High/low Christology

[Mendalla]

Okay, I hear these terms used periodically (most recently in the Cruxifusion thread). Can someone please give clear definitions? Is it an either/or binary or endpoints of a continuum? Do all Christians fall somewhere on the continuum (or at one of the options if binary)?

 

[Pinga]

@revjohn @RevNP -- want to give it a shot?

 

[Mendalla]

Or @revsdd , for that matter, who mentioned criticism of his "high Christology".

 

[GordW]

Okay, I hear these terms used periodically (most recently in the Cruxifusion thread). Can someone please give clear definitions? Is it an either/or binary or endpoints of a continuum? Do all Christians fall somewhere on the continuum (or at one of the options if binary)?

It is a continuum. I would argue that all Christians have a Christology that falls on that continuum. OTOH, I know some who claim that they do not even have a Christology which I think is is inaccurate unless they have no opinion about who Christ was/is.

(To oversimplify and get teh discussion going) High Christology preferences the divine aspects of Jesus. Low christology preferences the human aspects of Jesus. Low Christology is more likely to see teh "I Am" statements in John as a later literary addition, not as history, or to see the Virgin birth narrative as theology not history, or the miracle stories as metaphorical.

SOme with Low Christology appear to be adoptionistic (an early heresy) to those with High Christology. Some High Chritological positions may appear docetic (another early heresy) to those of us with Low Christology.

 

[revsdd]

Essentially, a high christology is one that would believe that Christ was both fully divine and fully human, that his coming was foretold by the prophets, that he was in some sense at least the Saviour and uniquely the Son of God and that his crucifixion/resurrection was an actual historical event. A low christology would deny or at least question Christ's divinity and focus only on his humanity, might reject the idea that the prophets pointed to his coming, would perhaps reject his role in salvation, would see him perhaps as "a son of God" but not "the Son of God," and would perhaps see the crucifixion/resurrection in less literal terms. That's a bit simplistic, but more or less sums it up. I'm speaking in more cautious terms about what constitutes a "low" christology because it's not my position and those who hold to a low christology might not agree with the details. There are a variety of possible position between the two. The common feature is that anyone with a "christology" makes a place for Christ - he is in some way central to their faith. To paraphrase @GordW - who holds to a self-described low christology - he still believes that Christian faith revolves around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but he and I would perhaps interpret those events differently.

 

[Pinga]

Curious, do you think that there are people of both low and high Christology in Cruxifusion?

Also, we had High and Low church in the Anglican church. Any connection?

 

[revsdd]

Curious, do you think that there are people of both low and high Christology in Cruxifusion?

Also, we had High and Low church in the Anglican church. Any connection?

Well, I can only speak of the Cruxifusion Facebook group. GordW and I are both members of that group. One high christology, one low christology. So far we haven't come to blows. Gord and I have just learned to live with the fact that I'm right and he's wrong.

High and low church Anglican generally has less to do with christology specifically and more to do with worship style. High church is more formal, low church is more informal. High church Anglicanism tends to be more focused on the sacraments and tends to give priests greater authority. I've heard "high" Anglican churches referred to as "smells and bells churches."

 

[GordW]

Well, I can only speak of the Cruxifusion Facebook group. GordW and I are both members of that group. One high christology, one low christology. So far we haven't come to blows. Gord and I have just learned to live with the fact that I'm right and he's wrong.

Believe what you want @revsdd ...

 

[revjohn]

Okay, I hear these terms used periodically (most recently in the Cruxifusion thread). Can someone please give clear definitions? Is it an either/or binary or endpoints of a continuum? Do all Christians fall somewhere on the continuum (or at one of the options if binary)?

Definitely a continuum.

Basically it is how we understand Jesus.

High Christology sees Jesus as God incarnate.

Low Christology sees Jesus as just this guy you know (with apologies to Douglas Adams, his fans, family and estate).

 

[revjohn]

Curious, do you think that there are people of both low and high Christology in Cruxifusion?

Both exist. I think the group skewes to high Christology.

Also, we had High and Low church in the Anglican church. Any connection?

Given context of Anglicanism I suspect the high and low refers to liturgy.

High being the bells and smells while low is no frills Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Luce NDs]

Okay, I hear these terms used periodically (most recently in the Cruxifusion thread). Can someone please give clear definitions? Is it an either/or binary or endpoints of a continuum? Do all Christians fall somewhere on the continuum (or at one of the options if binary)?

If binary ... would that be a deuce?

 

[Seeler]

Definitely a continuum.

Basically it is how we understand Jesus.

High Christology sees Jesus as God incarnate.

Low Christology sees Jesus as just this guy you know (with apologies to Douglas Adams, his fans, family and estate).

Revjohn - I don't know this Douglas Adams to whom you refer and unless you have a winking smilie face or a tongue in cheek, I find your fefinition of low Christology insulting. I consider myself somewhere on the low side of the continuum but I certainly don't consider Jesus 'just this guy I know'.

 

[revsdd]

Revjohn - I don't know this Douglas Adams to whom you refer and unless you have a winking smilie face or a tongue in cheek, I find your fefinition of low Christology insulting. I consider myself somewhere on the low side of the continuum but I certainly don't consider Jesus 'just this guy I know'.

You might be on the low side of the continuum, but revjohn is fully accurate in his description of the two extremes on the continuum. Jesus is God incarnate through Jesus is this guy I know would be the two extremes. It's a continuum. You're somewhere between the two, on the low side of centre. No reason to be insulted. I strongly believe in the incarnation, but I find "Jesus is God Incarnate" to be somewhat too simplistic in that it runs the risk of de-emphasizing the human nature of Jesus. I would prefer to say that Jesus was God in human flesh. So I'm somewhere between the two extremes as well - but I'm not insulted by the extreme high christology revjohn mentions.

 

[Jaebius]

Revjohn - I don't know this Douglas Adams to whom you refer and unless you have a winking smilie face or a tongue in cheek, I find your fefinition of low Christology insulting. I consider myself somewhere on the low side of the continuum but I certainly don't consider Jesus 'just this guy I know'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

 

[Mendalla]

Revjohn - I don't know this Douglas Adams to whom you refer and unless you have a winking smilie face or a tongue in cheek, I find your fefinition of low Christology insulting. I consider myself somewhere on the low side of the continuum but I certainly don't consider Jesus 'just this guy I know'.

The late Douglas Adams was one of the funniest, most intelligent comic writers of the twentieth century, mainly notable as the creator of the multimedia phenomenon The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which exists as a radio series, novels, TV series, computer game, and movie. Alas, he died far too young of a heart attack just after turning in the first draft of the movie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

Offering wry but perfectly accurate descriptions of things and people was one of Adams' specialties.

 

[paradox3]

Interested to know how to pronounce the word Christology.

Is the first syllable pronounced like the Christ in "Jesus Christ"? Or Christ as in "Christmas"?

I never encountered this term until WC and WC2 . . . amazing when I think of all I have learned here.

 

[revsdd]

Interested to know how to pronounce the word Christology.

Is the first syllable pronounced like Christ as in "Jesus Christ"? Or Christ as in "Christmas"?

I never encountered this term until WC and WC2 . . . amazing when I think of all I have learned here.

As in "Christmas."

As you may have picked up, christology is basically your understanding of Christ, as theology is your understanding of God and pneumatology is your understanding of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mendalla]

So a non-Christian, ie. a UU, could have a Christology though it would probably be at the low end or maybe trending towards the middle in the case of Muslims (for whom Jesus is a very important, divinely inspired prophet, but not a divinity).

 

[paradox3]

As you may have picked up, christology is basically your understanding of Christ, as theology is your understanding of God and pneumatology is your understanding of the Holy Spirit.

I wonder why we never talk about high or low theology. (Or do we? I have never heard these terms)

Pneumatology is a new one for me. It reminds me of lungs although the prefix for lung-related things is "pneumo" rather than "pneuma".

 

[paradox3]

So a non-Christian, ie. a UU, could have a Christology though it would probably be at the low end or maybe trending towards the middle in the case of Muslims (for whom Jesus is a very important, divinely inspired prophet, but not a divinity).

Yes, I would think so.

Does a person who thinks Jesus is of no particular importance have a non-existent Christology or an extremely low one?