Submitted to Bernard Van de Walle, Ph.D.
READING RESPONSE II & Emerging Questions regarding – V.M. Kärkkäinen, "Christology, A Global Introduction: An Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective"
The NT contains several complementary interpretations of Jesus, none of which dominates amongst the "myriad pictures, silhouettes, and appropriations" of him therein (10). The formation of the Biblical canon in the 4th century as well as the creeds of Nicaea (4th cent.) and Chalcedon (5th cent.) "attempted to formulate a definitive understanding of Christ in light of the existing cultural milieu" (10). Subsequent theology has "taken its point of departure from these early formulations and refined them" (10) according to Kärkkäinen.
Christology prior to the 20th century often made "as sharp distinction between 'the person of Christ' (Christology proper), and 'the work of Christ' ('soteriology', the doctrine of salvation)" (11). Today these distinctions are not so clear for philosophical and practical reasons. Modern theologians see an integral relationship "between the person and work of Christ, … between 'functional' (what Jesus has done for us) and 'ontological' (who Christ is in his person) Christologies" (12)
Central to the study of Christology are the two distinct approaches taken by theologians referred to as the 'approach from above' and the 'approach from below'. Christology 'from below' "begins with an inquiry into the historical Jesus and the historical basis for belief in Christ… [going] behind the theological interpretation of the Evangelists, Paul, and other NT writers… [attempting] to ascertain… the historical and factual foundation of Christological claims" (12); Pannenburg is one such leading theologian (12). Christology 'from above' "takes the theological interpretation of Jesus Christ as found in the NT as its point of departure for determining the meaning of Christ for our own times" (12). Christology 'from above' was the orientation of Church thought and teaching in the earliest centuries during which time, it is suggested, there was a notable focus upon Paul and John, for example, over the Synoptic Gospels (13).
Kärkkäinen suggests that there are four major approaches to Christology today – [1] the incarnational Christology of the early Church and Roman Catholicism; [2] a theology of the Cross in Protestant (especially Lutheran) thought; [3] the Resurrection and Ascension Christology of the Orthodox and other Eastern Christian Churches; and [4] the empowerment Christology of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movements (15). Kärkkäinen states that a plurality of viewpoints within the Biblical testimony came to be favoured by the early Church "at the expense of harmony in every detail" (20); Today, in light of that fact, the dominant "approach to Biblical Christology [focuses] on the various titles given to Jesus Christ" (20). That is to say, contemporary theologians recognize that there is a Christology unique to every single author of the NT, a perspective on who Jesus is which is uniquely the Biblical author's own (20).
Christology of the Early Church
At the centre of all theological reflection in the Christian tradition stands Christology (16); the NT contains "several legitimate pictures and theological interpretations of Jesus". For example, Christ in the Gospel of Mark is presented as "Suffering Servant", in Matthew as "King of the Jews", in Luke as "Friend of All", in John as "Word of Life" (30), and in Paul's writings as "Christ/Messiah; Lord; Son of God; Last Adam; and Saviour" amongst many other designations (44); yet the unifying core is that "in and through Jesus something decisive for human salvation occurred" (22).
Kärkkäinen suggests that "though the Christian Church gives the NT canon a higher status than the Christian tradition of the first five centuries, we need to remind ourselves that those who lived close to NT times were in a good position to offer a definitive interpretation of the Christ event" (62). Some theologians, like Von Harnack, however, reject the Christology of the patristic period saying that "dogmatic development [was] an aberration that replaced NT Christology with philosophical reflection on the person and nature of Christ" (62). Kärkkäinen makes the counterpoint, however, that the Church throughout history seems to have avoided making definitive theological statements until it was felt that matters pertaining to the salvation of souls were coming into serious question and orthodoxy was under threat (84).
The Enlightenment and Christology
Kärkkäinen states that with the coming of the Enlightenment many Protestant thinkers embraced a new approach to Scripture; "Protestant theology was more open to the influence of Enlightenment thinking than was Catholic theology" as Protestantism had already developed a tradition of resistance to collective Biblical interpretation in favour of personal interpretation (87). The Enlightenment saw Protestant thinkers making arguments for the Bible to be understood foremost as a 'reasonable moral guide' over and above anything supernatural, so, for example, miracles were to be excluded from consideration as viable, true, or necessary (86-87). Kärkkäinen suggests that the 'Age of Reason' was not so much about reason per se as it was about 'independent thought', uncurtailed by the parameters set by "Church authorities, Divine Revelation, and other people's tutelage" (86).
In light of the above described socio-historical context it was Albert Schweitzer who made the first attempt at a quest for the 'historical Jesus' unaffected by faith interpretations and theology (90). Schleirmacher, "the father of modern theology", followed by presenting his rejection of the traditional orthodox Christological view that Jesus had both human and divine natures, saying that such a viewpoint belonged to "the area of speculative metaphysics" and that Jesus is like all men except "with a higher degree of God-consciousness" (94). Classical Protestant Liberalism's distinctive outlook held that the dogmatic creeds of the Church were not to be accepted and that the Christologies of Paul and John were "too heavily interpretive and neglected actual history" (96). Rather, they sought to uncover the real Jesus of history "through a psychological description of Jesus' inner life and inner development to his full consciousness" which in the end turned out to be perhaps even more interpretive and neglectful of actual history than either Paul or John (96).
In the early 1800's D. F. Strauss introduced to theology the use of the term 'myth' to get around problems that arose in attempts to apply Enlightenment principles of scientific rationalism to all aspects of the Scriptural record. The term 'myth' was to be understood as follows: "clearly myths were not history… [however] myths could be regarded as 'true' stories in that they were not meant to be lies ( - they communicated a message, albeit not always what the text literally said) but were not historically accurate" (96-97); Nevertheless, whatever "the factual kernel at the heart of the mythical husk [might be, it] is of no significance since Christian proclamation, [to his mind], is of no significance since Christian proclamation is philosophical in nature, not directly connected with history" (98). By the early 1900's Adolf Von Harnack was arguing for the abandonment of classical Christologies as well as the rejection of the claim that exegetes could reach the historical Jesus, "the image of the ethical kingdom" (100). To this Johannes Weiss, a contemporary, responded that such thinkers had effectively given up Jesus to be more faithful to Enlightenment principles of thought (101). In the end many liberal theologians concluded that the Gospels were not written "to be sources for a historical construct of the life of Jesus", yet the quest continues, having been revived in the 1950's by such as Käsemann, and beginning again in the 1980's with the 'Jesus Seminar' (103-107).
Barth, Zizioulas, Kraus, and a Christology of East Asia
Barth, Zizioulas, Kraus, and a Christology of Southeast Asia touch upon only a minute cross-section of the Christologies one today encounters in the theological literature, yet for sake of space I must limit my references to these few alone from Kärkkäinen's text. For Barth "God is totally Other. There is no contact point between human kind and God apart from … the person of Jesus Christ" (112). Further, "God is never identical to anything we name or worship as God (112); God is the "perfection of divine love and divine freedom; … God's unlimited love and freedom meet in Jesus who establishes the covenant of love that serves as the basis for our salvation" (112). Barth wrote "the reality of Jesus Christ is that God Himself in person is actively present in the flesh. God Himself in person is the Subject of a real human being and acting" (113).
In contrast to Barth's highly intellectualized and conceptual understanding of Jesus that bars Christ from touching humanity today through the created order via sacraments or any other material means, Zizioulas' Christology can be drawn, in part, from his thought regarding Christ incarnate in the Church. For Zizioulas there are two basic Christologies; in the first "we can understand Christ as an individual", in the second "we can understand him as a 'corporate personality' in his relationship with his body, the Church" (139). Zizioulas "opposes any kind of individualism that is destructive to community… [for] even God exists in communion" (134). In light of this viewpoint Zizioulas "criticizes ancient Greek ontology in which God first is God (his substance) and then exists as Trinity, as three persons" (134). Rather, he argues in unison with certain other of the Greek fathers "who claimed that God's personhood consists of the community of three persons; … God's being coincides with God's personhood" (134).
At the foundation of Zizioulas' Christology is the position that "on the one hand, God exists only as a person in communion with Trinitarian persons, and on the other hand, that Christ is the person par excellence. Christ is not merely an individual but rather a person, since his identity is constituted by a twofold relationship: his relationship as Son to the Father and his relationship as head to his Body" (136). From his Eastern Orthodox perspective Zizioulas says "to speak of Christ means to speak at the same time of the Father and the Holy Spirit" (138) - … "thus the mystery of the Church has its birth in the entire economy of the Trinity and in a pneumatologically constituted Christology" (139). Norman Kraus' "Disciples' Christology" out of the Anabaptist tradition is similarly incarnational.
Kraus, speaking out of the Anabaptist tradition, puts great emphasis upon faith in Jesus Christ being lived out concretely: "For Anabaptism, mere belief or orthodox convictions are not enough; a practical Christian lifestyle in obedience to the Lord's commands must be visible" (164). As Kraus expresses it, "Jesus the self-revelation of God to us, is God-giving-Himself-to-us. That self-revelation comes to us only in the form of a genuine personal, historical relationship" (166). For Kraus a Christology from the disciples' perspective has to be drawn directly from the voices of the disciples that can be discerned in Scripture. Out of the Biblical witness of the disciples Kraus "creates a Christology that is firmly embedded in the existing cultures of the global world" (165); for him "Christology is the gateway to studying God" (165). Further, Kraus states that theologizing about Jesus is necessary because "the Gospels contain more than one theological picture, more than one interpretation of Christ; … what is clear, [he says], is the need for multiple, distinctive theological interpretations of Christ to do justice to the varied cultural and religious needs of our times" (166).
The assumed purpose of "Disciples' Christology" is to help the Church understand the implications of its message both for its life of discipleship and for its proclamation of the Gospels; … the task of such a Christology is to employ images and languages of existing cultures to express its message in various culturally appropriate ways. (166)
Disciples' Christology, although perhaps not well known to the Asian world, certainly has notable parallels with some distinctive aspects of Christology particularly in East Asia.
Kosuke Koyama of Japan suggests that Christian theology in the Asian context is invariably affected by the strong cultural, religious and philosophical traditions of Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, and Islam of the regions in which the Church is found. Added to the influence of non-Christian religious traditions is the almost ubiquitous reality of poverty and various forms of injustice on the continent (265-266).
Choan-Seng Song of Taiwan suggests that one of the distinct aspects of Asian theological reflection "is the reluctance to employ the Western 'either-or' dialectic", instead choosing terms of "yin-yang inclusiveness" (267). In the West Jesus has historically been viewed as a problem, paradox, or mystery; "How could he be 'both' God and man?" For the East, however, "[Jesus] is God because of man; He is man because of God" (267).
Song goes on to state that in relation to the suffering of God in Jesus "what is distinctive about Christ's sufferings for Asians [is that he suffers] with humans as a fellow sufferer. In Christ God loves his people so much that God suffers with them and dies with them" (273); Jesus listens and responds to the cries of the desperate masses who suffer for lack of democracy, justice, and human rights (267-277). Kärkkäinen holds that "the future of distinctively Asian Christology depends on how well Christian theology succeeds in speaking to … Asia's ancient yet still vibrant religious life and utmost poverty" (278).
Emerging Questions
Kärkkäinen's reference to "Asia's ancient yet still vibrant religious life and utmost poverty" is first and foremost in my mind in relation to my work in Asia. The Catholics where I work have a kind of faith and devotion to Christ and the Church that I have seen nowhere in the world , yet, the Christian tradition in Asia appears in so many cases to be a foreign import directly dropped into an Asian context from a Western factory. The Catholic Church has been present in many parts of Asia for 400 – 500 years, yet, externally at least, the Church in the countries of that region seems to 'look like' the Church of the West, little that is visibly 'Asian' has developed about the faith of these now long established Christian communities. I get the impression that the Church perhaps has yet to become a part of the culture of which it has so long been part.
These things being said, when I see the Church in her members reaching out to the poor and marginalized, which she does consistently in Asia, I see many people coming to Christ and I see lives changed. It is the Church alone that reaches out to the disabled, the prostitutes, those infected by HIV/AIDS, single mothers, the poor, and the marginalized ethnic minorities who live in crushing poverty in rural regions at the very edges of life and death because food is something that is encountered in the forest 'if it is there'. The Church in many parts of this region is also persecuted and for that reason people who believe often pay a personal price for their faith, and belonging to a community that 'suffers together' means something.
My question is "What is Christology?" Clearly all any of us have is our own love relationship with Jesus Christ and how that plays out in our living day to day. I wonder what the Christology of the Sedang minority father is on the Laotian border. His family was introduced to Jesus one hundred years ago and accepted the Christian faith but there have never been enough priests to serve the community of that region so they receive minimal catechesis and can worship at Mass only once a year in a language most of them cannot speak. Beyond this they have only the rosary to aid them in the praying of their Biblical devotions because they cannot read and have no Bible in their own language. Yet, in spite of such seemingly insurmountable obstacles the Sedang pray with immense devotion, and when Mass is celebrated annually they will all come on foot from several miles away to worship; What is their Christology? Is it simply that Jesus, his mother, and the Church are what give them hope; a Christology of Hope?[1] When I consider why Asian Christologies have been few until recent decades it finally makes sense to me. When Jesus and his Church is all you have to hope in, and there is no time for more than finding food and helping each other survive, 'Who Jesus is' is a moment to moment matter that offers no space for much reflection. I have to remember that.
[1] A hope, perhaps, like that of the persecuted Japanese Christians in Shusako Endo's oral history 'Silence'.