*

INTRODUCTION:

1. The Scope & Style Of 20th Century Christology.

  Perhaps the most pervasive theme within modern Christology is the problem of how to make Jesus Christ more understandable and relevant to the modern 'critical / skeptical mind' forged in the wake of the so-called Enlightenment (eg. Kant, Schleiermacher, etc). This is basically a matter of systematic apologetics: Can Christians still speak to the "enlightened" Western mind about Jesus in a reasonable and meaningful way? In the last two centuries the gradual spread of historical consciousness has radically transformed people's thinking about 'life, the universe, and everything'. Many think that science has "proved" that miracles are figments of the imagination (surely an unwarranted assumption), and that all previous world-views are grossly inadequate and irrelevant.

  As a result of all this, it is now generally recognized that the traditional dogmatic conceptions about Jesus Christ no longer fit our 'brave new world'. The consequences of this sad fact are extreme (to say the least). On the one hand, we see a resurgence of the fundamentalist mentality which rejects modern thought altogether, and adheres to scripture with a more or less blind faith. On the other hand, secularization (ie. Weber's irreligious rationalization) has so completely de-Christianized the West that it can now properly be called pagan! In this crisis situation, the need to rethink Jesus is no longer an option, but a necessity.

 Contemporary Christology is also influenced by other powerful factors beyond Christianity. A modern and systematic Christology must grapple not only with philosophy, but also with history and science; for all of these collective efforts wrestle with the truth, and are thus relevant to the Christological enterprise. History deals with Jesus of Nazareth, and the Church history that followed in his wake. Philosophy is also well equipped to contribute much concerning Christ: "The ultimate and universal quality of the questions raised by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus demands that we accept help from philosophers" (O'C. 'What Say' p.20). Science provides the necessary foundations for an adequate understanding of our world; and theology should - ideally - combine all these elements to build a coherent account of Jesus Christ which harmonizes 'reality and reason' with revealed truth and church tradition.

  Modern Christology is thus necessarily pluralistic in method and content, ecumenical in spirit and practice, and capable of almost infinite variations. It is an ongoing analytic and synthetic enterprise that beholds and proclaims Jesus Christ in the light of modern knowledge of the scriptures and the Cosmos. In order to spread the Good News effectively, it is important to make Jesus Christ intelligible to the skeptical modern-mind. "The most important task of Christology is ... to present the reasons for the confession of Jesus's divinity" (Pan 34). It does this by interpreting Jesus rationally and systematically, and proposing a consistent image, vision, and understanding of him that is both feasible and compelling to both Christians and non-Christians.

  The five scholars discussed below represent the main stages of the ongoing dynamic development of 20th century Christology. The main themes that run through it are all conditioned by a renewed understanding of two great ideas: Being and Time. Of course, our five theologians understand these weighty concepts in different ways, and use these ideas in different ways, and so preach radically different visions about who and what Jesus Christ was and is.

  In attempting to construct a tentative Christological synthesis out of the often conflicting ideas of our representative thinkers, it might be helpful to begin by noting that the various modern Christologies can be grouped in many different ways. One popular method is to distinguish between the 'high/descending' and the low/ascending' Christologies, depending on whether or not the emphasis is on the divinity or the humanity. [Actually, the distinction by way of basic orientation (ie. vertical or horizontal) is less confusing and more descriptive.] There is also the 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' distinction based upon the possibility of salvation for those outside the church, or on a positive or negative attitude toward other world religions.

  Another useful way to classify christological thinking is by its soteriological content, such that a "functional" Christology is one that is determined by the dual theme of Redemption & Salvation. Using these handy labels we can see that the traditional scholastic Christology can be characterized as descending, exclusive, and both functional and metaphysical (ie. in its two parts). Our five major Christologists can now be classified thusly:

  1. Bultmann: functional Kerygmatic Christology. Influenced by Heidegger, Schweitzer, and Wrede. Leading ideas are 'faith' (eg. as authentic existence), the hermeneutic method of demythologizing (ie. a method of biblical interpretation and exegesis), and the meaning of Jesus Christ for the believer.  Vertical orientation.

  2. Pannenberg: eschatological Christology.  Influence by Hegel, Bultmann, and Barth.  Leading ideas are history as revelation, the resurrection as historical fact, and Jesus Christ as the proleptic fulfillment of history (ie. Eternity and Revelation enter Time at the point of the Resurrection; hence a vertical orientation).

  3. Moltmann: functional exemplar Christology. Theology of hope. 'The Way of Jesus Christ'. Leading ideas are Rabbi Jesus, 'the way' as the Christian response to the world, and a strong emphasis on the value and centrality of the Cross. Horizontal orientation.

  4. Rahner: transcendental and evolutionary 'Christology of Quest'. Influenced by Kant, Heidegger, de Chardin. leading ideas are Incarnation as the total Christ event; anthropological and cosmic themes; anonymous Christians; and the so-called "supernatural existential". Horizontal orientation.

  5. Balthasar: aesthetic and pastoral Christology. Influenced by Barth, von Speyr, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Church Fathers. Leading ideas are Trinity as love, Jesus Christ as Logos, Mystery and Beauty. Balthasar's theology is a good example of a modern vertical orientation (ie. it is intentional; in contrast to Pannenberg).

 In modern Christology there is a close relation between method and content, such that an 'a posteriori' approach (ie. horizontal orientation) is a method that focuses on the historical process and events which led to the churches' faith and proclamation, although we also recognize (with Rahner) a corresponding theological movement from above. [This latter allows for the occasional insertion of a more vertical orientation, placed, as it were, "at right angles".] Our christological synthesis favors this method as the best way to ground Christology within the finite and empirical world. Thus history and anthropology are crucial ingredients for us. In this way our patchwork Christology can incorporate the methods and results of biblical scholarship and the 'new quest' while remaining open to revelation (thematic and unthematic), and various aspects of Balthasar's 'theological project'.

 Now Pannenberg's stated method is to work toward abstract theological concepts (eg. incarnation), all the while searching for the meaning of Jesus' personal history, the facts of which have "an intrinsic intelligibility". We accept Pannenberg's lead to this point, but tend to think that he does not let the 'facts as such' speak for themselves; but rather, he understands the 'revelational unity' and 'proleptic character' of Jesus from an idealistic view-point that focuses exclusively upon the Resurrection as the eschatological event. For Pannenberg, Jesus' became the Christ by earning his stripes 'en route', and hence the concept of the Incarnation (and the importance of the Cross) simply does not apply (or is fatally compromised).  Moreover, Pannenberg's over-emphasis on history, time, and 'the end of the world' leads to strange interpretations of traditional theological concepts (such as  'eschatological salvation'). Pannenberg avoids a metaphysical theology by replacing it with a Hegelian-like philosophy of history.

 Of the two concepts so important to 20th century Christology (ie. being and time), he places too much weight on Time, and too little on Being. Because of this, his Christology is fundamentally lopsided. On the other hand, the soteriologically-driven Christology of Bultmann all but neglects time and history to place the weight on being and existence; and so is lopsided the other way. Since ours is not a functional Christology, there is little in his work (or Moltmann's) that we can incorporate into our synthesis: the existential understanding of faith (and Pauline theology), the need for demythologization, the importance of the Way of the Cross, and so on, are more relevant to soteriology than to an ontological and historical Christology.

 A balanced approach to modern Christology will include the best elements from the four main sources of knowledge about Jesus: dogma, scripture, experience, and history. Too much emphasis on any one of these areas risks a partial and biased view of Jesus Christ. Likewise, our general horizontal orientation must be balanced by the insights and perspectives of the vertical orientation. Pannenberg puts his finger on the main strength of this view with the observation that "Knowledge must always begin with the universal and abstract, and only at the end reach the concrete as the object to which all the previous, abstract approaches were ultimately directed" (Anthro 22).  Thus Balthasar's Christology begins with the Logos, and his vertical orientation is a necessary complement to his platonic categories (ie. truth, beauty, etc). Here method and content are in good harmony.

 For Balthasar, the Christ-event is ultimately an experience of transcendent glory: Jesus Christ is the appearance of God; God's glory in the flesh; THE Catholic (ie. the universal in the particular). The power of Balthasar's Christology comes, in large part, from the fact that he combines the best elements of Catholic tradition, existentialism, and pastoral theology into an effective and unified whole. [For example, the human categories which illuminate the mystery of Jesus are: full authority, poverty, abandonment.] While I do not agree with Balthasar that a strong emphasis on the Logos is the best way to BEGIN Christology, I heartily agree that the center of Christology must be reserved for the mystery of being, time, and love; for it is around these three "concrete" themes that we can best understand who and what Jesus is (ie. the Eternal Logos of God), and hence who and what we are as followers of the Lord.