Unit 1: God and Man
We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself.
- Lloyd Alexander
I don't like to admit that I can't find the answer to something, but I think that I've hit upon one that has me stumped. The more I consider the mind of Christ, the more it brings me to the concept above. Just how can a person be totally divine and totally human? It seems to me, as it seems also to a friend of mine, that we don't consider the humanity of Christ nearly as often or as in depth as is warrented. If we look at Christ and believe that he never sinned (which I do, since that is what is said), then I have to explore the possibility that if he were totally human like me, then the possibility exists for me to also be sinless. Never mind that I've already messed it up, for argument's sake, it is in the realm of possibility.
Now, what did he have going for him that we don't. Granted, he was God in the flesh. But, did he use that to an unfair advantage while he was here? I don't think so. If we grant that notion, then we're helpless. The playing field is definitely not level. And I think the astounding truth that he was sinless living like us in a sinful environment is the only reason he can be our advocate.
Now, to my readers who are steeped in theological argument, you may be going, "Well, duh!", but to the average Christian, I think we pay much more attention to his divinity than his humanness...and we miss something. Something that I feel is very important in the whole redemption issue. I'm just not sure I can put my finger on it.
So when he thought his thoughts, were they generated in a human brain? Did Satan attack him through his thought process like he does us? Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are, or so the Good Book says. The thinking of the tempting thoughts was not the sin. But that seems to ensnare us in ways that it did not ensnare Jesus. I really wish I could know what thought process he used to combat those thoughts. I'm not sure, but I have a theory. Could it be that since he came from being in heaven, he knew what was at stake if he gave in. He knew for a fact the purpose he had in coming and the disappointment it would cause if he gave in. We have a vague concept sometimes of our purpose. But it seems incredibly difficult for us to hold onto it. We have a belief that we will be "selling our birthright" so to speak if we give in, but we are so short-sighted that the here and now seems much more real to us than the other. The other was very real to Jesus.
I will keep thinking about this. Lloyd Alexander, I think you're right. Looking for answers whether we find them or not, is a good thing...but sometimes it can be incredibly frustrating.
posted by pat @ 10:23 AM
3 Comments:
Good post, Mom.
Despite the fact that you flirt a little with the historic heresy of "Pelagianism" (don't worry, the best of us do, in my opinion).
Theolo-speak for the question you're wrestling with is, do we do Christology "from above" or "from below"? Do we start with divinity coming down, or do we start with humanity reaching up?
The Council of Chalcedon (451) was supposed to settle the issue. What they did instead was opt for a formula that combined both approaches by claiming that Christ was one person with two natures, complete in humanity and complete in deity. (Of course what they didn't do was explain exactly how this happens.)
The issue at stake in this is ultimately salvation: if Jesus isn't God, then he has no particular salvific significance--he's just another really great guy who got killed like a bunch of other really great guys through the years; if Jesus isn't fully human, then he has no salvific significance, for he never really lived like we actually live.
It is also interesting to note that classically "liberal" theologies tend to do Christology "from below," focusing on the humanity of Jesus, while classically "conservative"/orthodox theologies tend to do Christology "from above," focusing on the divinity of Christ.
I think most churches/denominations/traditions tend to focus more on one end of the spectrum than the other. CofC theology (as you note) has definitely tended to a Christology from above.
I could keep going, but, is anyone still reading? I doubt it.
Tracy...
Enough of that nonsense. You're one of the smartest gals I know. You're staying home with your girls, aren't you? But I hear you. More pictures and how about some recipes too!
Hi pk,
One thing I've heard over and over from my Presbyterian (and theologically conservative) profs is, if he's not God, then he can't save. This was essentially Cyril of Alexandria's concern about the Antiochene Christology promoted by the eastern churches, which emphasized the humanity of Christ much more strongly (some even to the point of adoptionism--claiming that God the Father simply "adopted" the human man Jesus as his son, typically thought to happen at Jesus' baptism--though not all Antiochenes were that extreme). And there is some logic to Cyril's concern: why assume that a man, any man no matter how good, is capable of effecting salvation? If he's only human like everyone else then there seems to be no reason to suppose he could do something that no one else can do. (Of course, that's not what the Antiochene Christians were saying--they also believed that Christ was God. They just explained it in a different way than Cyril.)
I find myself unable to explain the crucufixion without a fairly "high"/"from above" Christology (only if it's really God on the cross does the crucifixion make sense to me). But on the other hand, when I think about the life of Jesus, I tend to think of it in "from below" terms. So basically, my Christology is a mess. One that I suspect I better try to get cleaned up before Friday, when my profs get together to grill on this topic (among others).
Thanks for the fun discussion. I have to say, Mom, this blog has turned out to be more theological than some of the seminarian's blogs I follow...
Post a Comment
<< Home