Christology Essay Thesis
The Christ the church worships at its altar is also the Christ found at the altar of the world’s poor. There is something more dangerous to the faith than a Christ who can only be grasped through multiple views; it is a view of truth as either-or.“Definitive” truth that is not loving can bring only despair to an already nihilistic world.
Postmodernism thrives precisely because it sees the suffering of this world as having reached horrendous and senseless proportions. points rightly to one; Sobrino points to the other. Theologians betray their vocation if they simply repeat word-for-word definitions taken from Scripture or doctrine, as if formulas could contain faith or words exhaust mystery.
In the effort to make sense of the language of faith, the choice of where to begin is crucial because it shapes the way we imagine Jesus.
This, I believe, represents the key difference between the Christology of Jon Sobrino, S.
Indeed, Sobrino’s method of taking the social context as the ecclesial matrix from which Christ emerges may lead to an unabashed theological pluralism where the one Lord can become a Christ of a thousand faces, each depending on its own social setting.
Such a scenario might be one reason this notification was issued.
Sobrino’s method opens up a postmodern Pandora’s box of theological speculation.
The notification questions first the methodological presuppositions of Sobrino’s Christology. apparently thinks Sobrino is playing fast and loose with the nature of the church. warns that Sobrino’s Christ is being wrenched from his ecclesial matrix.A church that is methodologically indifferent to senseless suffering is at odds with the methods of Jesus himself. Balancing Human and Divine By Kevin Burke Christology is a complex discipline. Every age, every culture needs to find access to Jesus Christ from within its own distinctive language and worldview.Only a Jesus who belongs to a church that is not afraid to identify itself with the suffering of this world can have any rational claim on the world itself. It requires an intricate balancing act among assertions perennially in tension with one another. J., emphasized this point in a course tellingly entitled “The Christological Controversies.” He noted how every orthodox Christological claim tends toward one or another heresy and needs to be complemented by other claims. But the future of theology does not undermine the importance of its past.However, the teachings of Scripture and tradition are not self-interpreting.For this reason, Christology is not only complex but dangerous.In other words, the normative character of the truth of the church’s faith is protected, defended and nurtured by a praxis that will not regard as normative the senseless suffering of billions. Moreover, this process of complementing and balancing involves more than rehearsing the facts of church doctrine, for the language of faith often explodes like a riot of color in a wild garden or a true poem. Theological growth needs direction to remain authentically alive.It needs Scripture (the normative witness to apostolic faith) and the Christological dogmas formulated by the theologians of the early church.Even devout believers can lose their way in the thickets of Christological reasoning.Even clear and apparently unambiguous statements like “Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ” need to be interpreted in relation to other statements.Truth is not simply about objectivity but also solidarity. Having a both-and Christology is not the same as postmodern skepticism.And this is one of the lessons I learned from Chrysostom’s text. It is the very nature of a faith that proclaims that God is one and three, that Jesus is human and divine.