choose your theological problem: or, parallel reflections on divine revelation: or, a call to concurrence
For Christians of a more conservative theological orientation who assume the general validity of mainstream historical and scientific research, the following conundrums often arise (or if they don't, perhaps they should).
A1: Historical research indicates that Jesus was a man who was born, lived, and died in a particular culture at a particular time in history.
A2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either Jesus was only apparently human, in which case the adequacy of his representation of and substitution for humanity in salvation is called into question;
A2b: or Jesus was truly human with all that this entails, in which case conservative notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, and the supernatural and the natural, are called into question.
B1: Historical research indicates that the biblical writings were written by particular human persons at particular times in history.
B2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either the biblical writings are only apparently human historical writings, in which case the integrity of God in the process of inspiration is called into question;
A2b: or the biblical writings are truly human historical writings with all that this entails, in which case conservative ideas of the divine origins of Scripture are called into question.
C1: Scientific research indicates that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.
C2: For those Christians described above, this scientific conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
C2a: either the universe is only apparently billions of years old, in which case the integrity of God in creation is called into question;
C2b: or the universe is truly billions of years old with all that this entails, in which case conservative interpretations of the biblical creation narratives are called into question.
Many conservative Christians I know will choose 2a every time - in practice if not in confession - without realizing the full implications of that essentially docetic choice. They live daily within the paradigms of mainstream history and science, relying on the results of these fields of study every day, never even thinking to question these things in any other subject of inquiry - yet they struggle to allow these to hold full sway in the sorts of matters I've just outlined, or else they live in ignorance of the cognitive dissonance of holding on to their inherited scientific worldview while maintaining their received conservative doctrines.
It strikes me that a unifying thread in these three common conservative conundrums is "revelation." Creation, Scripture, and Christ are held up in the biblical writings and Christian tradition as three of the most significant loci of God's revelation of himself. Indeed, Christ is upheld by several of the New Testament authors as the ultimate revelation of God: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.... No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known (John 1:14, 18); "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:1-3).
Perhaps, then, the solution to all three dilemmas is found in Christ (that would certainly make for appropriately "Christian" theology). If Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, then perhaps the nature of his being tells us something about the nature of God's revelation generally, or at least maybe God's preferred mode of revelation. Christ as fully God and fully human does indeed challenge conservative - even non-conservative - notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, the supernatural and the natural. While divinity and humanity can never be equated (that is illogical, let alone ill-ontological), because of the revelation of God in Christ divinity cannot be thought of as in some sense necessarily excluding humanity, nor humanity divinity - they must be able to co-exist in God's revelation of himself, to exhibit a mysterious concurrence.
If this is the case, then God does not always or even primarily act in ways which are distinctively "God-like." He is not the god of deism or docetism, nor the "god of the gaps," any more than he is the god of pantheism or panentheism. He is the "God who hides himself" (Isa 45:15), the transcendent God who immanently reveals himself in a mystery, who unveils himself through a veil.
It seems to me that this concept of concurrence, of the full co-existence of humanity and divinity or the natural and the supernatural within divine revelation, can be a fruitful way of navigating through the other two dilemmas, both also dilemmas related to divine revelation. The biblical writings are fully human in origin. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully human origin of Scripture does not negate the fully divine origin of Scripture. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ - most obviously through his crucifixion - so the divine meaning of Scripture is in foundational ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully human dimension of Scripture.
The other conservative conundrum regarding creation is also aided by this concept of concurrence demonstrated in the divine-human Christ. The universe is fully natural in every way, including its origins. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully natural origin of the universe does not negate the fully supernatural origin of the universe. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ, so the divine significance of creation is in important ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully natural dimension of the universe.
At the very least, these are parallels worth pondering...
A1: Historical research indicates that Jesus was a man who was born, lived, and died in a particular culture at a particular time in history.
A2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either Jesus was only apparently human, in which case the adequacy of his representation of and substitution for humanity in salvation is called into question;
A2b: or Jesus was truly human with all that this entails, in which case conservative notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, and the supernatural and the natural, are called into question.
B1: Historical research indicates that the biblical writings were written by particular human persons at particular times in history.
B2: For those Christians described above, this historical conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
A2a: either the biblical writings are only apparently human historical writings, in which case the integrity of God in the process of inspiration is called into question;
A2b: or the biblical writings are truly human historical writings with all that this entails, in which case conservative ideas of the divine origins of Scripture are called into question.
C1: Scientific research indicates that the universe and the earth are billions of years old.
C2: For those Christians described above, this scientific conclusion creates a dilemma between two theological problems:
C2a: either the universe is only apparently billions of years old, in which case the integrity of God in creation is called into question;
C2b: or the universe is truly billions of years old with all that this entails, in which case conservative interpretations of the biblical creation narratives are called into question.
Many conservative Christians I know will choose 2a every time - in practice if not in confession - without realizing the full implications of that essentially docetic choice. They live daily within the paradigms of mainstream history and science, relying on the results of these fields of study every day, never even thinking to question these things in any other subject of inquiry - yet they struggle to allow these to hold full sway in the sorts of matters I've just outlined, or else they live in ignorance of the cognitive dissonance of holding on to their inherited scientific worldview while maintaining their received conservative doctrines.
It strikes me that a unifying thread in these three common conservative conundrums is "revelation." Creation, Scripture, and Christ are held up in the biblical writings and Christian tradition as three of the most significant loci of God's revelation of himself. Indeed, Christ is upheld by several of the New Testament authors as the ultimate revelation of God: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.... No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known (John 1:14, 18); "He is the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15); "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:1-3).
Perhaps, then, the solution to all three dilemmas is found in Christ (that would certainly make for appropriately "Christian" theology). If Christ is the ultimate revelation of God, then perhaps the nature of his being tells us something about the nature of God's revelation generally, or at least maybe God's preferred mode of revelation. Christ as fully God and fully human does indeed challenge conservative - even non-conservative - notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity, the supernatural and the natural. While divinity and humanity can never be equated (that is illogical, let alone ill-ontological), because of the revelation of God in Christ divinity cannot be thought of as in some sense necessarily excluding humanity, nor humanity divinity - they must be able to co-exist in God's revelation of himself, to exhibit a mysterious concurrence.
If this is the case, then God does not always or even primarily act in ways which are distinctively "God-like." He is not the god of deism or docetism, nor the "god of the gaps," any more than he is the god of pantheism or panentheism. He is the "God who hides himself" (Isa 45:15), the transcendent God who immanently reveals himself in a mystery, who unveils himself through a veil.
It seems to me that this concept of concurrence, of the full co-existence of humanity and divinity or the natural and the supernatural within divine revelation, can be a fruitful way of navigating through the other two dilemmas, both also dilemmas related to divine revelation. The biblical writings are fully human in origin. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully human origin of Scripture does not negate the fully divine origin of Scripture. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ - most obviously through his crucifixion - so the divine meaning of Scripture is in foundational ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully human dimension of Scripture.
The other conservative conundrum regarding creation is also aided by this concept of concurrence demonstrated in the divine-human Christ. The universe is fully natural in every way, including its origins. But just as the full humanity of Christ does not negate the full divinity of Christ, so the fully natural origin of the universe does not negate the fully supernatural origin of the universe. Furthermore, just as the revelation of the divine is in many respects seen most profoundly only through understanding the full humanity of Christ, so the divine significance of creation is in important ways seen most profoundly only through understanding the fully natural dimension of the universe.
At the very least, these are parallels worth pondering...
Labels: jesus, new testament, scripture, theology
posted by Michael Pahl at
9/06/2007
5 Comments:
Michael, Very interesting to me in regards to creation/nature. I'm not sure I've ever read this or heard of it before.
I will say that science's interpretation of its observations are tenuous. So it does concern me with the enthusiasm Christians have for a "creation institute" or "creation center", not to assail the people involved. But it does set up people for abandoning the faith once this docetic view is at least, in their minds, disproven at the university or some other way.
By
Ted M. Gossard, at 4:14 PM
So pretend that the human particularity were not already insisted upon by the Gospels, and that it were not obvious from a cursory reading that the New Testament texts were directed to particular audiences. Instead, attribute these things to modern science in order to make the "conundrums" look new and wave away the entire history of Christology. And then advocate Chalcedonian ortodoxy as if it were something new.
Do you know how silly you look?
By
Aaron Armitage, at 11:44 AM
Aaron, this is a particular window into these issues that is relevant for "Christians of a more conservative theological orientation who assume the general validity of mainstream historical and scientific research" - I'm thinking of a "North American Joe Fundagelical." It's not the window that I look through at these issues myself (at least not anymore), nor would it appear to be the window you look through. I fully agree that "human particularity is insisted upon by the Gospels" and that even a "cursory reading" indicates that "the New Testament texts were directed to particular audiences." And I'm well aware of the "history of Christology." But the people whom I had in mind in that opening description do not read the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament that way (they don't see any "human particularity"), and they are ignorant of the history of christological discussion.
In other words, you seem to have missed the whole point of the post as I outlined it in the opening paragraph. I'll resist an ad hominem "Do you know how silly you look?" here, and I would suggest you do the same in the future.
By
Michael Pahl, at 2:52 PM
Your defense leaves me unimpressed.
Why did you choose to cite "historical research" rather than the Gospels -- which, given that your stated targets are "Christians of a more conservative theological orientation", would make the most sense?
And why not present Chalcedonian Christology as Chalcedonian Christology, instead of the way you did? On your telling it could be taken for a compromise between Christianity and skeptical scholarship.
But now I'm curious about your actual position. What, in your view, are "conservative notions of the metaphysics of divinity and humanity" and how does the true humanity of Christ call them into question?
By
Aaron Armitage, at 11:57 AM
Aaron, my last comment was not a "defense," but an explanation - your use of the word "defense" tells me something about your orientation to this type of discussion, and it's not an orientation I share in this sort of context (argument, defense, rebuttal, etc.). Nevertheless, let me offer some further explanation.
I chose to frame this the way I did because the people I'm thinking of don't read the Gospels in the way you are describing - Jesus' humanity or the human dimension of the Gospels at best gets enough of a nod to make it into their confession, but it makes very little difference in the way they fundamentally understand Jesus or the Gospels, or the rest of Scripture for that matter. There's a general unwillingness to really work through the full implications of Jesus' full humanity or the biblical writings' fully human origins. So I can't start with those things, because those things are already viewed in a way that mutes them.
As for the idea that I somehow slip in Chalcedonian Christology as if it is some novel compromise between Christianity and skeptical scholarship - sorry, but that's just hogwash. I just don't present it that way, but rather present it simply as part of the common fund of Christian belief. Certainly I don't describe it as "Chalcedonian Christology," but I'm speaking to people for whom that language is a foreign one, and quite frankly I don't see why I need to acknowledge common Christian beliefs in that way whenever I mention them.
As for your last question, the "Joe Fundagelical" metaphysic (in practice, rarely in thoughtful confession) is that when God does something he must do it in such a way that it is irrefutably God-like - to put it somewhat awkwardly. So Jesus as God was so unlike everyone else that it was only their sinfulness that caused them to miss his divinity, or the biblical writings as of divine origin are so unlike all other writings that it is only one's evil heart that causes them to miss their divine origin - or even that when God really does something in my life there can be no natural or human explanation for it.
Again, no "defense" - but some further explanation. As I imply in my last sentence in the post, I'm not sure how far one can press these ideas, but at the very least these parallels are worthy of consideration - especially for "Joe Fundagelical."
By
Michael Pahl, at 1:30 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home