Schwöbel and the cause of the christological crisis

II – Christologie und die trinitarische Logik christlicher Rede von Gott

In the second part of his essay, Schwöbel argues that these aspects of the christological crisis are really aspects of the one same syndrome. The crisis of modern Christology is caused by the neglected appreciation for the Trinitarian logic of the Christian understanding of God, and the implications of this for our understanding of the human being. Or, in a word, the problem is Trinitätsvergessenheit.

A brief sketch of the Trinitarian logic of Christian faith is then undertaken, starting with the OT roots. He thinks there are specifically two strands in the OT which influence the picture on the NT. One focuses more on the particularity of God and is united with a more universal  vision, seen in wisdom literature, a movement which also underlies an eschatological dimension .[1] New identifying descriptions of God are found in the NT which speak of God’s identity in terms of Christ, and as such reflect the particularising identity of God in the history of Israel, giving God’s identity in relation to Christ an irreducible narrative form.  The OT universalising vision is likewise reflected in NT christological language (Col. 1:16 etc.). The identification of God in Christ is also formulated in a post-Pentecost era; God and Christ are experienced through the Spirit. This happens not simply as a consequence of the Christ-event; the Spirit is constitutive of the Christ-event. With a little more simplicity than the NT allows, Schwöbel summarises the significance: ‘Der Geist, durch den der Vater sich zum Sohn und der Sohn sich zum Vater in Beziehung setzt, ist der Geist, durch den der Vater sich durch den Sohn zur Kirche in Beziehung setzt und in dem die Kirche durch den Sohn sich zum Vater in Beziehung setzt’ (270).[2] Either way, it remains clear that believers relate to God liturgically, in the economy of salvation and within the eschatological narrative, in terms of this Trinitarian structure. Indeed, Schwöbel is insistent that these Christian practices reflect a proto-Trinitarian deep structure.

This all leads to the important conclusion: ‘Es ist diese trinitarische Logik des christlichen Glaubens, die den Interpretationsrahmen bereitstellte, in dem sich christologische Reflexion über die Identität Jesu Christi entwickelte’ (272). And it is out of the perspective of this Trinitarian structure that the divinity of Christ cannot be understood if the temporal and bodily humanity of Christ is denied, and likewise the humanity of Christ cannot be understood if it is not at the same time grasped as the self-identification of God in this human’s life.

---

[1] I am not sure he should be so confident that it is ‘von auschlaggebender Bedeutung’ that specifically ‘die Identifikation Gottes in diesen beiden Strängen’ are so key to understanding NT texts (see p. 267), but the basic point is accepted: NT Christology accepts and modifies a canonical OT monotheistic vision (rightly understood!).

[2] Certainly Paul, for example, can speak of such and such ‘through Christ’, but I think that the older Religionsgeschichtliche Schule expressed the matter more precisely when they spoke of the ‘peculiar thoroughgoing duplication’ of the object of religious faith and veneration (so Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 205). Christ is also, and more often, the one to (not simply through) whom Christians relate.

Christology in total crisis

Christoph Schwöbel’s „Christologie und trinitarische Theologie“ is a fine essay is found in Schwöbel’s (highly recommended) book, Gott in Beziehung Gott: Studien zur Dogmatik (Mohr Siebeck, 2002). In the first (of five) parts, he describes what he calls Christologie in der Krise.

Schwöbel with Mr Miyagi Prof. Eiichi Katayanaga

Drawing largely on an essay by W. Härle, he makes three points. First, with reference to Lessing, is the antinomy between the “Historischen” and the “Letztgültigen” (or ultimate). This contrast can take many forms, and can label, for example the antinomies between contingent and necessary being, temporal and eternal, historical and metaphysical, functional and ontological etc. This then reflects the divide between biblical exegesis, on the one hand, and dogmatic theology on the others. The former is a historical discipline, while the latter concerns itself with metaphysical and ultimate. In systematic this is described, he adds, as a distinction between christologies “from below” and “from above”.

The second antinomy, again with reference to Lessing, is that between the past and the present. ‘Es scheint in der modernen Christologie nicht länger möglich zu sein, ein integriertes Bild von Jesu Christi Vergangenheit und von seiner Gegenwart für uns und für die Welt zu entwerfen‘ (261). This contrast is then felt in the question as to whether Christology should begin with the historical Jesus, or with the presence of the risen Lord of Christian confession.

Third, Schwöbel outlines the disjunction between ‘Sein’ and ‘Sinn’, ‘being’ and ‘meaning’. Famously, this contrast found expression, he argues, in Melanchthon’s dictum, ‘To know Christ is to know his benefits’ as well as in Bultmann’s kerygma. Here we see the fault lines between the Person and Work of Christ, between soteriology (meaning) and Christology (metaphysical speculation on being). We are often left with non-soteriological ontology or non-ontological soteriology.

These three antinomies confronts us, Schwöbel maintains, with a modern christological crisis which is a picture of disintegration.

What do you think? Fair cop?