Christ The Center
One
of the most debated topics during the early church was Christology. From Christ birth to his resurrection,
certain issues were discussed to properly comprehend the person of Jesus
Christ. In their desire to know and
understand Christ, several propositions were made about him. Unfortunately, most of the propositions made
were later declared heretical by church councils. The question of “how” was regularly asked in
order to understand the “who”. However,
Dietrich Bonhoeffer opines that instead of asking “how”, the proper query
should be “Who”.
The book is a compilation of
lectures made by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Berlin.
It was not authored by Bonhoeffer himself, but the contents of which
were derived from the notes made by his students. The book composed of three parts, namely: the
present Christ, historical Christ, and eternal Christ. There were notes collated for the first two
parts, however, for the third part, it is believed that Bonhoeffer was not able
to finish or deliver his lecture.
In the introductory part of the
book, Boenhoffer began his discussion with concept of Logos. He states that the concept of “study” was
derived from the word Logos. Hence, when
applied to Christology, it would then mean “study of study” because Christ is
Logos. Further, he claims that
Christology is science par excellence because we are not limiting our study or
evaluation upon study as an end in itself. Rather, there is an external factor that gives
more meaning to the subject of the study. In Christology, this external factor is transcendence. This transcendence, according to Bonhoeffer,
challenges the human logos/reason. Since
human reason has pre-existing classifications, it then does not have any
category on how to classify the Logos which became in human flesh. In the confrontation of the transcendence,
human reason/logos is then confronted with its own limitation. According to Bonhoeffer, “the question of transcendence is the
question of existence, and the question of existence is the question of
transcendence. In theological terms: it is only from God that man knows who he
is…question of transcendence and of existence become questions concerning the
person”.
Anent
the Person and Work of Christ, Bonhoeffer noted that many tend to define the
“person” of Jesus by the work/s that he performed. However, the works of Jesus are ambiguous,
and are subject to different interpretations.
Conversely, the works of Jesus should be defined by “who” he is. In
short, the being defines the doing. Further,
we should not separate the person from the work of Jesus. He went to the claim that the complete Christ
is the historical Jesus.
As
to Jesus’ existence, Boenhoeffer claims that Jesus is the ever present Christ,
and this presence is in terms of time and space. How is Christ present? For Bonhoeffer, Christ can never be thought
of as being for himself, but only in relation to me. That in turn means that Christ can only be
thought of existentially, especially in the church. Jesus then bound himself for us (pro me).This then leads to three
implications, to wit: as the first fruit for me, he stands in my place; Christ
stands for his new humanity before God; and because he is the new humanity,
humanity is in him, and God is gracious to humanity which is in Jesus.
Moreover,
the God-man Jesus is also existentially pro me in the church in the form of the
Word, Sacrament, and Community. As a
Word, Bonhoeffer explains that since “man is under the necessity of
understanding the meaning of things.
Because man has logos, God meets him in the Logos, who speaks and who is
himself the Word.” Words do convey clear
meanings, and they are already explanations in themselves. Nevertheless, human logos/reason is different
with Christ as Logos. In the realm of
human logos/reason, Jesus as the Word of God is limited to ideas which are
available to anyone. However, Christ is
more than an idea but an address which is only available to the community where
the address is given in time and space.
This shows the contingency between revelation and men. Further, there is the temptation to see Jesus
as only the bearer of the word rather than as the message itself. In church context, he is the substance of the
preaching or the preaching itself.
Jesus
is not only present as Word but also as Sacrament. Sacraments are not meaningless symbolic
actions but actions which are defined by words.
Thus, sacraments are embodied words.
They become sacraments by virtue of God’s word. God bound himself to the sacraments through
the Word, Jesus Christ, who is completely present in the Sacrament.
In
addition, Jesus is also present as the Church and in the Church. Just as God spoke in the beginning and
created the world, similarly, the church was created through the words of
Jesus. The Church is not only a receiver of the word of revelation but is
itself revelation and word of God. the
church embodies the word, specifically, the Logos of God i.e. Jesus. At the same time, the church is the body of
Christ. The concept of “body” is not only a concept of
function, pertaining to the members of this body. Rather, it relates to existence per se.
In
terms of Christ standing as God-man in time and space, he stands on behalf of
humanity. He stood where humanity should
stand. He stands on the boundary of humanity
and beyond it. It is in the nature and
personality of Jesus to be the center.
He is in the center of human existence, history, and between God and
nature. In the center of human
existence, man stands in between law and fulfilment. Men are incapable of fully complying with the
law. Thus, Christ fulfils the law for
men. With regard to history, history is
composed of promise and fulfilment. History lives in and from this expectation,
promise of messiah. However, Jesus is
both destroyer and fulfiller of messianic expectations. Jesus is the destroyer against false visible
messiahs, and as fulfiller as to God’s entrance into history. Hence, the essence of history is then tied up
with an event-humiliation of Jesus. In
other words, Jesus is the focal point of history. As to being central between God and nature,
this “centerness” is seen in the elements the sacrament whereby ordinary
portions of creation become new due to the Logos of God.
Dietrich
Bonhoeffer did not only discuss the presence of Christ as pro me, but also
about the historical Christ. Bonhoeffer
insists that the Jesus of History and Christ of the faith are one and the same. In discussing historical Jesus, Critical
Christology and Positive Christology are necessary in such discussion. Critical Christology is concerned with
differentiating and setting boundaries against false Jesus. Erroneous Christologies arose during the
early church period, such as Docetism, Ebionism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism,
Subordinationism, and Modalism. On the
other hand, Positive Christology is a by product of councils as they define
these boundaries ever more sharply. A
prominent positive Christology is the Christology set forth in Chalcedon. The
latter states that what can be described or ascribed in one of the natures of
Jesus must be ascribed to the whole person of Jesus, and not to the other
nature. Jesus must be seen as a whole
person with two natures. Bonhoeffer
notes that the separation between Jesus of History and Christ of the Faith in
Liberal Theology is a manifestation of a docetic belief. He asserts that we do not know Jesus because
of some previous knowledge that we know about God. We know Jesus for who he is. Further, we can know about God because of the
God-man Jesus.
Personally, I have never read any of the
works of Bonhoeffer nor do I have any idea as what Bonhoeffer believed. I once thought of Bonhoeffer as liberal
theologian. However, Christ The Center
clearly showed that Bonhoeffer has a robust and evangelical Christology. In this book, he fought and defended the
classical formulation on Christology. In a time when he could have succumbed to the
Christology of Liberal Theology, he stood his stand to declare and teach the
Chalcedonian Christology. He could have
easily compromised but he did not. It is
also interesting to note that Bonhoeffer focuses on the question of “who”
rather than “how”. He opines that it
through knowing Jesus’s being that we can know his “doing”. I
think we should follow the line of thought of Bonhoeffer that “being” defines
the “doing”. Many evangelicals tend to
find their identity with the works or ministries that they perform. Some are even defined by the positions of
office that they hold. Sadly, there are
many Christians who are defined by what they do than what God has declared them
to be.
Bonhoeffer’s
treatment of the Chalcedonian formulae is also worth emulating. He did not uncritically subscribed to it but
did a critical study and explorations of it.
In our time, there are many who would blindly subscribe to Christian
creeds and confessions without thoroughly understanding their contents. However, we also see the importance of
Christian creeds and confessions in the Christian life, the way Boenhoeffer
handled the Chalcedon Christological formulation. Just as Boenhoeffer allowed the creed to be
tested, the same attitude should be appropriated by every Christians.
