A discussion based on Schineller, J. Peter. “Christ and Church: A Spectrum of Views”. Theological Studies 37 (1976): 545-566.
Less than a decade after Vatican II (c. 1975), the Catholics then experienced a radical shift in their understanding of the Church. With the spread of new insights into Christian faith, the faithful gradually grew into the ‘inclusive-framework’ and ‘broadened horizon’ of the Church’s outlook (atleast in paper) at the world, religions, culture and traditions. Generally one smelled the air of growth in stages towards the new shift in Christian theology dawned with the Vatican II. It was a state of healthy disturbance. Passing the test of reason (modernity) the faithful faced fundamental questions on their belief and identity: “Why is a Christian Church/Community necessary if God’s salvific grace is available for all? Why missionary effort? What is our unique contribution to the human community as Christians? Why should one be Catholics or Christians at all, and not just be a humanist and secular?” It was no longer possible for the Christians to live as one without considering these questions that challenged their unexamined-traditional-paradigm. There arose as a result, a variety of responses from the faithful taking positions from right to left, from conservative side to liberal stances with their limited theological framework. Hitherto the Church has been experiencing mixed responses often quite confused, since their introduction with the Vatican II.
In other words, the theological tension experienced by the people was an external manifestation of Church’s attempts to reconcile with the modern world (contemporary culture) and otherwise. Further the questions basically were about the identity of Jesus Christ (Christology) - ‘Who is Jesus Christ?’ - and the meaning of the existence of the Church/Christian community (Ecclesiology) - ‘Why the Church?’ The two are connected, yet not the same. The latter follows the former the function and mission of the Church is derived from the life and mission of Jesus Christ. All the responses therefore can be summed up to four well-argued, logical/categorical views/positions. We present the four views with an aim to shed light on the crowded responses and to underline the possible theological positions in the post-vatican western theology. At the end of each position we mention their implications towards non-Christian world, specific Christian source and resources (Scripture and tradition), and theological method.
First Position
The first position is the most conservative of the spectrum. It believes that Jesus is the only true mediator of salvation and so disregards the rest as idols and fiction of the human mind with no power to lead to salvation. This limits divine Logos within the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. One could therefore attain salvation only if one comes in personal contact with him through the Church. The Church therefore is conceived as the exclusive institution of salvation. We attain salvation only through the explicit membership in the Church (Baptism), since there is no other mediator to Christ other than the Church. It claims that there is no salvation outside the church in the literal sense of the phrase. It explains the missionary thrust of saints (Francis Xavier) and faithful in the Church/Christianity. It is termed as ‘ecclesiocentric universe, exclusive Christology’.
Generally this is hostile towards the non-Christian world, as the place of error and condemnation. Hence there is no space for genuine dialogue but for the call for conversion. It is fundamentalist in its respect for scripture and tradition. They are the final and absolute criteria for truth indisputable by non-christian viewpoints and by contemporary experiences. The method of theology here proceeds from above, from religious documents and beliefs that are revered as trans-natural (beyond space and time). Therefore it is highly dogmatic, universalistic, and unrelated to existential situations (experiences).
Second Position
The second position though confirms to the former in as much as Jesus Christ is believed to be the only true mediator of salvation, it is open to the possibility of grace being available to all even to those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. They explain it through concepts like ‘anonymous Christians’(Karl Rahner). Though it is not narrow like the former position, it holds the belief that even those who are not Christians are saved only by the grace of Jesus Christ, who is the constitutive mediator of salvation i.e. without whom there would be no salvation. While it is clear that one need not be a Christian to be redeemed save he/she sincerely seeks God and follows the dictates of his/her conscience[1], it is unclear whether church is a constitutive mediator of the salvific grace. Two possibilities follow this position. First, we can hold that church is as much a necessary mediator of grace as Christ is. It means that without the church there would be no salvation in the world. Second, we can contend that Church is not indispensible but only a sign of salvific grace i.e. God’s love made manifest in Jesus Christ. Because the redeeming act of Jesus Christ and the Spirit would remain present and effective even if the Church ceases to exist. This is phrased as ‘Christocentric universe, inclusive Christology’.
This position views non-Christian world as moving towards Christ, who is the source of everything true and good found in them. It engages in a dialogue strictly standing on the Christian platform, conceiving non-Christian religions in terms of Christian categories. Though it regards scripture and tradition as the norm of our life, it is not fundamentalistic. It permits historical, critical reading into them. It urges faith to be made adequate for the contemporary experience. The method of theology, here is dogmatic and universalistic but takes in the concrete historical experience.
Third Position
The third position is called as Theo-centric. In the previous positions there is always a danger of limiting theology to Christology. They incline to hold the concept that God has never spoken to human beings at all except through Jesus of Nazareth. But it faces difficulty with the reality of our relation to God prior to the incarnation of Word in Jesus. Hence the third position states that Jesus is not constitutive but a normative mediator of salvation. The word norm means rule or standard. Jesus therefore is conceived not as the exclusive way to God instead as one who corrects or fulfills all other mediations; He is a clear manifestation of God’s love that has always been available for humanity since the beginning.
This is arrived in two ways, first based on Scripture which clearly expresses Jesus as the Word of God, through whom God spoke in the fullness of time (Heb 1). It implies that there were earlier revelations of the Word, though not as perfect as in Jesus. Others arrive at this conclusion through their study of other religions in comparison to Christianity. Speaking about this Eugene TeSelle writes,
The humanity of Jesus, although it is shaped by and attests to the Word, neither exhausts the Word nor is the sole means of access to it, for the Word is both knowable and efficacious elsewhere. The uniqueness of Jesus […] will consist then in being the touchstone by which other responses are judged, the achievement by which their deficiencies are overcome, the center of gravity around which they cluster.[2]
H. Richard Neibuhr (1894-1962, a north American Christian theological-ethicist), on the other hand affirms the point from another direction pointing to the ungroundedness of the former positions,
So far as I could see and can now see, that miracle has been wrought among us by and through Jesus Christ. I do not have the evidence which allows me to say that miracle of faith in God is worked only by Jesus Christ and that it is never given to men outside the sphere of his working, through I may say that where I note its presence I posit the presence also of something like Jesus Christ.[3] [Emphasis mine]
Paul Tillich (1886-1965, a German American theologian) is another important theologian who argues in the same line. In sum, this position holds that Jesus is one of the mediators of Salvation but stands as the epitome of God’s salvific grace made manifest in this world. Hence the absence of Christ would not imply absence of grace rather the absence of the decisive manifestation of grace in Jesus Christ. It stands between the second and fourth position. If Christ cannot be affirmed as the constitutive mediator we need not necessarily jump to total relativity. We can regard him as the normative mediator. Then it follows that Church is also a normative mediator of salvation. It is a measure by which other religious communities are judged. Further, since this position is Theo-centric and Jesus is viewed as normative mediator, it conceives Jesus more as the model of faith than an object of faith. Jesus always points the believer to the father than to himself. This position is termed as ‘Theo-centric universe normative Christology’.
This position is more open and positive towards non-christian world view. It sees them as genuine revelations and ways to God since it holds that divine can manifest through all religions and humanist movements. It finds in them as opportunity to learn about God who is manifest in Jesus within our tradition. The scripture and tradition therefore are normative only for believers as the non-Christians have their own codes and creeds. One finds here a space for genuine (inter-religious/textual/cultural) dialogue. In its theological method it moves away from universalist and dogmatic to historical and existential viewpoint. In other words, it is a journey from below considering the experiences as the starting point. It actively propagates dialogue between groups and individuals of various traditions as the means to attain truth.
Fourth Position
The fourth Position is based on the skeptical epistemology/theological caution that it is impossible to know the mystery of God. Hence our Judgments about the normativeness and uniqueness are disregarded as unverifiable and without basis. It is built on the conviction that God is incomprehensible and so all our attempts to comprehend this mystery is not free from the danger of reducing him to our limited perspectives: “Surely I speak of things I do not understand, things too wonderful for me to know” (Job 42.3). Therefore we cannot speak more than Jesus as one among the many mediators of salvation. To move from this neutralist position is hence viewed as unjust extension of the evidence at hand. Some of its proponents are Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In short, the position argues that there can be intense loyalty to Jesus Christ and his cause, but it is erroneous to make further step revering him as the indispensible and the epitome in comparison to other great figures in history, other ways of salvation. It follows, hence that Church is also one of among the many communities committed to our salvation; God has no special, favored way to help us attain Him.
It would be interesting to find out whether this can be a Christian position. It is a rather difficult to defend it on face value in the Roman Catholic Church, as the church condemns (religious indifferentism) mental attitudes that describe all religions as equals. However there are some elements that go well within Christian Theology, like the emphasis on the incomprehensibility of God and the acceptance of Jesus as the way of salvation for his followers. Christian theology upholds to certain extent the ‘incomprehensibility’ of God. Rahner is supposed to have held that even God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus did not remove the mystery; instead made it more of a mystery. Thus he contended that the revelation of God in Jesus as deepening rather than lessening the mystery of God’s salvific ways for mankind. Elements of this theological caution led some people to this position. Others reached it from their study of other religions. Arnold Toynbee (14 April 1889 – 22 October 1975 a British historian) for example, after careful observation of the history of other religions argues that there is no trace of a movement towards Christianity or Jesus Christ in other religions. In fact, the more we examine other religions the more we are fascinated with their sublime insights and characteristics. Hence any judgment about uniqueness or normativeness among non-Christian religions is often unfair to the richness and complexity of the particular religion.
The fourth position refrains from any judgment about other religions, celebrating pluralism. In dialogue with other religions it does not go beyond their differences and uniqueness. It accepts scripture and tradition as the important way to God but is open to other possibilities. Further it believes that it is difficult for a Christian to come to grips with other traditions. So it discourages comparative study between religions. The theological method is centered on epistemological problems highlighting the objectivity of truth and our ontological subjectivity.
The four views thus represent to a certain extent all possible theological positions in the post Vatican western theology. We need to note that if we take a position we are logically ousted from other possibilities. Catholic theologians mostly fall under second or third position. The first and fourth are the extreme sides of the spectrum, while others are more balanced. Third position is the most advanced within western theology. Today however we find Asian theology growing more nuanced ‘celebrating pluralism’ being faithful to one’s tradition. Thus probably constitute the fifth position that waits to be recorded.
[1] Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, no. 16.
[2] Eugene TeSelle, Christ in Context (Philadelphia, 1975) 164 as cited in Peter J. Schineller, “Christ and Church: Spectrum of Views”, 558.
[3] H. Richard Niebhur, “Reformation: Continuing Imperative,” Christian Century 77 (1960), 249 as cited in Peter J. Schineller, “Christ and Church: Spectrum of Views”, 559.
No comments:
Post a Comment