Can we be too or insufficiently Christocentric?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
An Orthodox priest once asked me whether the independent charismatic evangelical church I'd been involved with was overly 'Christocentric'.
My response was along the following lines, 'Kind of. I know what you mean, I think but also I tend to think that this tendency can be exaggerated by those who don't operate within those particular settings. In essence, they are pretty much straight down the line Trinitarian even if the language needs tightening up a bit.'
I don't want to go over old ground or start yet another 'worship wars' thread about gushy 'Jesus is my boyfriend' style worship songs.
No, my aim is to explore what we mean by being 'Christocentric'. How does this express itself in word and deed? How is it reflected in worship and in action?
Can we be too Christocentric?
Can we be insufficiently Christocentric?
Are some churches or movements more Christocentric than others?
My response was along the following lines, 'Kind of. I know what you mean, I think but also I tend to think that this tendency can be exaggerated by those who don't operate within those particular settings. In essence, they are pretty much straight down the line Trinitarian even if the language needs tightening up a bit.'
I don't want to go over old ground or start yet another 'worship wars' thread about gushy 'Jesus is my boyfriend' style worship songs.
No, my aim is to explore what we mean by being 'Christocentric'. How does this express itself in word and deed? How is it reflected in worship and in action?
Can we be too Christocentric?
Can we be insufficiently Christocentric?
Are some churches or movements more Christocentric than others?
Comments
The Parables?
The Sermon on The Mount?
Are those who stress the social and humanitarian aspects of the Gospel being Christocentric in a different way to those who focus on the Cross and the Atonement to the virtual exclusion of anything else?
Within Pentecostalism the unitarian 'Jesus-Only' groups outwith the mainstream Trinitarian ones could be taken as an example of a focus on Christ taken to an extreme.
FWIW I think we can foster a healthy Christocentricism within a Trinitarian framework.
Otherwise, I think it's hard to go overboard. I mean, "no one comes to the Father except through me." Since we can't do an end run around Jesus to get to the Father on our own (and who would want to?), he's inevitably involved in any approach to the Father. And the Spirit, too, is tangled up with him, as "He will take what is mine and glorify me"--and that is explained as "All that belongs to the Father is mine; that is why I said He would take what is mine" etc. So I really don't think you can get one person of the Trinity in isolation from the rest, they / he comes as a whole.
But there's no denying that under normal circumstances, Jesus is a great deal easier to approach, consider, think of, etc. because he is the Son of Man and we have records of his life. There are certainly individuals who may have trouble with him for personal reasons, just as I did so long with the Father (given family abuse in the background); but by and large, I think most people would start with Christ.
In classic Oneness Pentecostalism the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all manifestations of one God. That they often call God Jesus isn't necessarily an indication of an overly Christocentric approach but rather a result of reading the NT through a sub-Trinitarian lens, in practice it's Monarchianism rather than a focus on 'Christ'.
And he is the only one of all 3 who, according to the faith of our fathers, and our fathers' fathers, and our fathers' fathers' fathers, shares our nature.
Amen!
Consider, for example, the (Nicene/Niceno-Constantinopolitan) Creed. It is clearly Trinitarian, but the Father and the Spirit each get four lines, while Jesus gets 20 lines. (Yeah, I know how “lines” are counted depends on formatting; I’m looking at the formats published by the English Language Liturgical Consultation and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
Baptism and Eucharist involve all three Persons of Trinity, but Christ is at the forefront of both. In baptism, we speak of joining in Christ’s baptism, in his death abs resurrection, and to being made part of the Body of Christ. In the Eucharist, we follow Christ’s direction to “do this as my memorial,” and we are nourished by his Body and Blood.
So I’m not sure we can be too Christocentric unless we truly elevate the Second Person of the Trinity over the First and Third Persons, or effectively ignore the First and Third Persons altogether.
But if the Christ-event, to use Karl Barth’s term, is the definitive self-revelation of God to humanity that stands at the center of God’s relationship with humanity, then Christocentrism would seem to be inevitable. Christ is, as it were, the key to the whole shebang.
This part of your post "Are those who stress the social and humanitarian aspects of the Gospel being Christocentric in a different way to those who focus on the Cross and the Atonement to the virtual exclusion of anything else?"
I think they are different. I have had to drop the cross and atonement totally. They can take of themselves if there is an afterlife in heaven. Which I don't believe in anymore so it does not matter. The only things that matter is the kindness part. This is misread as "love as a feeling" in my opinion.
On this--well, I might be misunderstanding, but I don't think it's easy to pry apart the various things Jesus said and did without winding up with an impaired view of him--and consequently an impaired Christocentrism.
Essentially, I'm probably on the same page as them on this one - and much else besides.
It's Ascension Day today, on most if not all calendars as far as I'm aware.
According to scripture and Tradition, Christ's resurrected human body was taken up into heaven. Our humanity is represented in heaven.
Today's sermon was about that at the Orthodox Liturgy I attended this morning and I later read some Anglican reflections that said the self-same thing.
I'm happy to accept the whole kit and caboodle but can't pretend that's easy at times and I certainly don't want to detract from the kindness and 'horizontal' humanitarian concern angle that you've rightly highlighted.
I'm coming back to the both/and mantra I'm notorious for on these boards.
Sure. I get that, @chrisstiles and once again, as so often, your meticulous and thoughtful approach has elucidated something for me. However ...
I could be pedantic though and suggest that it's Modalism rather than Monarchicism.
But I still take your point.
If I wanted to be controversial, I'd suggest that there's a lot more Modalism around in contemporary charismatic evangelicalism than is healthy for it but generally that's more down to a certain liturgical sloppiness than anything else.
I think the One-ness Pentecostals are further off beam.
I listened into a conversation on a railway platform recently where an earnest clearly One-ness Pentecostal was sharing his faith with a guy who was rather the worse for drink.
My heresy-detector monitor went into overdrive ... riddit-dit-dit-riddit-dit-dit-riddit-dit-dit eurggh ...errrghh ... eeeeeeegh! Kaboom!
It was way, way off by any small o orthodox standards, whether Reformed, Wesleyan, Anglican, Lutheran ...
He is simultaneously the God who reveals himself to humanity, and the human to whom God is fully revealed.
He is simultaneously the God who elects/predestines, and the human who is elected/predestined.
He is simultaneously the redeemer and the redeemed.
In the covenant between God and humanity, Jesus Christ stands on both sides of the covenant.
Classically Monarchianism came in modal and adoptionist forms, in practice Oneness theology is another variant of it because the way they describe 'manifestations' is different to classical modalism (and they are quite clear that they don't believe in any form of patripassionism). This is not merely to quibble, but to point out that you don't get to where they do theologically just by 'being too Christocentric' (they are actually trying get to the nature of God from a different place to orthodox christianity).
*shakes head* "Come on now, Patrick..."
So you are saying it's 'Barth/and' ... 😉
I'll get me coat ...
I've not thought what the 24 represents here but yes, clearly 2 X 12.
Then there's the line in the Western hymn Alleluia, Sing To Jesus by William Chatterton Dix:
'Thou on earth both priest and victim in the Eucharistic feast.'
I've known people baulk at that one on the grounds that it's 'too Catholic.'
But yes ...
Orthodox hymnody is full of such paradoxes, particularly at Christmas and Easter.
I only know Barth by reputation @Nick Tamen and haven't read any of his works but yes, I like that.