The Logic of Chris to Logy From Below

8/7/2019 The Logic of Chris to Logy From Below

1/13

The Logic of Christology from BelowBy Roger Haight, S.J.

Introduction

1. The Situation of Christology

a. A new global situationb. New areas of researchc. A new postmodern culture

2. Characteristics of a Christology from Below

a. An apologetic methodb. Christology from belowc. A genetic methodd. A hermeneutical method of critical correlatione. Other principles of interpretation

The symbolic character of religious language Meaning and truth The principle of analogy Correlation with the social condition of human existence

f. The criteria of christology3. The Genesis of Christology

a. Jesusb. The Easter Experiencec. Interpretations of Jesus

4. The Structure of Christology

a. The historicity of all religious experienceb. Jesus symbol of God for Christian faithc. The dialectical structure of symbol

5. Loci in Christology

a. Classical soteriology and christologyb. Salvation theoryc. Social salvation and Christian spiritualityd. Jesus and other religious mediationse. The divinity of Jesus


2/13

f. Trinitarian theology from belowConclusion

Introduction

As we approach the transition from the second to the third millennium, it is difficult to escape the feeling

are entering a new period of history. True, numerical markers of time are arbitrary, and there are few sudchanges in history at large. But at the same time it is only now for the first time in the history of the huma

that we can begin to think of a truly global history, of a consciously common history of all humankind nebound together by political, economic, and cultural ties. The human race, as it passes into the 21st century

entering a new age of world solidarity. As this happens it is also difficult for Christians not to expect shifchanges in our self-understanding. The church in the West has gone through several major changes over i

thousand year history that can be correlated with changes in society and culture. No reason impels us to t

Christian self-understanding has ceased to develop.A

nd such development is most crucial at the core of Cfaith itself, namely, the mediation of Christian faith in God through Jesus Christ. In fact few areas in Chritheology are as vitally active as christology. In the animated discussions within the discipline one can beg

the broad contours of new Christian self-understanding beginning to take shape.

The developments in christology are occurring piecemeal in areas that are sometimes quite independent o

other. When one draws them together and measures their cumulative effect, one begins to see the depth aranging scope of the christological discussion. How can one begin to bring all these investigations and in

into a coherent statement? How can they be integrated into a unified christology? One possibility would lconsistent method. In the paper which follows I want to outline such a method under the well-known phr

"christology from below." The paper is an interpretation of the logic of a christology from below in respothe new situation in which we find ourselves.

By the words "the logic of christology" I mean two things. First, the logic of christology when taken form

abstractly refers to the suppositions and method of its development. The logic of christology is like the grof the language; it is the underlying rules that govern usage. In a formal sense, the logic of christology sim

refers to the underlying method by which a christology is constructed. Second, in a more material sense, of christology refers to the content of the christology but in a schematic, abbreviated form. After a forma

of a method, I will lay out the fundamental lines of interpretation and understanding that could be assumesuch a christology. The the term "logic" is used to underline the fact that the intention here is not to devel

christology fully, but merely to point to the holistic strategy by which a christology might respond to our situation.

Finally, the term "from below" refers to the distinctive quality of the christology that is being described hEveryone has a vague idea of the meaning of christology from below since Karl Rahner described it posit

Catholic theology decades ago. I use the term here in an epistemological sense and not in an ontological sTwo things are signaled by a christology from below. First, such a christology is one that begins here bel

earth: it begins with human experience, with human questioning, with the historical figure Jesus of Nazardisciples who encountered Jesus and interpreted him in various ways. The word "from" in the phrase "fro

below" thus indicates a point of departure in our christological thinking. "From below" does not indicate


3/13

goal, or result of christological thinking, which is by contrast a "high" christology. And "from below" doenegate or minimize the ontology of grace, or God's initiative "from above," for this initiative of God can b

experienced according to the common testimony of Christians. Second, this beginning epistemologically below sets up, or constitutes, a structure of thinking and understanding that remains consistent. Epistemo

christology is always ascending; it is always tied to human experience as to its starting point. And when i

conclusions are reached, they must always be explained on the basis of the experience that generated themthis will become clearer during the course of these pages.

I have divided the discussion into five parts. The first describes the postmodern situation of theology andchristology today. The second is a formal statement of a method in christology that proceeds from below

third describes the genesis of christology during the period represented by the New Testament. The forthgeneralizes the structure of christology on the basis of an analysis and theoretical interpretation of its gen

the fifth section simply enumerates some of the classical loci of christology that would be interpreted in tof this structure and method.

The Situation of Christology

A discussion of the discipline of christology should begin with a description of the situation or human con

which it unfolds and to which it responds. One could develop this at length. I shall do little more than assknown factors and point to areas of common experience. The supposition of this thin description is that C

theology must adjust to it, just as it adjusted to the Greek and Roman worlds as it moved out of Palestine

A new global situation.

The peoples of the earth are becoming interdependent and united in a new and unprecedented way, espec

since the breakdown of the Soviet block in 1989. Many factors are contributing to this process of globalizthe triumph of liberal capitalism as the ruling economic ideology; the technologies of travel and commun

the migration of peoples. The ever increasing dynamism towards the unity of the world, or "one world," cwith it a number of polarities or tensions that unfold concretely in the lives of countless people in differen

and yet may be generalized.

One tension is between the local and the global. The church is in a new way a global church, taking firm African and Asian cultures. As a communion of local churches around the world, the church is continuall

subjected to tensions between the center and the periphery, between what is common to the whole churchwhat is local and indigenous. A major problem in one part of the church many not exist in another; and th

solution to it may cause a major problem in another part of the world if it is universalized.

Another area of tension can be identified when one looks at the church in relation to other religions on th

stage. In a global context, the church can no longer be viewed in isolation, as the exclusive religion of a pregion. The church now exists in an explicitly pluralistic worldwide context as one religion interacting wi

The two forces of the tension pull against each other: maintenance of firm Christian identity as a distinctireligion over against existence as one religion among the others. On the one hand the situation seems to

undermine the identity of Christianity insofar as it has been conceived as the one true religion. On the othit opens the way for Christianity to become truly catholic in the sense of embracing all cultures as genuin

The new global situation could be described at greater length. One thing is clear, however, that a descript


4/13

will not apply exactly in twenty five years. Christianity now exists in a world that is rapidly moving.

New areas of research.

So is christology. Movement in christology is being driven by several areas of investigation. It is helpful

enumerate some of the areas of research that have blossomed in the last couple of decades and which havor less direct bearing on christology. First, liberation and political theologies: these theologies represent wthinking that force a reappropriation of the significance of Jesus Christ in social terms. Personalism and

individual-existential ways of understanding Jesus Christ, by themselves, are no longer adequate. Secondtheology demands as its supposition a recognition of the degree to which the Christian tradition is patriar

sexist; it too calls for fundamental revisions in our understanding. Third, Jesus research has flourished, andoing has provided the Christian imagination with a more earthly and human picture of Jesus of Nazareth

which christology must reckon. Fourth, inculturation as a movement and a self-conscious effort in theolospeaking of Jesus Christ in new languages which, by definition, generate new and different understanding

One senses the growth of a new demand for pluralism in christology. Fifth, interreligious dialogue is an epractice. For christology, this reflects and ratifies the pluralistic situation which in turn provides a new co

christological reflection.A

nd, sixth, all of the five areas I have mentioned combine to set up a demand thchristology assume an apologetic form. By this I mean that christology must interpret and explain the trad

within this new context: it cannot simply presuppose the dogmatic forms, but must respond to the questiothey mean in this new situation.

A new postmodern culture.

One might frame this hasty portrait of the new situation of christology with a characterization of what isincreasingly being called a postmodern culture. In so doing, I am not interested in claiming that western o

culture has passed a threshold beyond modernity. The concrete referent of the term "postmodernity" is anappreciation of today's world, and I use the term to call attention to aspects of our situation that appear ne

characteristics of the way educated people view the world today seem to be typically, and in some respecdistinctively, postmodern.

Postmodernity entails, first, a radical historical consciousness. By this I mean a loss of a sense of a telos i

and a feeling that human existence is simply adrift, in an utterly contingent or arbitrary way, subject to thforces of history itself. Second, postmodernity involves a critical social consciousness. The human subjec

Enlightenment, the autonomous rationality which was the source of universal truth, has yielded to notionand value that do not transcend a particular social arrangement. Third, postmodernity involves a pluralist

consciousness. Western culture no longer commands the center, for there is no one center, but only a varilocal centers of thought. No religion can claim to be the one true religion, nor one people to be a chosen p

No individual or individual group or culture can design or possess a metanarrative the encompasses the wthat perspective is simply not available. Truth is only attainable in fragments. And, fourth, postmodernity

a cosmic consciousness. Science is gradually mediating to our minds a cosmos that can no longer be imagbecause of its size, its age, and its macro and micro complexity. It is becoming increasingly difficult to imthat earthly homo sapiens is the center of reality and not an epiphenomenon.

This culture of postmodernity, as I have depicted it, appears threatening to Christian faith. But no more th

Hellenistic culture at the dawn of the second century. This culture should not be viewed only as a threat, as a lure to create new construals of Jesus Christ that meet the temper of our time. Such an effort, howeve


5/13

require a distinct method.

Characteristics of a Christology from Below

I move then to a formal description of the method of christology. This method is not idiosyncratic: implic

explicitly most of the characteristics I shall enumerate qualify the efforts of all theologians who are addrecontemporary situation. Only the way in which they are put together may be distinctive. I take the time topoint to these elements of method because they explain to a large degree the way christological content is

determined. I realize that by simply stating a method, as distinct from mounting an extensive argument toit, I raise many questions without answering them. My hope is that much of this language is already some

familiar.

An apologetic method.

Our situation as Christians in a world that is not homogeneously Christian or even religious demands an

apologetic method. By that I mean a way of doing theology that does not presuppose Christian doctrine a

common, accepted set of principles, but rather sets out to explain and communicate those very doctrines ilanguage of commonly shared principles and values. The Apologists addressing the Roman empire in thecentury are instructive for our day. This apologetic dimension defines a style of theology that also has a b

Christian self-understanding, that relates to those inside the church insofar as they participate in and haveinternalized a postmodern culture, or any other culture that does not take Christian truth for granted.

Christology from below.

I explained briefly what I mean be "from below" at the top of this essay as indicating a point of departure

the goal of christology, and as defining a structure of thought that epistemologically is rooted in this-worexperience. Let me add a further precision: constructively christology from below begins with a consider

the historical Jesus. This is commanded by our historical consciousness. Jesus of Nazareth is the object ochristology and there can be no consideration of Jesus in any other state apart from the only Jesus that we

from history. Because "from below" points to a structure of understanding, this historical Jesus is always as a criterion for christology.

A genetic method.

The phrase, "a genetic method," describes how an apologetic christology from below proceeds. It begins Jesus and, after his death and the Easter experience of his resurrection, follows the development of christ

the New Testament. It traces and then analyses the genesis of christology "for the first time" as it were. Abasis of this development, and through an analysis of its structure, it determines the structure or logic of

christology itself. In other words, an analytical appreciation of how the Christians represented in the NewTestament interpreted Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ provides the model or paradigm for the structure of

christology as a discipline.

A hermeneutical method of critical correlation.

The genesis of christology can be understood in terms of interpretation theory. In this case I appeal to the

of hermeneutics stemming from Schleiermacher and exemplified today in the writings of Heidegger, Gad


6/13

Ricoeur, and Tracy. Just as the genesis of christology consisted in the interpretation of Jesus as the Christlight of the encounter of God in his life and the experience of his exaltation by God, so too, analogously,

christology today is interpretation of Jesus in the light of those same experiences. But as a formal disciplitoday's postmodern world, this interpretation takes on certain technical qualities of method. These are ref

with the terms hermeneutical, critical, and correlation.

A hermeneutical method is a method of interpretation. The structure for this interpretation is indicated by"correlation." Correlation means placing the data of the tradition of Christian faith, in this case going bac

of Nazareth, in conjunction with the world in which one lives at any given time. Interpretation occurs witdialectical or a dialogical going back and forth between the past and the present, the witness of faith from

and the forms provided by the culture of any given present situation. Finally, this conversation must be crseveral senses. It must involve the mutual questioning implicit in any dialogue, and thus the mutual listen

and criticism of each interlocutor of the correlation, the past and the present. Critical also refers to self-consciousness reflection on the process of knowledge, religious knowledge, and faith. And critical refers

critical," or an attentiveness to the sociology of knowledge and, more generally, the social construction thand culture. Interpretation in Christian theology usually unfolds within the tradition. But at certain points

tradition itself should be placed in critical dialogue with "the world" so that traditional "blind spots" may discovered.

In sum, the basic genetic structure of christology is interpretation of Jesus. Today, the formal discipline o

christology incorporates the critical tools of postmodernity into its interpretation of Jesus.

Other principles of interpretation.

Other elements of a critical appropriation of a religious tradition that enter into theological method and th

christology. I indicate some of these here without developing them.

A

first and very significant element in theology generally, and especially in christology, is the symbolic cof religious language. The category of symbol plays a central role in the christology outlined here. The id

symbol, of something that mediates another reality, is used in two analogous senses: a conceptual symbola symbolic idea, or word, or other devise of consciousness; and a concrete symbol refers to some thing, a

event, or person which mediates and makes present something other than itself. The category of symbol ifrequently to reinforce an awareness of the symbolic character of all knowledge of transcendent reality.

Some other terms and categories that have a bearing on method include a distinction between meaning anMeaning, or a unity of intelligibility, or the "sense" of a text, may be distinguished from whether or not th

construal actually exists or existed. Truth, in its traditional definition of mental representation correspondobjective reality, adds to meaning the dimension of reference to external reality. In conjunction with the

distinction between meaning and truth, hermeneutical theory insists that, in affirming the truth of the pasttexts, for example, one must draw that meaning into the present. Affirming the truth of something, as dist

a non-referential meaning, is an act of responsibility to the evidence that cannot escape the conditions of knows to be truth in a given time or place. This gives rise to the principle of analogy. The principle of an

says that one affirms the truth within the context of what one knows to be true in one's present world. Wiontologically unified world, analogy with what one experiences as true in the present operates as a criteri

affirming truth generally. Ordinarily one cannot affirm as true in another historical context what one know


7/13

ontologically impossible within one's own.

I want to underline a principle of interpretation that was mentioned earlier in passing, namely, that one minterpret the meaning of the past in correlation with both the personal experience of individuals and the m

objective social condition of human existence. The degree to which the public social conditions of human

existence shape the individual is a relatively recent discovery that has contributed to the formation ofpostmodernity. Interpretation, in its quest to uncover the meaning of the past in its relevance to the presenavoid its social implications.

The criteria of christology.

What are the criteria to determine whether a certain christology is adequate or not? It is clear that there ispluralism of different understandings of Jesus Christ within the greater church and within Catholicism as

Such a pluralism is not necessarily a bad thing. Therefore, the criteria for christology must be fluid enougallow for a certain pluralism at the same time that they establish limits to what is acceptable: every christ

not adequate. I propose three criteria as central but not exhaustive: the first is fidelity to scripture and the

interpretations of Jesus Christ from the history of the community, such as the Councils of Nicaea and ChaThe second is intelligibility to a present-day community. Christology must make sense in the language ofworld. The third is an ability to empower a Christian life in the contemporary world. A christology unabl

this is irrelevant and lacks a moral credibility.

To conclude, these reflections lay out an interpretation of our present situation at the beginning of the thirmillennium and some presuppositions and reflections on method that enable a response to that situation. T

represents a first and purely formal description of a logic for a christology from below that is both historiconscious, in some measure systematic, and attentive to our postmodern situation. I now move to an acco

the genesis and structure of christology.

The Gen

esis of Christology

I have already described a genetic method in christology. In this section I want to add some content to thadescription, while at the same time remaining on a somewhat abstract and general level of discussion. I a

the genesis of christology in three phases: Jesus, the Easter experience of his disciples after his death, anddevelopment of christological interpretations of Jesus in the light of his resurrection. I shall indicate brief

each of these phases enters into the development of christology.

Jesus.

Most are aware that the quest for the historical Jesus has been pursued vigorously over the last decades. T

several debates concerning this research that have bearing on christology itself. One concerns what we caof Jesus historically and how we know it. Another issue is the bearing of such knowledge on a theologica

appropriation of Jesus. All of these questions correlate neatly with the historical consciousness of postmoand christology should contain clear positions relative to these issues.

But there is still another and I think more important dimension of the impact of this research on christolo

dimension can be illuminated by a consideration of the imagination in human knowing. According to ThoAquinas, all human knowing involves imaginative contact with concrete reality, and sensible images are


8/13

latent residue of all knowledge. When this view is transposed to christology, it implies that all christologyinvolves, and often rests upon, implicit imaginative construals of Jesus Christ and his relation to God and

For the most part, these imaginative perceptions have been fashioned by the language of the liturgy, the cand general church devotion. The Jesus literature most forcefully influences christology by bringing the

imagination back to an historical personage, and in so doing reinforces the conviction, that at one point h

doctrinally affirmed, that Jesus was a human being like us. In short, Jesus research is reschooling our imaJesus.

The Easter Experience.

I shall not outline a theology of the resurrection here, but simply enumerate a few principles that will be aan approach to Jesus' resurrection "from below." First, an historical approach to Jesus' resurrection procee

through a consideration of what the disciples experienced that led them to the conviction, the dynamic cothat engendered the Christian mission, that Jesus is alive and was raised by God. This question of the Eas

experience cannot be decisively answered, and one finds many theories about it. But it remains an importhypothetical question that reveals the structure of one's thinking. Also, the principle of analogy plays a ro

consideration. I agree with Edward Schillebeeckx that despite the differences of proximity to and knowlethe earthly Jesus, one should not conceive an enormous difference between the disciples' experience of Je

raised by God and alive and our own Christian experience of the same thing. However one explains this ain its degree of difference and sameness, an apologetic christology must make some appeal to experience

sense of Jesus' resurrection.

Interpretations of Jesus.

The third moment in the genesis of christology consists in the interpretations of Jesus as the Christ that w

formulated by the followers of Jesus who themselves thus became Christians. In my own analysis of theschristologies three things assume a certain importance. The first is that there is a wide variety of different

interpretations of just who Jesus-now-risen was and is. This corresponds nicely with the fact that these arhistorically condition interpretations by different communities in different situations. The second is that o

discern a certain unity or sameness in all of these interpretations: they are based on and witness to the expthat Jesus is the bearer of God and God's salvation. Jesus the "mediator of salvation from God" is as it we

common denominator of all New Testament christologies. Third, this pattern can be raised to a level of pchristology is a function of soteriology or at least the experience of salvation. And this in turn gives one a

basic conception of the structure of christology and one of the most salient features of its logic. The pattealso provide christology with its most fundamental criterion of adequacy. Whatever else a christology mu

must explain why or how Jesus Christ is savior.

The Structure of Christology

In the genesis of christology, that is, beginning with Jesus, and in the light of the experience of him as raiGod and the interpretation of him as the bearer of God's salvation, one can discern the structure of christo

summarize that structure around the category of symbol as in the phrase "Jesus symbol of God." I have tobrief account of that central title for Jesus since it carries so much weight.

The historicity of all religious experience.


9/13

I relate the structure of christology to a general theory of the mediated character of all concrete human exof God and hence the mediated character of all religion. This corresponds neatly with Karl Rahner's view

revelation and knowledge of God, and with the Thomistic tradition of epistemology as well. All knowledGod is historically mediated, that is, through nature or through the events, persons, or constructs of histor

Jesus symbol of God for Christian

faith.

In his philosophy of religion, John Smith refers to the worldly and historical media through which all pos

revelation or religion receives its content. His descriptions of such media, however, make it clear that thesynonymous with what other authors, such as Paul Tillich and Karl Rahner, call symbols. On this general

understanding of revelation and religion, it becomes clear that Jesus of Nazareth is the concrete historicalaround which Christian revelation and faith are centered. Christianity is structured by and around Jesus o

Nazareth as the Christ or Savior from God. Placed in the context of history the notion of symbol explainsJesus is at the center of the Christian religious imagination.

The dialectical structure of symbol.

Because of the epistemological power and the ontological density of the symbol, however, it can also placentral role in a systematic understanding of Jesus Christ. First of all, symbols are often called into play i

knowledge of things that transcend other ordinary ways of knowing. For example, one finds in psychologarts areas of knowing that can only be opened up by means of symbols. The same is true of the transcend

sphere of religion where objects of faith transcend knowledge of this world. Conceiving of Jesus as symbGod, therefore, opens up a form of participatory knowledge that exceeds what is communicated by univo

literal speech. Secondly, through a phenomenology of symbolic communication and participatory knowlecan speak of an ontological mediation by symbols. A most common example of this is the mediation of h

personal presence to another through bodily gesture. Such communication is not automatic, because gestualso be used to dissimulate. But ordinarily they communicate one's self outside oneself. In short, concrete

render present and available the being of something other than themselves.

Both the epistemological and ontological functioning of symbols reveal a dialectical structure. By dialectI mean a tension between two forces or dimensions of a symbol that move in opposite directions or pull a

each other in a manner that remains unresolved. For example, in the conception of my body being the symmy self, the body both is and is not the self. Generalizing, in the case of some concrete symbols, one mus

the symbol both is and is not what it symbolizes. This unresolved dialectical structure characterizes all resymbols, so that to remove it would be to destroy their symbolic character. In christology, this dialectical

is reproduced in the classical christological doctrine finally forged at Chalcedon after years of debate: Jesis not and is divine; Jesus both is and is not merely (that is, restrictively) human. Calling Jesus symbol of

therefore, is a way of depicting the role of Jesus Christ in the historically distinctive Christian faith. Symba systematic concept that is analogously common among other forms of human knowing and academic d

It offers a way of explaining the basic classical doctrines of how Jesus saves (soteriology) and the charactof the status of Jesus as a person (christology).

Loci in Christology

A number of fundamental questions about Jesus Christ make up the classical loci that would have to be cin any adequate christology. Some of these questions are relatively new, and together they are acting like


10/13

to move christology slowly forward. Others are less the focus of attention, but because of the interrelatedof all of them, are also undergoing reinterpretation. In what follows I will simply indicate how the logic o

christology from below subsumes these questions without developing specific positions.

Classical soteriology and christology.

It seems impossible to me for an adequate christology to jump over the period which generated the classidoctrines, as some evangelical theologians tend to do. The basic doctrines on how Jesus saved and the pe

Jesus Christ are written into current liturgical, devotional, and catechetical language about Jesus Christ inmainline churches. A christology from below, by dealing with the genesis of christology, will by definitio

analyze the biblical witness on these questions. It must also trace the further development of christology iclassical patristic period. The passage of Christian faith into the Hellenistic world is filled with instructiv

The more classical theology is compared with the theology of the New Testament, the more it will becomapparent that within the continuity of the tradition major shifts in understanding and appropriation occurr

the patristic period.

One way of appropriating both the New Testament and classical theology from below would be through ta hermeneutical method of critical correlation. This would roughly consist in bringing to bear three kindsanalysis. First, it would begin with a strictly historical analysis of the genesis and development of doctrin

the context or horizon of their historical situation. Second, it would subject these doctrines to various formcritical analysis from the point of view of our present horizon of understanding. Among these would be a

that try to characterize the human experiences which generated the doctrines and that they therefore crystAnd, thirdly, it would seek to appropriate and reinterpret the experiences that are latent in these texts as

possibilities for self-understanding and living in the present. These possibilities that are opened up by thetheologies of the past must be reformulated within the context of our own present and future life situation

crucial that one understand the critical analyses of the second phase be understood as opening up construpossibilities for the present and future.

Salvation theory.

By salvation theory I mean what is often called theories or theologies of redemption, that is, of what Jesu

did to accomplish human salvation.Most educated Christians would probably agree that some of the langthe tradition, including the language of official liturgical prayer and devotion, has become embarrassing t

Christian faith. The mythical and symbolic languages of the past no longer function positively in a postmculture, especially when their symbolic character is forgotten. A hermeneutical method of critical correla

when applied to the traditional characterizations of what Jesus Christ did for human salvation, points in thdirection of a reductio ad simplicitatem. The following four points might serve at least as a groundwork f

understanding salvation, or at least provide terms that provide a foundation for interpreting more fully hoChrist saves. First, Christian faith in God mediated by Jesus is at the same time an opening up of the imag

in a way that allows Jesus to be the parable of God. Second, in existential terms this means that Christianencounter God in Jesus. This phrase represents the absolute foundation and point of departure for a christfrom below. Thirdly, within this encounter Jesus reveals God, that is, mediates God and makes God prese

Fourth, Christian salvation consists in the encounter with the saving God in and through Jesus, so that Jesby revealing and making God present. Much more could be said about the content of Jesus' mediation, es

as it relates to ever different situations of human captivity.


11/13

Social salvation and Christian spirituality.

By itself the language of personal individual salvation is inadequate in a postmodern context. Given our shuman historicity, social solidarity, and social constitution, one must show the meaning and truth of Chri

salvation for our lives in common. We need a theology of the appropriation of salvation that is simultane

theology of history and society. Liberation theology, which is in some respects the first Roman Catholicpostmodern theology, has contributed a theology and spirituality of salvation that addresses the negativitisocial history and describes the possibility of the salvation of history.

Appreciation of significance of a liberationist construal of salvation and spirituality requires an appreciati

questions to which it is an answer. And these are generated by distinctively postmodern experiences of neis there any ground for affirming the dignity of the human subject in the historical world we experience?

human history have any meaning-giving direction? Does human freedom have any overarching or metaphpurpose that may provide a norm for human self-actualization and self-direction? These three questions, i

different guises, are questions of salvation, here and now, and in the long term. As such they influence ththat the Christian answer will take. When Jesus of Nazareth is interpreted as symbol of God in response t

questions, he releases a view of God who is concerned with these issues and, concomitantly, proffers a posalvation in response to them. That possible salvation must be read primarily in the ministry of Jesus, thro

death, into resurrection. Such a salvation will become an actuality, however, only in the measure in whichinternalized in a freedom and praxis that in turn address the problems of human suffering. The possibility

salvation in and of history can only be experienced as an actuality within praxis. Salvation must negate thnegativities to which it is a response by being acted out. In sum, Jesus Christ becomes actual savior in his

the measure in which people take up and practice his liberating revelation from God. Salvation does not efrom spirituality or the Christian life; and eschatology without faith praxis has no existential content.

Jesus and other religious mediations.

Our postmodern situation makes the question of the place of Jesus Christ among other religious mediatioquestion, despite the fact that it has been asked and answered in its literal form from the beginning of the

tradition.More specifically, postmodernity, with its sense of historicity and expectation of religious pluraviews religious pluralism positively, and this in turn puts severe pressure on the tradition's absolutistic

understanding of Jesus Christ. Even the now common Christian understanding that Jesus Christ's salvatiopotentially includes all people so that all may share in Christ's saving grace is called into question by a ne

theocentrism. It is precisely such totalizing metanarratives that are suspect.

A position that in some measure respects the reservations of postmodernity and at the same time guards thsubstance of Christian tradition might be outlined in the following manner: to begin, it would insist that t

encounter with God mediated by Jesus is both universally relevant and true. That is, God really is the wayreveals and actualizes God's presence. But this God is precisely one that is intimately close as loving crea

human beings. Therefore, one must expect that God's gracious presence will be reflected in all religions, the many and sometimes serious ways in which it is also concealed. Jesus is thus normative because he isuniversally relevant mediation of the truth of God; but this very revelation implies that God is universally

and graciously present in other religions which, in the measure in which God's grace is efficacious, are aland normative. In other words, the normativity and truth of Jesus Christ do not undermine other mediatio

God; the religions need not be competitive, but may enter into dialogue; and the Christian can affirm thesubstantial truth of other religions on the basis of the revelation of Jesus Christ. What is becoming more d


12/13

to hold today, however, and it is an open question among theologians, is that the saving grace in other relcaused by the historical event of Jesus.

The divinity of Jesus.

The distinctiveness of a method of christology that consistently proceeds from below is most apparent in with the questions of Jesus' divinity, and in the theology of the trinity. The reason for this is that christoloabove has dominated the tradition and thereby shaped the structure of Christian self-understanding. A ma

of the justification of the need for a thoroughgoing christology from below will depend on the recognitionleast for many, the basic problem of christology has shifted. By its assumptions and method, christology

above faces the problem of the humanity of Jesus. What does it mean to say that Jesus truly had a real hunature? With the deepening of historical consciousness, and especially through the influence of Jesus rese

problem of christology is fundamentally altered. With Jesus of Nazareth at the center of one's historicalimagination, the question becomes the following: what does it mean to say that this human being, who ca

worshiped by Christians, is to be called divine? What is the meaning of divinity when it is predicated of tprophet who stands at the head of the Jesus movement? Jesus the historical figure, the human being, is th

supposition or given in this question; there is no question here of accommodating a human nature in a divin history.

A christology from below neatly correlates with the new christological question. It begins with Jesus. It tvarious interpretations of him in the light of the experience that he was raised and exalted by God. The va

majority of these interpretations of him do not depict him as a divine figure in the sense that that came to understood in patristic theology, that is, "of the same substance as the Father." But all of them recognize

saving action through him and God's presence and power in him. Amid this pluralism of christologies, twparticular are apt for characterizing the person of Jesus himself as divine, namely, a Spirit christology and

christology. Is this Spirit or Logos language capable of portraying Jesus as a truly divine figure in historyis. But this language, and the theo/ontological way of construing the person of Jesus with it, cannot cease

symbolic and dialectical. The nature of truly dialectical language is precisely that the tension it maintainsbe cleanly resolved. And in christology this is its virtue and its truth.

Trinitarian theology from below.

In a postmodern context, Christian language about God is most credible when it confesses God's absolute

Postmodernity declares the end of religious triumphalism, of possession of final truth, of anything but afragmentary grasp of the ultimately real. These newly experienced convictions do not conflict with some

deepest strains of Christian spirituality which are now raised to the status of being the conditions for credthis situation, how can the language of trinity about God, that seems to claim some knowledge of the inne

God, be made to appear plausible?

Several dimensions of a trinitarian theology from below can be brought to bear on this issue. First of all i

recognition that trinitarian theology depends historically and logically on christology. Trinity is not a namGod, but a doctrine about God that is a function of christology and not the other way around. Second, how

account of Christian salvation is unimaginable without trinitarian language. For Christian salvation is a nof God's saving action in history, and this story cannot be told without reference to God creator, Jesus Ch

savior, and God as Spirit at work in the church and in the world. Trinity is the short hand symbol of this ssalvation. Thirdly, therefore, the point of trinitarian language is salvation. And this is born out at the junc


13/13

the definition of the doctrine. The arguments for the divinity of the Word of God and the Spirit were madbasis of salvation: "only God saves; therefore Word and Spirit cannot be less than divine." Fourth, from t

salvific point one can make the trinitarian affirmation that God truly is as God is revealed to be in creatioJesus, and in the Spirit experienced at work in the community. Does this entail real differentiations into d

"persons" or "subsistent relations" or "hypostases" in the Godhead? It may. But one ought to explicitly un

the speculative character of such a reach into the interior of God's absolutely mysterious being.

Conclusion.

Does the logic of a christology from below as it has been laid out here amount to a paradigm shift in chri

Does it entail a substantially new method of christology that finds its basis in new premises and assumptithat the conclusions reached in a former way of thinking are drawn up into a distinctively new synthesis?

characterization of this christology from below as a paradigm shift would depend on that with which it wcontrasted. The turn to history and experience in Christian theology during the modern period seems to q

a paradigm shift with reference to the premodern period. This turn, which occurred dramatically with the of Schleiermacher, was countered in the Protestant world by Neo-orthodox theology, and that debate is n

close. In Roman Catholic theology, when the turn to history and experience was attempted in the modernat the beginning of the 20th century, it was simply silenced by authority. Although Catholic theological d

was reawakened by Vatican II, at the present time discussion of christology that begins with history andexperience seems once again to be threatened with authoritarian censure. In the measure that this authorit

a premodern christological tradition, this christology from below represents a paradigm shift. But by beinconfronted with authority, instead of alternative postmodern theologies analogous to Neo-orthodoxy, it la

debate that is necessary to prove its viability. A serious theological discussion between a variety of viewsto adjust to our postmodern situation is needed before one could characterize this christology from below

something radically new.

Documents

The Logic of Chris to Logy From Below