Progressive Christology

[FredP]

By the above quote do you mean that God is incarnate in all things all the time? (Which I don't necessarily disagree with.) If so, does this mean we just go back to God (un-empty the material form) with no survival of self? (I don't think you meant to imply this because you said that this view robs the natural universe of its dignity as nature ... so I must be misunderstanding).

Yes, I did mean to say that God is incarnate in all things all the time. I'm hesitant to say whether individual selves survive in an infinite extension of time and space. On the one hand, it is part of the nature and dignity of selves that they have a beginning and ending in time. Only God "survives" eternally; material manifestations are real, but not eternal, except in the knowledge of God. On the other hand, who am I to say that God's eternal knowledge and experience of me isn't infinitely more real than my temporal experience of me? I'm speculating here of course.

 

Or do you mean that we are just a little bit of both (creature and divine) in one being? That God created creatures and then "emptied" some of himself into creation?

That's not really it. I've been moving towards the term "divine self-creation" to describe the manifest universe, to emphasize that it's creation, and that it's also God, but I wouldn't tell you I know what that means exactly.

Edited May 1, 2005 by FredP

[FredP]

Yes, that is precisley what i believe and I have come to invent this new term it, "Diviniatain," to believe that Jesus was divine in nature because he was the first first thing that God created..and as was/is at God's right now.  But I see this as being "different" than both triniatianism and unitarism..cause...Trinitarian believes that when Christ was born on earth through Mary that it was literally God as a baby=incarnation.

My point wasn't to hold up the conventional interpretations of these views and judge between them. In their ordinary, straightforward meanings, I don't find either one very compelling. I mean, if you reject the idea of Jesus as "God as a baby" for whatever historical, scientific, philosophical, etc. reasons (which I do), the claim of Jesus being the first thing God created doesn't really solve your problems any better. In fact, the Unitarian rejection of any divine aspect of Jesus whatsoever, is arguably the least troublesome from a scientific standpoint. But then (I think) you lose the levels of meaning that the orthodox formulation provides. That was really the point of my original post.

[cunninglily]

My point wasn't to hold up the conventional interpretations of these views and judge between them.  In their ordinary, straightforward meanings, I don't find either one very compelling.  I mean, if you reject the idea of Jesus as "God as a baby" for whatever historical, scientific, philosophical, etc. reasons (which I do), the claim of Jesus being the first thing God created doesn't really solve your problems any better.  In fact, the Unitarian rejection of any divine aspect of Jesus whatsoever, is arguably the least troublesome from a scientific standpoint.  But then (I think) you lose the levels of meaning that the orthodox formulation provides.  That was really the point of my original post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But consider what stands between Jesus God Incarnate (or Jesus as "God as a baby") and Jesus the enlightened man. Isn't it Jesus, fully divine and fully human? In fact, you said so yourself in the post that kicked this discussion back in gear. This Jesus would be a paradigm; a Pattern Son, a Wayshower, an Awakener; a Son of Light; One who realized His Divinity while "in the flesh" and revealed The Way for those who are called to realize their own double nature and to make the "two One". You don't lose "levels of meaning" and you don't reject the divine aspect of Jesus either, nor do you have to throw away your "scientific standpoint" from this perspective. There is a middle way between Jesus is God and Jesus is not God. There is Jesus, the Anointed Son of God, become One with the Father, or Jesus Christ is Lord. The problem is always that if Jesus is God then He could not have been mere man or if Jesus was fully man then He could not have been God. But what if the solution is right there in our understanding or not understanding of what man is? what humanity is?

 

I don't have these things figured out...I do not understand any of this perfectly...I am searching. But I have a suspicion that WE are the key that we keep searching for, and I am more and more convinced that until we know who we are we can not know who Jesus is.

 

lily

[BrotherRog]

Priort to Jesus' arrival, it was possible for Jews at least to know who and Whose they are; but without Jesus, we Gentiles wouldn't likely know who we really are:

i.e. loved, accepted, and forgiven, Children of God.

[BeachOfEden]

i was not seeing which of these '3' concepts of Christ were the best..Rather I was simply sugesting that these '3' views of Christ DO exist, and I was simply giving the second view, Divintarianism...a name, and I was sugesting the in general we reconize these '3' views exists...basically...reconzining that a second view on Christ nature does exist between #1 Trinitarianism...and #3 Unitarianism.

 

So basically you have '3' views of Christ...

 

1. Trintarianism+The Jesus is God incarnate

 

2. Divitarinism= That Jesus is the highest reflection of God's divine nature..without ever being God.

 

3. Bibical Unitarianism= Jesus is the adopted Son of God

[FredP]

Good post can I stradle the line and say Jesus is the man!  Christ is the consciousness that is one with the Father.

That is true, but it isn't quite enough. It doesn't tell us anything about how Jesus the man -- and by extension, how all of us as persons -- are related to this nebulous "Christ consciousness." What are we supposed to do about it? What does it do for us? The Christian answer is that these "two natures" somehow coexist in a single being. Exactly how that takes place may ultimately be paradoxical -- which explains why most attempts to explain it have bordered on the downright ridiculous. In my earlier post, I tried to clear a space for (at least) appreciating the classical formulation of the nature of Christ, but I didn't actually offer any thoughts on what it might mean in a progressive context. But that will have to wait for another time I'm afraid...

[Lolly]

What do you all think of the thought that the divine is, perhaps, something which permeates all of creation (in some way) but which, due to our humanness, we simply fail to appreciate?

 

Put another way: God/Divinity resides in the so-called mundane. There is no true separation between the mundane and the divine. It is only our clouded and dualistic vision that prevents us from fully realizing God in our own lives, from seeing the divine inherent in all of creation.

[FredP]

What do you all think of the thought that the divine is, perhaps, something which permeates all of creation (in some way) but which, due to our humanness, we simply fail to appreciate? 

 

Put another way:  God/Divinity resides in the so-called mundane.  There is no true separation between the mundane and the divine.  It is only our clouded and dualistic vision that prevents us from fully realizing God in our own lives, from seeing the divine inherent in all of creation. 

Absolutely! I would go even further and say we do more than just fail to appreciate it: we often deliberately choose to repress and reject it.

[Lolly]

we often deliberately choose to repress and reject it.

 

Yup!

[cunninglily]

What do you all think of the thought that the divine is, perhaps, something which permeates all of creation (in some way) but which, due to our humanness, we simply fail to appreciate? 

 

Put another way:  God/Divinity resides in the so-called mundane.  There is no true separation between the mundane and the divine.  It is only our clouded and dualistic vision that prevents us from fully realizing God in our own lives, from seeing the divine inherent in all of creation. 

Absolutely! I would go even further and say we do more than just fail to appreciate it: we often deliberately choose to repress and reject it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would agree with this too...but I don't think we fail to appreciate this because of our "humanness". I think it is precisely in our humanness that we can appreciate it...though granted, not as long as our vision stays "clouded". There are passages in the Bible that suggest that the "carnal mind" can not perceive the things of God; that even if we "hear we do not hear". While the "material" or "carnal" realm keeps us in bondage to the "things of this World", in other words, as long as we believe that only those things that we can perceive with the senses is real, we are unable to perceive reality in its completeness. We can say that there is no separation between the mundane and the divine and even believe it...but to PERCEIVE it requires a transformation of consciousness.

 

It seems clear to me that the Early Church (before the great orthodoxy/heresy split in the fourth century) was an initiatory church, which means that there was a formal acknowledgment of "stages" of initiation, levels of awareness and understanding, and that not every one perceived even the same teaching from the same perceptual level. We understand according to our perception of reality and can understand no deeper or higher than we can perceive. We can acknowledge thoughts or ideas concerning higher or deeper things, but we can not KNOW until we can perceive. The things of God seem "foolishness" to the carnal mind according to scripture. Certainly the idea that we are both divine and human seems foolish to those immersed in a material perception of reality, and even to those of us who have realized that we are not our bodies or personalities, it seems beyond comprehension that we too share in the divinity of Christ...at least potentially, if not actually. (although I think we do actually)

 

This same perceptual *block* prevents us from grokking to the idea that Jesus Christ could have been Divine within His Humanness. The tendency is to either/or it to death; either Jesus was God or Jesus was Man, and, of course, the majority of Christians consider it a heresy to state that Jesus was exactly like us or we like Him and that His Destiny is our own.

 

What is interesting to me is the fact that prior to the fourth century, way back in ancient times, in Persian and Greek culture particularly, the idea of mortal man becoming immortalized; the idea of "Heros", which had a depth of meaning that has since been lost; the idea that there are those who penetrate "behind the veil" and enter Eternity while "in the flesh" was not unusual. We have since lost this sense of Mans nobility and great potential and destiny and no longer know who we are. Even those of us who know that we are loved and forgiven and "children" of God can not seem to grow beyond that to a full realization of what it means to become "full-grown Sons". We tend to think that becoming "full-grown Sons" means maturity in a very pedestrian sense, while the Bible and other records stresses that we will appear "Fools" to those who can not yet perceive reality in its completeness.

 

There are also interesting and pertinent thoughts available out there regarding *when* Jesus became the Son of God. There is a scripture, for instance, stated in reference to Jesus's baptism by John. The most accepted translation of the scripture, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" is believed by some to have been altered from "This is my beloved Son, on this day have I begotten thee" to support orthodox doctrine. This, of course, suggests that Jesus was "born again"...a heretical thought I know, but what can I say?

 

 

lily

[FredP]

It is truly a pleasure to have your participation on this topic Lily. I'm quite certain you could carry it without me!

[cunninglily]

It is truly a pleasure to have your participation on this topic Lily.  I'm quite certain you could carry it without me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you Fred, but you are wrong. I can not carry it without you. It just so happens that I am occupied, if not preoccupied, with this very topic under discussion, and initially came to this forum so occupied in hopes of having discussion with others concerning it. You, Fred, know the theology and philosophy behind what I say, I do not. There are many gaps in my understanding that I rely on you and others to help me fill in. Besides, I may be wrong about a great many things and am in the midst of exploring these thoughts and ideas without any great personal grasp of the full implications of them. Please don't leave me alone with my thoughts.

 

lily

[cunninglily]

Let me start by migrating from another post re: Spong, which underlines the importance of the topic:

 

Where I have really diverged from Spong is not so much regarding his approach to the Bible, i.e. rejecting the literal/factual interpretation of creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, etc. (on that we agree for the most part). Rather it's that his interpretation gives him (and his readers) so little left to hang on to. Resurrection: Myth or Reality? and Liberating The Gospels do a great job of suggesting how the early Christians expressed their experience of the resurrected Christ in gospel form. But when he attempts to suggest what that experience might have been, the best he can possibly offer, haltingly, barely, is a psychological feeling of powerful love and self-acceptance. Life-changing love and self-acceptance, to be sure; of a sort never before seen, to be sure. All these superlatives and more about Jesus the man. But I personally think there's no way Christianity can possibly survive without Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man; and progressive Christianity has got to find a way to make this statement in a compelling way.

 

This topic includes, but is not limited to:

 

* Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ?

* If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally?

* If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it?

* How does Jesus relate to Christ?

 

As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means.

 

Fire away!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I took the liberty of bumping Freds' first post which opened this topic. I was thinking earlier how *pat* my posts sometimes seem to me and how I keep failing to convey something that I think is vitally important to this discussion. Fred, in his opening post touches upon it, but also this first post really capsulizes what it is we are talking about very well, and it was helpful to me to read it again... thought you guys might feel the same way.

 

lily

[cunninglily]

I took Aletheias lead and checked out "theosis" yesterday. Simply stated, this belief is based on the idea that "God became man so that man could become god." This belief actually rests within orthodoxy as it maintains that Jesus is God, and that we "partake of His Divine nature" as stated in the second book of Peter chapter 1 verse 4, still human, distinct from God, but of One Spirit with Him.

 

The Gnostic Christians, on the other hand, did not believe that Jesus is God, but that Jesus became divinized at resurrection, and "begotten" at baptism, and therefore did not worship Jesus as God and considered it more "literalization" to do so. The Gnostics believed that Jesus was the Way or Wayshower to the divinization of man; that He pointed the way to God but was not God.

 

Both of these beliefs acknowledge the "divine nature" inherent in man, while differing dramatically on who they believe Jesus is.

 

My own feeling, which is not based on scholarship, is that the belief that Jesus is God distances us from our own divine nature. Simply put, if Jesus is God then only God can do what Jesus did. How can we "follow" Jesus if Jesus is God? If we are to *go* where Jesus leads must we not also be as Jesus is? It seems more meaningful to me to *see* Jesus as a man who became Divine rather than the other way around. But I'm not locked in yet; I'm still exploring and searching.

 

I tend to be a pragmatist in many ways, which means that I am primarily focused on gaining a sense of *reality* as a buttress to my faith. What I mean by this is that if Jesus is God then I can not be as Jesus is. I can worship Jesus as God, but I can not share in His destiny. However, if Jesus was a man who became Divine by virtue of making his human nature and divine nature One, then I can share in this destiny, as can we all.

 

-just some thoughts,

 

 

lily

[cunninglily]

My own feeling, which is not based on scholarship, is that the belief that Jesus is God distances us from our own divine nature. Simply put, if Jesus is God then only God can do what Jesus did. How can we "follow" Jesus if Jesus is God? If we are to *go* where Jesus leads must we not also be as Jesus is? It seems more meaningful to me to *see* Jesus as a man who became Divine rather than the other way around. But I'm not locked in yet; I'm still exploring and searching.

 

I tend to be a pragmatist in many ways, which means that I am primarily focused on gaining a sense of *reality* as a buttress to my faith. What I mean by this is that if Jesus is God then I can not be as Jesus is. I can worship Jesus as God, but I can not share in His destiny. However, if Jesus was a man who became Divine by virtue of making his human nature and divine nature One, then I can share in this destiny, as can we all.

 

-just some thoughts,

 

 

lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Just to expand a bit on what i posted previously here...

 

It is my suspicion that the doctrine that Jesus is God is in essence antithetical to a belief in the "perfecting" of man, even though Jesus's admonition to "be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" is retained in our scriptures. The "Jesus is God" doctrine keeps us merely human, sinful, and fallen; saved only by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and by Gods' grace. Jesus as "Man Become Divine" by virtue of making His Human Nature and His Divine Nature One shows us the way *out* of this state of fallenness through IMITATION of Christ as those who are called to be Sons of God or Sons of Light, just as Jesus is.

 

For me, it is not a question of Jesus's divinity, for I assert the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but of *when* and as *what* He became so. This to me is the big question. If we analyze or search doctrine for its fruits, we can see that the Jesus is God doctrine has in many ways kept us "babes in Christ" at best for all these many centuries. Or would some of you argue that? Who in the history of the Church has *proved* "the greater things that you shall do" since Jesus has gone to the Father? Who has become "perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect"? (and yes, I know the word "perfect" has many levels of meaning and can be interpreted in several ways, but who can testify to being perfect in any way?)

 

These are the things that make me go, "hmmm"...

 

what say you?

 

 

lily

[FredP]

Lily,

 

These are all very good thoughts. I think you are quite correct to say that, if Jesus as a human individual is uniquely the incarnation of God, then we are indeed hopelessly "human, sinful, and fallen," and saved only vicariously. This is the hardline Reformed Protestant view, incidentally. It is also the conventional Catholic view; however, there is enough talk of mystical transformation in Catholicism for me to say that the theosis idea sits a little more comfortably there than in a Reformed outlook. (It still sits pretty uneasily though!)

 

On the other hand, I think the view you are suggesting leads to other big problems -- namely, we've now lost any sense of God's initiative in restoring us. I know you're trying (with good reason) to avoid a literal vicarious sacrifice, where the blood of Jesus washes away our sins, and makes us gruesome creatures fit to stand before God. But the "grain of truth" in this idea has always been that God first reaches out to us to make our reconciliation possible. The view you suggested seems to make our salvation based solely on personal effort, wherein God rewards Jesus for his exemplary manifestation of the divine nature.

 

I think the typological way in which I regard the doctrine of Jesus Divinity/humanity (http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=333&pid=4044) pays off really nicely here. What would the crucifixion/resurrection mean if Jesus Christ stood not for a human individual who lived long ago, but for the created universe itself in its fulfilled (perfect) state -- the state of being for which Jesus' life and death was a sign? I know this idea resonates with things you've written in the past. I propose it means this: that God, in the great act of self-creation and self-reconciliation we experience as the manifest universe (they're just the downward and upward aspect of the same event), perpetually generates the conditions necessary for all lower forms to die and return to their Eternal Source. (I take the Virgin Birth, by the way, to mean the inverse: that God perpetually generates the conditions necessary for lower forms to be born out of their Eternal Source; but that'll be a topic for another day!)

 

The idea is, the condition for our reconciliation always appears at the initiative of God -- not in some bizarre legal pronouncement by which we become righteous, but in the fact that even our own effort comes to us as a gift of divine grace, the gift of God's own being, given to us as our own.

 

Hope that gives you something to chew on at least.

[AletheiaRivers]

I think what I'm needing to get a clearer picture of (in order to grasp what you're saying) is what do you mean by "return to their Eternal Source"? I'm reading hints of monism in the last couple of posts. Am I reading correctly? Or are you meaning it in more of a Theosis sense - distinct from God but of one spirit with Him?

Edited May 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

I think what I'm needing to get a clearer picture of (in order to grasp what you're saying) is what do you mean by "return to their Eternal Source"? I'm reading hints of monism in the last couple of posts. Am I reading correctly? Or are you meaning it in more of a Theosis sense - distinct from God but of one spirit with Him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My whole foray into the typology thing was an attempt to argue that we are both completely one with God, and at the same time completely what we are naturally, and to try not to collapse either one of those down into the other. I'm sure this or that thing I say probably sometimes sounds more like one than the other, but a lot of that is probably due to the inherent limitation of language and concepts.

 

By a return to the Eternal Source, I'm simply talking about the process, within the nature/space/time realm, whereby we identify with what is higher (and disidentify with what is lower) in ourselves. I don't think the idea is inherently monist or dualist... maybe the "culmination point" is different in either case. Perhaps, I'd say that our "return to the Eternal Source" is the recognition of our ultimate oneness with God in the realm beyond distinct forms; and our "being born out of the Eternal Source" is our participation in the manyness of God, within the realm of disctinct forms. Both realms are real.

 

Don't put too much weight in this just yet. This is like unedited brain droppings here!

[AletheiaRivers]

Brain droppings! Your brain droppings are quite awesome.

 

I appreciate your explanation. It helped a lot. I just didn't want to read anything into your words that aren't there. "Pure" monism, as you can probably tell, bugs me a lot. I just don't see the point. (Doesn't mean pure monism ISN'T true, just that I don't like where such a proposition leads.)

Edited May 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[cunninglily]

On the other hand, I think the view you are suggesting leads to other big problems -- namely, we've now lost any sense of God's initiative in restoring us.  I know you're trying (with good reason) to avoid a literal vicarious sacrifice, where the blood of Jesus washes away our sins, and makes us gruesome creatures fit to stand before God.  But the "grain of truth" in this idea has always been that God first reaches out to us to make our reconciliation possible.  The view you suggested seems to make our salvation based solely on personal effort, wherein God rewards Jesus for his exemplary manifestation of the divine nature.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No no. Quite the contrary. God inititates everything. I do not support a belief that our "salvation is based on personal effort" at all. This is, in fact, the "something missing" in our discussion I alluded to when reposting your initial post. I wanted to say then that this is something we can not do. This is an impossibility, a mystery, a paradox that we can not even properly fathom unless God reveal it to us. I agree that God reaches out to us to make our reconciliation possible. I also agree that it is by Grace that we seek Him at all.

 

Actually, I don't readily see in what I've posted that gives you the idea that I believe that man is saved by works, or that I dismiss vicarious sacrifice or the blood of Jesus. To me these are separate topics and not the one under discussion. There seems no contradiction to me that Jesus the man became the Lamb of God. Do you see a contradiction?

 

lily

[FredP]

Perhaps I read into something you said. When you were saying that Jesus "became" divine, as opposed to being divine from eternity, I took that to mean that Jesus aspired to divinity by his own effort. I interpret the gradual move in the early church towards Jesus' eternal divinity to be precisely the result of the ongoing realization that the incarnation occurs by God's initiative. (If he was divine by God's initiative, then why was he only divine at the resurrection, or at baptism, or at birth, or ...?) In other words, if God initiates the incarnation, then Jesus has always been "God with us," from the beginning of time. Anyway, that's how I understand the theological development going on there, and so I may have misinterpreted your post for that reason.

 

(Once again, remember that I regard Jesus theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure. I keep saying that because it's crucial to understanding almost everything I write!)

 

Hope that clears things up a little...

[cunninglily]

In other words, if God initiates the incarnation, then Jesus has always been "God with us," from the beginning of time.  Anyway, that's how I understand the theological development going on there, and so I may have misinterpreted your post for that reason.

 

(Once again, remember that I regard Jesus theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure.  I keep saying that because it's crucial to understanding almost everything I write!)

 

Hope that clears things up a little...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would agree with everything you've said Fred, if you would exchange the name Jesus for the Christ. I believe that Christ has been "God with us" from the beginning of time, but not the man Jesus. I regard "Christ" theologically as a sign and Jesus as the historical figure. This is probably where we are getting snagged in understanding one another.

 

lily

[FredP]

I would agree with everything you've said Fred, if you would exchange the name Jesus for the Christ. I believe that Christ has been "God with us" from the beginning of time, but not the man Jesus. I regard "Christ" theologically as a sign and Jesus as the historical figure. This is probably where we are getting snagged in understanding one another.

I understand what you're saying... Yes, Jesus the historical figure was born, lived, and died in time and space just like the rest of us. But I also don't want to completely separate Jesus from Christ in the sign, because Jesus as man is part of what makes the sign mean what it means. Perhaps Jesus the man + Christ is the divine son => Jesus Christ the sign. Anyway, terminology aside, I think we're very much on the same page.

[AletheiaRivers]

(Once again, remember that I regard Jesus theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure. I keep saying that because it's crucial to understanding almost everything I write!)

 

Hope that clears things up a little...

 

Yup! Clear as mud! Could you elaborate just a teeny tiny bit? Jesus Christ (and I am going to keep the two together or I'm gonna get REALLY confused ) is a sign but he didn't historically exist?

 

I'M SO LOST!

[FredP]

Jesus Christ (and I am going to keep the two together or I'm gonna get REALLY confused  ) is a sign but he didn't historically exist?

I said, I regard Jesus Christ theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure. Yes, Jesus was a historical figure, but the (merely) historical figure isn't what I'm talking about when I use Jesus Christ in a theological sense.