Viable Christology Nowadays - Essay Example

God was in Christ - how has contemporary theology responded to the challenge of a viable Christology today? The study of the life and the person of Jesus Christ has been a debatable issue since the beginning by those within the church and those without. Jesus became a subject of critical examination. Contemporary theology and Christology can be traced back to the change in which the world started thinking. Christology is that part of Christian theology which helps us to understand who Jesus the Christ was. It deals with His birth, death, incarnation and resurrection. The issues that confront Christology are – His divine nature, His human nature and the inter-relation between the two. Today just as so many bifurcations and divergent Christian views have been formulated, there are as many Christological views to. Christology is the practice of theology. It begins with resurrection of Christ, of a new life. During the last two centuries, various quests arose within the scholars who wanted to understand and identify the man Jesus. A number of early Christian believed that Jesus was not divine. They expressed their doubts that ‘God was in Christ’ and this study is known as the Quest for the Historical Jesus. The heresy beliefs of the Orthodox Church were rejected as the true teachings of Jesus were accepted. The Orthodox Christian scholars also believed that Jesus was God before he came to earth; he was not fully God while he was a human on this earth; after resurrection, he again became fully God with the same power and authority as He had before incarnation. This was the Binitariansm view while the Arain view suggested that Jesus was not fully divine but was created by God for salvation (Wikipedia). The Anglican and the Protestant Churches, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that Christ had two natures, divine and human, which converged in Jesus. The unique qualities of both were available in Jesus. Against these there were claims that Jesus was fully divine. The Docetists believed that Jesus only appeared to be human while the Monophysite believed that the divine nature consumed the human nature of Christ. During the period of Old Quest (1778-1906) contemporary theologists and scholars went in for a critical understanding of the life of Jesus. Dogma and revelation were no longer taken for granted. Definite sources were felt necessary to determine the truth. The theologists during this period felt that Jesus was history was being transformed as ‘God was in Christ’ by naïve people who were trying to deceive the community. They even insisted that the theology of church should change as Christology had been built on improper understanding of the history of Christ. Hermann Samuel Reimarus challenged that God was in Christ. He defied all that the disciples of Jesus proclaimed Jesus to be. According to Reimarus, Jesus was a reformer who failed and his disciples in despair founded the early Catholic Church. Theologist Strauss too believed that historical Jesus was buried underneath deep layers of myth. He felt that the church created myths and beliefs through public sentiments (Burer, 2005). While Albert Schweitzer rejected the Old Quest, as it did not produce any results, he felt that liberals’ views were reflections of those who sought the Historical Jesus. He had criticized the Old Quest, saying there was lack of apocalyptic vision. Before the new Quest stared in 1953, Rudolf Bultmann focused on the early Church rather than on the life of Jesus. The New Testament does not give the details of the life of Jesus. The words of the Christian preachers were their own words, which they spoke in His name. Bultmann felt contemporary theology need not change just because historians were interested in details of Jesus’ life. Jesus had touched many lives and they believed that he existed. Ernst Ksemann started the New Quest when he criticized Bultmann saying that history and faith on Jesus cannot be isolated. However, many within the New Quest ignored the history surrounding the life of Jesus and relied upon His preaching. The New Quest held that majority of the framework and content could be traced back to early Church, and it was useless trying to find historical facts. Everyone was trying to find out who Jesus really was, including Robert Funk who headed a Jesus seminar. Nowhere in the New Testament has Jesus made any claims of being the messiah, the Anointed. Early Christology looked beyond the Historical Jesus studies and into the theological development. The scholars of the third Quest (early 1980s till date) included N T Wright who proposed five questions like what were Jesus’ aims and why did he die. Since the 1950s, various rules like the criterion of dissimilarity and criterion of authenticity have been used to determine the History of Jesus’ life. The historical studies on the life of Jesus placed heavy demand on the Church to change its attitude. Both the Old and the New Testament believe that the Historical Jesus is definitely a portrait of Jesus, but is Historical Jesus equal to Jesus in totality? This has been the point of discussion, debates, and controversy till date by various schools of thoughts. The scholars then believed that history has it limitations and Christianity is based on history. They feel history needs to be reassessed and place historical Jesus within Christian life, thoughts and theology. At the same time they endorse that modern reconstruction should not displace centuries of thoughts and practices that Church and the Christian all over the world have been following. They feel anything to do with Christ should be followed in the right perspective and method. Scholars today are critical and want to wipe away centuries of faith that millions have been following. While it is right to delve deep into Christianity but humility should be at the base of these findings. Such scholars, devoid of humility, attack Christ instead of making a positive contribution. Evangelicals who love the lord, strive to change the tide. Various incidents incite others to change their attitude towards scholarly studies. It even affects the priests who are responsible for their ministerial duties within the Church. In saying ‘God was in Christ’ immediately a relationship of Christ with God can be established. “God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body”, (Thompson, 2002). Jesus reigns over all things in heaven and earth. Thompson highlights that New Testament emphasizes that “Jesus is Lord.”. Through out the New Testament, ‘Jesus is Lord’ has been linked with Jesus’ resurrection. Hence, He was not merely a figure in the past. Thompson further emphasizes although Jesus was crucified by human beings, God has raised him to life and made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36-37). The confession of Jesus itself expresses the unique relationship of Jesus to God. Even the statements of thanksgiving to and benediction are in the name “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The New Testament very often contains the phrase, ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’. Hitherto, historians and scholars alike were only trying to prove whether God was in Christ, whether Jesus was divine or human in nature and to what extent history could be relied upon. The contemporary theology now has adapted a different stand. People have begun to question how important was it to know whether there was a Historical Jesus, when people can feel Him and find their lives changed. Today humanity stands at the threshold of a new era and the reformers live in a pluralistic and a non-Christian world. Some feel a need to find a common ground with other religions (Jonard, 2003). For instance, the neo-evangelicals believe that the people and the Church are commanded to teach and heal and comfort first. They do not go into any controversies of the divine or human nature of God. To make the Christology viable it is essential that people do not personal claim that ‘He is my lord’. To do so signifies that He is one among many lords, whereas what contemporary theology states is ‘He is the Lord’. At the same time the Church does not believe that there is no truth to be found in other religions. Today the basic manta is ‘All is God and God is all’ (McMahon, 1998). It is a westernized version of Taoism, Zen, ancient Babylonian religions, ancient Egyptian Religions, and Vedanta Hinduism, says McMahon. Today’s religion stresses on universal brotherhood. Today man is at the center of religion and inspiration is drawn from various holy texts like the Koran and the Bhagwad Gita. Sin today happens out of ignorance. Everyone seeks an experience of the God-conscious and thereafter salvation. Everyone seeks a subjective experience and not objective religion. Contemporary theology professes subjective experience with the biblical virtue of humility. ‘God was in Christ’ is what has been unanimously accepted today without going into controversies about his life, death, and resurrection, without challenging the Historical Studies of Jesus. References: Burer, M H (2005), A Survey of Historical Jesus Studies: From Reimarus to Wright, 14 March 2006 Jonard T, (2003), Quest for the Historical Jesus, 14 March 2006 McMahon, Dr C M, (1998), An Overview of Contemporary Theology, 14 March 2006 Thompson M M, (2002), Jesus Is Lord: How the Earliest Christian Confession Informs Our Proclamation in a Pluralistic Age, 14 March 2006 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology 14 March 2006 Read More