SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN
ROGER HAIGHT & ROGER WRIGHT
BY
NATHAN D. MARCH
REV. JOHN P. GALVIN
TRS 667A CHRISTOLOGY
Roger Haight, S.J. in his article “The Case for Spirit Christology” in Theological Studies 53 (1992) argues that Spirit Christology, which explains how God is present and active in Jesus, is more adequate for the present time than Logos Christology since it doesn’t compromise the humanity of Jesus in the affirmation of his divinity. He considers the question of how to express Jesus’ divinity an open question; primarily, because contemporary interreligious dialog has resulted in the questioning of Jesus’ status relative to other savior figures. To argue his point, he establishes six requirements of Christology to assess Spirit Christology.
First,
an appropriate Christology must explain the status of Jesus in a way that justifies
the Christian experience of him and explains why Christians find their
salvation in him. Second, since
Scripture is normative for the Church and its self-understanding, it must be
faithful to biblical language, especially the NT accounts of Jesus and the
experiences which underlie them. Third, it must be faithful to the great
ecumenical councils of Nicea and
Spirit Christology must explain the status of Jesus in a way that justifies Christian experience of him and explain why Christians find their salvation in him. Haight expresses the identity of Jesus in terms of the presence and operation of God as Spirit in him. He holds that Jesus is the central symbol and historic medium at the source of Christianity. Jesus is a symbol that reveals and focuses faith on God. As symbol he is also the medium whereby God is made present to Christians. Christology is based on the experience of salvation mediated in and through Jesus. For Haight, Jesus is the “symbolic mediator of God’s salvation” who brings salvation by revealing God and exemplifying what human life should be (264).
Spirit Christology must take into account New Testament accounts of Jesus and the experiences that underlie them. Haight finds precedence for God as Spirit in the biblical imagery of the “spirit of God” which was always understood directly as a reference to God. God as Spirit points to the way God is present and active in the world by indicating how God is active and at work outside the immanent selfhood of God. Haight is critical of Logos Christology for not “squaring” with NT data (260). In comparison with God as Spirit, the Logos symbol points to something other than God, something that acts as an intermediary between God and the World. He regards Logos Christology as the basis of the nonbiblical speculative formulation of Immanent Trinity: three distinct persons in one Godhead. However, Spirit Christology guarantees an economic Trinity by reflecting the New Testament language of the economy of God’s saving action through Jesus. God as Spirit effectively accounts for Jesus’ own experience of self-understanding and self-awareness, and is the source of his authority and power.
Spirit
Christology must be faithful to the councils of Nicea and
Spirit Christology must be intelligible and coherent with respect to the present-day situation. Haight characterizes the present time by an historic consciousness that stresses the humanity of Jesus. God as Spirit means that in the Incarnation, “Jesus is a human being in all things substantially like us.” (276) Haight sees no qualitative difference between Jesus and humankind since Jesus is a creature. He denies the preexistence of Jesus, stating that “what is preexistent to Jesus is God, the God who became incarnate in Jesus.” (276) Jesus is an embodiment of God’s spirit who doesn’t “take over,” but rather actualizes human freedom. Although sympathetic to Adoptionism, it is different because the presence of God as Spirit exists from the first moment of his existence.
Spirit Christology must respond to the contemporary problem of religious pluralism. Haight states: “The Christian’s view of the world today includes a relatively new appreciation for the universality of God’s grace mediated historically apart from Jesus Christ.” (261) He believes Logos Christology tends towards exclusivity. In contrast Spirit Christology, which states the no less than God is at work in Jesus, allows for the possibility that other savior figures of equal status may also reveal something of God. As a savior Jesus is not so much unique or absolute as superlative and normative; he is the most solid ground for finding God as Spirit at work in all religions.
Finally, Spirit Christology must stimulate and empower Christian life. According to Haight, Jesus saves by being the revealer of God and of what human life should be. The continuity between Jesus and humanity makes him an empowering example of life for disciples. As the medium of Christian worship of God, Jesus is the real symbol who bodies forth God as Spirit at work in him and thus makes God present.
John H. Wright, S.J. in his article, “Roger Haight’s Spirit Christology” in Theological Studies 53 (1992), critiques Haight’s argument for Spirit Christology. Wright finds Haight’s position to not be “an acceptable way of understanding the Christian faith.” (729) He believes Haight’s six methodological criteria for judging the adequacy of a Christology are well chosen, but argues when applied to his Spirit Christology they reveal a fundamentally defective Christology precisely in its denial of the divine personal subject of Jesus. Wright criticizes Haight’s position: “for him, there is no one ‘born of the Father before all ages,’ who has, however, become truly one of us, truly and fully a human being.” (730)
Wright agrees with Haight that Christians relate to Jesus as Savior, but notes they also refer to him as Lord. He cites New Testament doxologies, and Thomas’ profession of faith, “My Lord! and my God!” in John 20:28 as examples. Wright states, “These expressions are not directed simply to God as Spirit dwelling in him, but to Jesus himself.” (730) Therefore, Spirit Christology does not justify the Christian experience of Jesus.
Wright holds that all the New Testament is normative and remarks that “an acceptable Christology cannot neglect significant portions of the New Testament writings.” (730) Wright criticizes Haight’s position on three grounds. First, the prevailing New Testament Christology was neither Logos nor Spirit but a Christology of Divine Sonship. Second, Wright recognizes a pluralism of New Testament Christologies, but doesn’t agree that that Logos Christology leads to incompatible positions, nor does he accept that the New Testament expresses mutually exclusive Christologies. Third, he doesn’t believe Haight gives enough credence to John’s Gospel which affirms involvement of the Logos in creation, incarnation of the Logos, the “I Am” assertions of Jesus, and the preexistence of Christ.
Haight’s
Spirit Christology is not faithful to the teachings of Nicea or
Wright recognizes the need for Christology to address the issue of contemporary religious pluralism. He agrees with Haight, that God as Spirit is at work in other religions, citing Nostra aetate and Redemptoris missio. With regard to the possibility of other savior figures of equal status, Wright remarks that Haight’s position “seems to undercut radically the mission of the Church expressed in Matt 28:19-20: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.’” (734) Wright asserts that Jesus is Lord, the mediator of God’s salvation, and not simply a prophet among many but truly the revelation of God in person, fullness and power.
Wright doesn’t believe a Christology can inspire and empower Christian life without a Christology of divine sonship. He remarks, concerning Haight’s purely human Jesus, “I experience an immense sadness and sense of loss: for this would mean that God after all did not love us enough to become one of us and die for us.” (734) Only by becoming one of us could the Son of God reveal what it means to be holy as God is holy, and by sharing his Holy Spirit with us, make it possible for Christians to follow him.
I agree with Wright that Haight’s defense of Spirit Christology is not an acceptable way of understanding the Christian faith. In my opinion Wright’s rebuttal is successful since he uses Haight’s own criteria against him. Wright is weakest in his response to the fourth criterion, that an adequate Christology must be intelligible with respect to the present-day situation and coherent with respect to theological interpretations of other doctrines. Wright responds: “It seems to me that Haight’s position is coherent within itself, but not with the experience of most Christians, with the teaching of the New Testament, nor with the Councils of the Church and the Great Tradition generally.” (733) Although effective in his overall argument, Wright does not address some of the problematic dimensions of Haight’s Spirit Christology perhaps because he considers them self-evident or outside the methodological criteria established for his argument.
Personally, I find Haight’s negative statements unrewarding: “God as Spirit is God and not less than God.” (274); “not less than God was present to and operative in Jesus,” (274); “Jesus was one human person with an integral human nature in whom not less than God, and thus a divine nature, is at work.” (275) In practice negative definition should be avoided. His statements indicate what is not, but supply no substantial affirmation of what is active and operative in Jesus. In my opinion these statements are neither intelligible nor coherent since they do not reflect what Christians assert when they positively affirm Jesus’ divine nature.
Haight’s discussion of Jesus as Symbol is rooted in his understanding of symbol as “that through which something else is made present and known.” (263) With regard to religious symbols he notes that the symbol both makes God present and points way from itself to a God who is other than itself. The language is reminiscent of Schillebeeckx’s notion of Jesus as Sacrament. However, his emphasis on the “other than itself” aspect of symbol does not agree with Christian understanding of symbol and sacrament. Jesus is not merely a sign that points to something else; Jesus points to himself. He is both the mediator and the fullness of salvation that makes himself present and manifests himself becoming the definitive self-revelation of God.
Haight holds that Soteriology is the basis for Christology. Like Rahner he understands salvation as the gift of God’s self-revelation; that salvation had been operative since the beginning of human history and culminates in the definitive figure of Jesus who is a savior insofar as he saves by being the revealer of God. As with Wright, I acknowledge that Christians do experience and relate to Jesus as Savior, as well as Lord. But Christians also relate to Jesus as Redeemer. Not only does Jesus mediate salvation, by revealing God and making him present, but by his death humanity is declared righteous, their sins are atoned for, they are sanctified, redeemed, and reconciled with God. There may indeed be other “savior” figures who can reveal something of God. But only by the death and resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God is redemption accomplished for humanity.
Haight attempted to argue that Spirit Christology is more adequate for the present time than Logos Christology. His proposal is motivated by the concerns that arise from interreligious dialog in the historically conscious modern period. Although Wright demonstrates that he doesn’t successfully defend Spirit Christology, the question remains of how to best articulate who Jesus is on the basis of the experience of Christian faith in a world characterized by religious pluralism. Although one might be heavily critical of Haight’s article, one should not lose sight of the pressing need he nevertheless attempted to address.