups anymore, although I think the theology of on the one branch is good outside of its political heresy. Just the same, there is real heresy out there - some of it dating back to the first and second centuries, and even shortly after Christ, in the time of the apostles.
DeleteHeresy has mostly been seen as the rejection of orthodoxy, which is often defined as "correct belief/thinking." But in recent decades there has been more and more emphasis on "orthopraxy," which is basically right or correct practice/action.
DeleteTo the extent that any or all of us white people have been compliant with white privilege and have not been sufficiently anti-racist (and who has?), the term "heretic" may be an apt accusation. (I would like to write a blog article about this in the next month or two.)
[I failed to post this comment earlier as I intended to do, soon after posting the article.}
ReplyDeleteSince the article closes with an emphasis on paradox, I was happy to see that yesterday, Richard Rohr's "daily meditation" was titled "The Ability to Hold Paradox," and he wrote about his own experience, telling how he had a "strong introduction to paradox," which honed his "ability to hold two seemingly opposite positions at the same time." One of the reasons I like Rohr's writings so much is because of his recognition of the importance of paradox and non-dual thinking.
A local Thinking Friend, whom I will leave unidentified, wrote early this morning,
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that Philippians 2:6-11 addresses this pretty well:
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:6-11 (NIV)
"I see Jesus as the Son of God who came to establish His Kingdom on earth and reconcile people to God the Father."
This is a very important Bible passage and one I have referred to many, many times through the years. Originally, it is said that this was one of the early Christian hymns that Paul incorporated into his letter to the church at Philippi.
DeleteBut the "liberal" scholars such as Funk use passages like this to say that these words show how Jesus was "promoted" by the early church to a position that was not inherent in Jesus of Nazareth. But that is where I see a decisive "limit" of liberalism.
Local Thinking Friend Marilyn Peot is a devout Christ "mystic" in the best sense of the word. Here are here comments about today's post:
ReplyDelete"Since my world has opened up to the wonders of Cosmology and Christ-Consciousness, I have a hard time dealing with early theology that missed the point on many levels. But then, we lacked the knowledge and wisdom of today's approach to science and spirituality. We have discovered they need each other.
"The Wisdom coming through at this time of our lives has clarified for me the Jesus of history. I accept the term for Jesus that Ed Hays introduced into our discourse and prayer experiences: Jesus is our Holy Pattern. The Incarnate One has said enough to bring us out of the dark ages of controversy to recognize what it means to be a Whole Person. He is offering to us through his life and words sufficient evidence that we are indeed the Beloved Sons and Daughters who can expect the Divine Whisperer to lead us to our own experience of incarnation.
"Once again I am reminded that neither God nor Jesus can be grasped with words--but only through our experiences of Abiding Presence. We are now in the Age of Awe and Wonder!"
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky sent me this email message:
ReplyDelete"I agree, Leroy, but I think too many Protestant theologians have relied too much on Paul and John and neglected the Synoptic Gospels."
Thanks for your pertinent comment, Dr. Hinson. Not long before I received your email my wife and I were talking about this very point, except we were talking about preachers and "ordinary" Christians rather than theologians.
DeleteI think that through the years many conservative evangelicals have placed too much emphasis on Paul and perhaps John and not nearly enough on the Synoptic Gospels. But on the other hand, I think that many "liberal" pastors and Christians in their churches have not placed enough emphasis on John and Paul. That is the reason the tenth and last chapter in my book is titled, "Between Liberalism and Fundamentalism."
Starting during the “70’s” I began to hear from the pulpits in the West that Liberals and Theology were destroying the faith. As a result, any “both/and” was banned by the Fundamentalist and those individuals accepting of the “both/and” were considered suspect and lost their positions.
ReplyDeleteOver the years along with the dumbing down theology and stifling thinking Christians/Leaders. Faith fell into disrepair and oversimplification.
Books have been written about the dangers of deep-thinking theologians and more than once suggested that only “simple church’s” (slogans and simple preaching) grow and become relevant.
Because there are individuals who continue to embrace the “both/and” my faith is rich and celebrates the “both/and”.
Thanks for your comments, Frank. Since this morning's blog post was about Christian liberalism, it was the liberals I was criticizing for rejecting the both/and position, oversimplifying the Christian message and committing the mistake of reductionism.
DeleteBut those same problems are seen on the other conservative side of the spectrum--and maybe even more so. Still, now there may be more conservative evangelicals who are willing to acknowledge the humanity of Jesus than there are liberals who are willing to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Chapter Ten of my book is titled ""Between Fundamentalism and Liberalism," but rather than a neither/nor position, I stress the importance of finding and affirming what is right and good about both "sides"--a both/and position.
When I read your title, "Should Jesus Be Demoted?," I thought your comments might be on a different topic. I guessed that you might be stating a thinking that some fundamentalists have proposed (although they would never use your title). In our shared history, Leroy, as you know, there was a move by Southern Baptist fundamentalist to creedify (my word) Baptist beliefs (although creeds themselves are not very Baptist). These changes were written down in a new version of the Southern Baptists' "Baptist Faith and Message," which all Southern Baptist missionaries were required to sign and teach by (leading to missionaries resigning and being fired for not doing so.)
ReplyDeleteHow this relates to your title is that one change in the new BF&M was that a key phrase from the previous version was omitted. That phrase was under the heading of "The Scriptures" and stated, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." Some, including me, saw this deliberate omission as a manifestation of the inerrancy movement placing the Bible over Jesus, rather than vice versa.
I believe that all scripture is to be viewed through the lens of Jesus Christ and feel that, although they would never admit it, the fundamentalist inerrancy movement was a demotion of Jesus.
Thanks, Dave. It hadn't crossed my mind that BF&M 2000 included a demotion of Jesus, but I agree with what you said about that.
DeleteJune and I didn't sign that we would work "in agreement with and not contrary to" BF&M 2000 primarily because of its position rejecting women in pastoral ministry. But we were also opposed to the creedalism that was manifest in the use of that document and, yes, we objected to changing the important affirmation that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which the Bible should be interpreted.
In Chapter Five of "Fed Up with Fundamentalism," I have a section titled "Does Inerrancy Place the Bible Above Jesus," and I write explicitly about the change in the BF&M on pages 152~4 of the revised (2020) edition of that book.
I can agree with you that Jesus is true God and true man if you will agree with me that we are all destined to be conformed to the Image of his Son--that is, we are all destined to be True God and True Man. That confirms the twin themes of Eastern Orthodoxy--the Humanization of God and the Divinization of Man.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Dickson.
DeleteI don't have any trouble agreeing with being "conformed to the Image" of God's Son, as that is clearly stated in Romans 8:29. But it seems to be quite a stretch to go from that to saying that we are all destined to become "True God and True Man."
I have never studied much of the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its emphasis on "theosis," has always been puzzling to me. If it means, as Wikipedia says, "a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God," I don't have any problem with that. But if it means becoming divine (becoming God or a god), then I have great trouble with that idea.
It is common in Shinto for people to be considered a "kami" after death and in Japanese Buddhism for people to be thought of as a "hotoke" after death. But I can't agree with that sort of thinking as a part of Christianity.
Thank you for addressing theosis. Becoming like Christ/ Bride of Christ/ one with Christ. Yet even so, we remain creatures, conformed into His loving image, and He, Creator God in Godly fullness. As CS Lewis put it, for eternity it always be "farther in, farther up" for us.
DeleteIf "theosis" means becoming more and more like Christ, conformed into His loving image, then that is a good and important emphasis, in my opinion--especially if we humans remain creatures who bow before and worship the Creator. But as I said above, if "theosis" means becoming divine (becoming God or a god), then I have great trouble with that idea.
DeleteLeroy, I admit I have tried not to take the bait of your provocative title! :-)
ReplyDeleteApparently I could not do so.
“Never in my life have I denied the divineness of Jesus Christ; but that the doctrine thereof has to be restated and revalued in terms of modern thinking…Jesus is the best that we know, human or divine…the problem is not whether Jesus is as good as God is, but whether God is as good as Jesus is. That settles it. If the best that we know be not the divine to what else could we attach the predicate?
“I am a typical, loyal, old-fashioned Baptist; believing and trusting in the grace of God—that God whom Jesus reveals.
“[I must decide] Whether my religion shall be born of my own soul or whether I shall commit it to memory from the experience of another man’s soul.”
George Burman Foster (1858 – 1918)
I recognize my fondness for ‘both/and’ language over ‘[n]either/[n]or’ language. My own sense is that we [I] sometimes (often in times of stress or ‘outside’ threat) forget that the usefulness of identifying differentiating characteristics in actual entities becomes a deficit when we mistake those characteristics as separate parts rather than interpenetrating dimensions of becoming. [Organisms not machines; dynamic systems not static entities]
It is our prevailing sense of the Divine as separate from the Human that leads to asserting the uniqueness of “Fully Human, Fully Divine”.
“Holy” as identifiable/distinguishable not separate!
As our Eastern sisters and brothers have asserted: the event of Jesus reveals the desire of God for everyone.
So I think. Shalom, Dick
Dick, thanks for your thought-provoking comments--and thanks for the quotation from George Burman Foster, the University of Chicago Divinity School professor I don't remember hearing about previously.
DeleteYou seem to be calling for non-polar thinking such as Richard Rohr often mentions--and which is a part of some Buddhist traditions in Japan with their emphasis on 不二 ("funi," not two). That is a very important viewpoint in my opinion.
I enjoyed reading Chapter 7, following all the twists and turns in the history of liberalism. I believe both liberalism and fundamentalism are human inventions in response to our ongoing experience of the divine. Christianity, like other religions, has been reinventing itself since its beginning. Which raises an awkward question: How do we know what is right?
ReplyDeleteThe scientific world gives us two ways to look for truth, by correspondence and by coherence. Ideally, we would like to see both methods lead to the same answer. Frequently, they do not. For instance, quantum mechanics and general relativity are both deeply tested theories in physics, and in most circumstances they have both been validated by experiments. However, in a black hole, one or both is destroyed. So science continues to use both outside of black holes, even as it knows that something is not right. I feel that way about theology; as metaphors for faith, hope, and love, I am pleased to participate in the great cycles of Christian theology, even as I also believe that pushed too far the metaphors can break.
As an example, let us look at biblical research about the entire Bible, not just at Christology. Many academic disciplines have contributed to understanding various aspects of the Bible, yet those many studies tend to get ignored when a new question is raised. We have learned we have to read Genesis very carefully, yet we still want to lean into the New Testament without nearly so much caution. Genesis is a powerful book, and it still has so much to say, even after we allow full scholarly inquiry. I believe the same thing about the New Testament in general, and Jesus in particular. Sometimes that scholarship even takes us to unexpected new insights. For instance, last year economics professor Michael Hudson published "...and forgive them their debts." He argues powerfully that the ancient mideastern kings used debt Jubilees to regularly to keep their economies from locking up (example: see American debt crisis). Greek and Roman oligarchs overthrew the kings, and declared "debts must be paid." For years, Christian theologians have tended to treat Jubilees as wishful thinking, not historic fact, and to turn Jesus' talk of debts into "sin" instead of the ancient term which included both, and indeed used economic debt as the metaphor to explain sin, not the other way around. On the cover of his book, Hudson placed a copy of a painting of Jesus driving the moneychangers from the temple. In other words, in the face of Roman power, he did the one thing that traditionally distinguished a king from an oligarch. He called for the forgiveness of debt. Now that was a thing the Romans could not abide! You can read more here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42515482-and-forgive-them-their-debts
Thanks for posting erudite comments again, Craig.
ReplyDeleteYes, both/and thinking is necessary for us humans not only with regard to thinking about theology but also in the realm of science. As far as I know, most scientists still affirm that light is both particles and waves.
Thanks for the intriguing information about Michael Hudson and his 2018 book. I think you have mentioned him before, but I didn't remember that he is the Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City--and I just now saw on Wikipedia that he is just seven months younger than me.
Thank you Leroy for this article and for sending your book chapter via email. I appreciated your wide array of references, sources, descriptions, affirmations and critiques of contemporary Christology.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I think a lot of the liberal Christologies are rather outlandish(some of which I have read over the years), and these scholars seem to be competing with each other to see who can believe the least about Jesus, even to the extent that he never existed.
As far as I could tell from your chapter(correct me if I'm wrong), you did not mention G. Aulen's work, Christus Victor, which I recommend, if you haven't read it already. Another Lutheran reference that I didn't see in your chapter comes from George Forell's excellent work, The Protestant Faith--I especially find helpful pages 173-181, titled "The Work of Christ," where he has an insightful discussion of the 3 theories of atonement. I tend to agree with him when he suggests that all 3 complement one another.
I did notice that you mentioned Luther being an advocate of what you call penal substitution. I don't think Luther was an advocate of a single theory of atonement. If you read Luther's Works, I think you'll find that his Christology and his views on atonement were driven by his theology of the cross and an extensive variety of biblical texts.
I do agree with you in affirming both Jesus' humanity and divinity, and the need to hold our beliefs and our practical response to God's grace in Christ together.
Thanks so much, Garth, for your significant comments.
DeleteI think you are right: in neither of my books ("Fed Up with Fundamentalism" and "The Limits of Liberalism") have I written about Aulen's seminal ideas in "Christus Victor," although when I taught "Introduction to Theology" classes in Japan, I talked about that book and Aulen's explanation of Atonement.
I am not familiar with George Forell's book. There are many good books that deal with the Atonement, though, and in the 1960s soon after arriving in Japan, Robert Culpepper, my future colleague at Seinan Gakuin University, published a book under the title "Interpreting the Atonement," and, of course, he wrote about the various theories of Atonement.
I certainly haven't read Luther to the extent that you have, and I concede that Luther, as most good theologians, was broader than can be explained by only one theory. But conservative evangelicals today claim that Luther was an advocate of the penal substitution view. For example, I quickly found a 2018 article that states, "In his commentary on Galatians, Luther highlights the penal nature of the atonement." (https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/retrieving-reformed-doctrine-of-penal-substitution/)
But although I don't know enough to assert it positively, my guess is that Luther held a both/and position regarding the Atonement: both substitutionary atonement and other explanations as well.