1321.Important Questions

[SCANNED PDF|^ogden1321importantquestions.pdf]

One ofthe important questions that Maurice raises and answers is, How is Christ rather~as Maurice contends, "as the (The Doctrine of 43). Unless I'm mistaken, I raise and answerthe very same in a closely parallel, ifnot convergent,wayin The Point ofChristology. _Consider, e.g., such passages as the following:_to be regarded? Is he to be regarded "merely as. a man born at a certain time into thisworld, and the head of a sectcalled Christians," or,Son, the Word ofthe Father, begotten from everlasting ofthe Father"?the Thirty':'N

an beings generally, .But if I am right about this, the really essential difference, upheld in some tenns or other by all New Testament christologies, is the difference between being merely one more authority, even the primary such authority, and being the explicit primal source from which all authority derives. Because even a perfectly authentic human existence need be no mor.e than one· .. authority among others, on the same level as ourselves, even if rITst and foremost among us, Jesus' having actualized such an existence cannot possibly be the sufficient condition ofthe truth ofthese christologies. For the essential claim made by each ofthem, whatever the concepts and symbols iri which it was fonnulated, is that Jesus is' rather the primal source of all authority, on the same level as God, even if alsodistinct from God as this very source now become fully explicit (81). 

There is also the question--to my mind, far more serious-whether the very attempt to understand Jesus· himself as this nonn [se. the norm of appropriateness] does not implicitly deny the characteristic claim that the Christian witness makes about him by its christo logical assertion. Even the primary nonn ofappropriateness can be no more than one authority among others, as distinct from the primal source ofauthority by which even the primary nonn alone is authorized. But what does it mean to assert that Jesus is the Christ; or any ofthe other things that Christians have hi~torically asserted him to be, ifnot precisely that Jesus is just such a primal authorizing source, and hence inrmitely more than any authority derived from this source, even the primary such authority? I submit that the deeper difficulty with the typically liberal theological answer to the question ofthe norm ofappropriateness is that it assigns to Jesus himself, contrary to the clear intention ofthe apostolic witness, the role that rightly belongs rather to the apostles. Ifthis isso, however" the way to respond to the challenge posed· by the ongoing development ofhistorical-critical study ofthe New Testament is not by abandoning the early church's criterion of apostolicity. Quite the contrary, ifJesus is rightly asserted by the Christian witness to be inrmitely more than any nonn, because he is the primal source of all nonns made fully explicit, then the early church was exactly right in taking . apostolicity to be the criterion of canonicity. It lies in the very logic of.the concept of. 'authority' that the primal source of authority, whether implicit or explicit, cannot itself be an authority, at least in the same literal sense ofthe word. On the other hand, and by the same logic, there belongs to the original authority authorized by its primal source, and so in this case to the witness ofthe apostles as explicitly authorized by Jesus; the unique role ofalso being the originating authority and therefore the sole primary norm or canon. This is so because it is solely through this original and originating authority that the primal source authorizing it is explicitly available precisely as such (102 f).

[Revisionary christo logy] is also open to the theological objection of implying that Jesus is other and less than even the earliest christology ofwitness asserts or implies him to be. By making Jesus himself the primary norm of appropriateness instead of the primal source ofall norms made fully explicit, one reduces him to but one authority among others, even if the primary such authority. Thus he becomes the Jesuswith whom we believe in God, instead ofthe Jesus through whom we believe in God--one who is a mere man, on the same level as ourselves, even iffirst and foremost among us, instead of one who is infmitely more than a mere man, on the same level with God, even if also distinct from God as the decisive re-presentation ofGod's gift and demand. As far as I am concerned, it is this strictly theological implication that reveals the most serious inadequacy in the typical procedure ofrevisionary christo logy. Even if the historical objection could somehow be met by adducing primary as well as secondary sources about Jesus, there would still be the decisive objection that the Jesusattested by the Christian witness is infmitely other and more than the so-called historical Jesus (111 f.). 

The other important point at which, I am convinced, I am, in my own way, trying to uphold something that Maurice is keen on is the distinction he draws between "a gospel offacts" and "a gospel ofnotions"(The Kingdom ojChrist, 1:10). Unless I'm mistaken, this is his way of distinguishing-in my terms, folloWing Bultmann-between "the thaf' and "the what," and betWeen "self-understanding/understanding ofexistence," on the one hancL and ''world view," on the other. And recognizing this is also the key to making sense out ofhis otherwise merely question-begging and questionably meaningful statements that "creeds" are "facts," while "dogmas" are merely "notions," or "opinions." Clearly, creeds are no more facts, or no less notions, than dogmas are, unless they're taken-as Maurice and I both argue they are to be taken-as "direct address," the gift/demand ofa self-understanding/understanding ofexistence, rather than the "indirect address" communicating a world view. "The most awful and absolute truths, which notions displace or obscure," Maurice argues, "are involved in facts and through facts may be entertained and embraced by. those who do not possess the faculty for comparing notions, and, have a blessed incapacity ofresting in them" (1:10). In my teons, "facts," which is to say , existentially significant facts, mediate self-understanding/understanding ofexistence, which'is something importantly different from "symbolizing ideas." This is the conceptual background ofMaurice's question about Christianity-namely, whether it "shall be a practical principle and truth in the hearts ofmen, or shall be exchanged for a set ofintellectual notions or generalizations" (2:44). 

I'm aware that this is not as well developed as it needs to be. But I trust I have said enough to make clear that, at this second point, also, the parallel, ifnot convergence, between Maurice's intentions and my own is very, very close. It's hard, therefore, not to think ofWilhelm Herrmann, who, as Bultmann recognized, had all, or most, ofthe right ideas, but remained very much in need of"the 'right' philosophy."

18 August 2007