There is power in the cross of Christ. In this excerpt, pastor, theologian, and historian Cletus Hull introduces us to his new book, The Wisdom of the Cross and the Power of the Spirit in the Corinthian Church: Grounding Pneumatic Experiences and Renewal Studies in the Cross of Christ.

The cross of Jesus and Christology are inseparably intertwined. Jürgen Moltmann succinctly writes that “Christianity has rightly been described as ‘the religion of the cross.’”[1] Across the spectrum of church history, numerous theologians have written about Paul’s Christology. St. Basil, of the Cappadocian Fathers accentuated, as Paul wrote in Colossians 1:15 that Christ was “the Image of the Invisible God.”[2] Martin Luther’s theologia crucis expounded the Pauline theology of the message of the cross. John Calvin shared a high view of the cross in his writings. These theologians, among others, noted and observed from Paul’s epistolography, the apostle’s emphasis on the cross.

This excerpt comes from pages 9-10 of The Wisdom of the Cross and the Power of the Spirit in the Corinthian Church: Grounding Pneumatic Experiences and Renewal Studies in the Cross of Christ by Cletus L. Hull, III (Pickwick, 2018).

On the other hand, modern theologians have invented a schizophrenic relationship with the cross. The so-called New Perspective on Paul offers a drastically different view of the salvific message of Christ. E.P. Sanders advocates in NPP [Editor’s note: Follow this link for PneumaReview.com coverage of the “new perspective on Paul.”] that the Jews did not live by a system of works-righteousness. He counters Luther’s reformation views of sola fide claiming that Luther misrepresents Paul as well as Judaism. However, his unorthodox writings eliminate the strong vitality that the apostle declares in the Pauline corpus (Eph. 2:8-10).

Historical-critical theologians such as Rudolph Bultmann and John Macquerrie spiritualize the cross to the extent that the historicity of the life of Christ is diminished. Their demythologizing of the Bible creates suspicion and lack of belief in the supernatural. Michael Welker in God the Spirit writes that “it is no secret that biblical criticism has totally destroyed all attempts to divinize Scripture or to attribute any form of ‘supernaturalness’ to it.”[3] These rationalist modern biblical interpreters reveal their bias toward a suspicious Enlightenment approach to scripture. Ultimately, because of the emphasis placed on their notions, the vitality and power of the cross has generated a diminutive effect in the life of the church and the academy.

Yet, not all present-day theologians consent to liberal theology. Udo Schnelle, Frank Matera, and Gerhard Forde creatively write about a classical teaching of the cross. In the past thirty years, an abundance of evangelical scholars have written and superlatively supported an original Pauline theology. My survey of this most important topic includes their works.

Edward Irving’s Incarnational Christology, Part 1

Edward Irving’s Incarnational Christology, Part 2

This is the third of a three-part series by Trevor Martindale. He gives us an in-depth look at how Edward Irving, one of the 19^th Century’s most important church leaders, understood the meaning of God coming in the flesh. What does that controversy have to teach us today?

Part Three: Assessing Irving’s Orthodoxy

“In my humble opinion, if the common interpretation of the Bible is to be followed, our friend [Edward Irving] is perfectly right, nay indubitably and palpably so: at all events, the gainsayers are utterly, hopelessly, and stone-blindly wrong.”[1] ~ Thomas Carlyle

Now that the framework of Irving’s theological views upholding his notion of Christ’s sinful flesh has been presented, this chapter evaluates his views in light of a wider perspective; by considering his historical position within the development of contemporary theology. The viability of his views will be assessed on this basis.

3.1.    Questioning Irving’s Heterodoxy

The initial obstacle to the task of assessing Irving’s orthodoxy regards the question of how the notion of ‘heresy’ is to be approached. In Irving’s day, heresy was certainly thought of as “teaching that is regarded as [being] contrary to the basic confession of the church in some central point or points, such that the confession is endangered by it.”[2] A heretic was, therefore, a Christian whose divergent stance with regard to the faith involuntarily bars him from the path of salvation.[3] Yet such treatment of this issue has recently attracted stern criticism.

Post-modernity has produced increasingly anti-authoritarian attitudes towards the established church. This has resulted in orthodoxy being understood as a dogma that is imposed on people by a coercive authority while a heretic is understood to be a victim of suppression by an intolerant church.[4] Walter Bauer’s thesis on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity argues that there were many prevalent orthodox forms of belief within the universal Christian community.[5] Consequently, these widespread and varied views were regarded as heterodox while simultaneously being upheld as authentic Christian expressions. Christianity could exist in a variety of forms and the lines between orthodoxy and heresy were indeterminate. Certainly, the valuing of diversity of opinion within post-modernity makes it possible for contemporary theologians to suggest that the category of ‘heresy’ is no longer applicable in the church today.[6] Excommunication for heresy is, therefore, no longer a viable possibility, especially when today’s heresy may become tomorrow’s orthodoxy.[7] The general sway of conclusions over recent years about Irving’s views (i.e. from being heretical to orthodox) bears witness to this phenomenon.

To be sure, Bauer’s thesis is in line with the post-modern criticism that categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are notions used by the establishment of the church to impose a controlling influence upon others. This criticism could well be applied to Irving’s situation, as his eventual deposition and official condemnation as a ‘heretic’ was a direct result of the elders of his own church disagreeing with his decision to allow the manifestation and operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit within the church worship services. The ousting of Irving from the Church of Scotland could legitimately be viewed as a manipulation of religious politics that superseded the task of honest doctrinal inquiry. One could conclude, then, that any continuing debate over whether Irving was a heretic or not should be rendered obsolete, especially given that the Church of Scotland has since recanted from its incrimination of him.

However, the hasty rejection of notions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, simply due to a critical attitude towards church government, carries with it the danger of a biased perspective. Exhibiting a willingness to entertain heresy based on the possibility of it becoming orthodoxy in future would be misguided, as there have been a number of heretical teachings that have consistently been opposed by the universal church in every generation.[8] H.E.W. Turner rejects Bauer’s overly critical thesis by arguing that the early church universally did, in fact, hold to a number of fixed elements of orthodoxy.[9] Howard Marshall emphasizes the presence of theological diversity among apostolic writers as well as a clear distinction between heretical and orthodox issues in the New Testament church.[10] Also, most evangelical authorities today agree that evidence within early church history and theology shows that boundaries for orthodoxy were present earlier and more widespread than Bauer had allowed.[11] Still, Turner agrees with Bauer’s call for the church to recognise the presence of theological diversity in the second century church, as well as the need for the recognition of doctrinal diversity within Christian teaching today.

Edward Irving’s Incarnational Christology, Part 1

This is the second of a three-part series by Trevor Martindale. He gives us an in-depth look at how Edward Irving, one of the 19^th Century’s most important church leaders, understood the meaning of God coming in the flesh. What does that controversy have to teach us today?

Part Two: The Crux of Irving’s Christology

This chapter will expose the fundamental concept underlying Irving’s Christology. Our treatment should not be understood to be exhaustive of his Christology on the whole. However, special consideration will later be given to the relationship between the Incarnation and the Atonement within our task.

2.1.    Orthodox Doctrine at Stake – Irving’s Christ as Sinner?

Before one can examine Irving’s views in any depth, it is necessary to first make note of the key theological presuppositions that surrounded the historical controversy between the years of 1827 and 1833. Irving’s encounter with Henry Cole provides a well-summarised glimpse into the theological issues that influenced the parameters of the controversy. The importance of this encounter should not be overlooked, as most who have written on this topic have inserted the encounter in their examination of the controversy. Yet very few have analysed the details of the theological presuppositions present within the conversation. We find this as sufficient reason for examining the theological issues pertinent to their confrontation, as follows:

My address and questions, and your answers, were as follows: ‘I believe, Sir, a considerable part of the conclusion of your discourse this evening has been upon the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.’ You answered in the affirmative. – I added, ‘If I mistake not, you asserted that the human body of Christ was sinful substance.’ You replied, ‘Yes I did.’ – I continued, ‘But is that your real and considerate belief?’ You answered, ‘Yes it is, as far as I have considered the subject.’ And here you produced a book, which I believe was some national confession of faith, to confirm your faith and assertions: in which you pointed out to me these words, (if I mistake not,) ‘The flesh of Jesus Christ, which was by nature mortal and corruptible.’ – Upon which I continued with amazement, ‘But do you really maintain, Sir, that the human body of Jesus Christ was sinful, mortal and corruptible?’ You replied, ‘Yes, certainly. Christ (you continued) did no sin: but his human nature was sinful and corrupt; and his striving against these corruptions was the main part of his conflict.[2]

It is evident that issues contained within Irving’s assertion regarded the questions of whether his body was mortal and corruptible. Before Cole had heard about Irving, he had authored a tract positing a theory that the incarnate body of Christ was inherently immortal, incorruptible and without any taint of sin.[3] The foundation for his belief was the presupposition that sin was totally absent from Christ’s body because “where there is sin, there must inevitably and unalterably be mortality: and where there is mortality, there must inevitably and unalterably be sin.”[4] The notion of Christ’s mortality was inconceivable for Cole as this could only be due to the defilement and pollution of sin within his body, which would in turn make him a sinner.

In this three-part series, Trevor Martindale gives us an in-depth look at how Edward Irving, one of the 19^th Century’s most important church leaders, understood the meaning of God coming in the flesh. What does that controversy have to teach us today?

Abstract
This dissertation examines the theological viability of Edward Irving’s notion of Christ’s ‘sinful flesh’. The foundational element of this notion determines that his belief in Christ to have been fully consubstantial with mankind necessitates the positing of his assumption of a fallen human nature under the same conditions that are common to all humanity. We argue that Irving’s contextual claims challenged the predominant doctrinal formulations of Federal Calvinism, which had departed from earlier Patristic and Reformed theological requirements for the vicariously salvific nature of the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ to be based primarily on ontological or substantial union with mankind.

Introduction

At the heart of the Christian faith is the resolute conviction that “the Word became human and lived here on earth among us.”^[2] The belief that Jesus Christ is “God with us”^[3] exhibits the foundational driving force of the Christian message – the Incarnation. While the origins of this doctrine are Biblically traceable,^[4] its development has often prompted intense controversy. From the great Christological controversies of the Patristic era^[5] to a more recent debate over the Incarnation as ‘myth’,^[6] such examples illustrate the church’s continual quest to understand what the Incarnation means for humanity within each generational context in which she finds herself. The importance of this doctrine cannot be underestimated, as the age-long struggle concerning issues pertaining to the Incarnation has often led to radical reinterpretation of foundational truths of the Christian faith[7] ­– interpretations that are not always welcomed by the established church community.

As we begin, some remarks concerning the methodology used to achieve this are necessary. The aim of Chapter one will be to provide a ‘bird’s-eye view’ of the historical controversy. This will involve a brief summary of pertinent biographical details of Irving’s life followed by a review of the significant literature that has been written both in support and rejection of his ideas since his death.

In Matthew 16:16 Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter gave a direct answer, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This response remained the traditional answer of the church until the dawn of the Enlightenment in the western world. In our postmodern Christianity, Dr. Ann Christie (Senior Lecturer in Theology and Ministry at York St. John University in the UK) presents an empirical study of Jesus in her book Ordinary Christology. She offers a theological appraisal highlighting the voices and opinions of lay people considering the characteristics of Jesus’ life. Christie, raised a Roman Catholic, eventually involved herself with the evangelical-charismatic renewal and is now a self-proclaimed liberal in her theological perspective (16). Her background as a science teacher (utilizing socio-scientific methods) and broad range of theological experiences furnished her with the opportunity to interview ordinary churchgoers about their beliefs on Jesus and salvation. From her interviews, she identified three christologies; functional, ontological and skeptical. This book review will briefly describe each christological view and how different soteriologies interpret who Jesus and what salvation he provided. I will conclude with an additional element that necessitates consideration in this book.

First, functional christology was the majority sample (30 of 45 interviewees) cross-examined. In this view, Jesus presented himself as an earthly agent of God. Essentially, the respondents believed in an Arian Christianity holding to an absence of the pre-existence of Christ. However, they did not subscribe to the concept that Christ contained two natures, fully God, and human. Second, ontological christology (9 of 45 interviewees) acknowledged that Jesus was fully divine. These persons donned an evangelical theology and read numerous works from academic theologians. Third, skeptical christology (6 of 45 interviewees) believed that Jesus was a good man and rejected a supernatural bodily resurrection or virgin birth.

Ann Christie is Senior Lecturer in Theology at York St John University, York, UK.

Christie also distinguished three soteriologies: exemplarist, traditionalist, and evangelical. First, the exemplarist soteriology recognized the cross of Jesus as a demonstration of God’s love. Second, traditionalist soteriology accepted the standard salvation teachings of the church. Many persons of this view did not question notions of Christ describing his supernatural nature. Third, evangelical soteriology believed in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. Many interviewees stated that they experienced a personal relationship with Jesus.

After assessing these results, she noted that the majority of candidates supported a theocentric, rather than a christocentric spirituality. Because Jesus’ divinity is not clearly stated in the gospels, many churchgoers will not subscribe to the Chalcedon testimony of the church concerning Jesus. Consequently, christology is not necessarily about right doctrine but allowing the Jesus’ story to change our piety; therefore, christology should be more about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. As Christie commented, “finding out what Jesus means to people is arguably more important than finding out who they think he is” (6). Thus, the author’s empirical findings contain important consequences for pastoral, theological, and missiological significance in the church.

Though Christie utilizes empirical methods to assess these results on christology, her discussion evaluates only what people believed Jesus’ divinity comprised. Yet, I believe Jesus’ humanity was not taken seriously in the interviews. The issue many churchgoers have is that Jesus accomplished what he did because he was God (or not God). However, if she was concerned with orthopraxy, why was no assessment of his humanity with christology mentioned? The scriptures speak of picking up our cross and following him. Jesus called his disciples to be like him. Therefore, a complete orthopraxy would examine the divine identity of Christ made known through an incarnational hermeneutic (John 1:14). Until the Enlightenment, most of church history took Jesus’ divinity for granted at the expense of his humanity. Humankind’s broken and fragmented life has more to do with his humanity than his divinity. Hence, to fully understand how to live, we must understand Jesus’ humanity. I believe Dr. Christie’s Ordinary Christology requires a further study on the human Jesus and interview questions drawing out belief about the humanity of Jesus. In short, a complete look at orthopraxy should include an evaluation of how Jesus’ humanity relates to his divinity, and this is where orthopraxy with orthodoxy can balance out this empirical process.

Reviewed by Cletus L. Hull, III

Publisher’s page

Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 707 pages, ISBN 9781598560350.

Gordon D. Fee, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, and noted Pauline scholar, offers exhaustive coverage of Pauline Christology in this book. Readers of the Pneuma Review need to be aware that Fee is unabashedly Pentecostal, the Spirit holding a central place in his studies, having already released his compendium volume regarding the Spirit within the Pauline corpus (God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, 1994). Seemingly rejecting a narrative approach to Paul’s Christology, Fee opts for the combination of exegetical analysis of passages and a theological synthesis of the materials; the same structure as his earlier work on the Spirit in Paul. Ascribing all of the traditionally credited books to the authorship of Paul, Fee descriptively details each book and its Christological content individually for the better part of 450 pages (10 chapters), and then offers a constructive synthesis of the data as it relates Paul’s distinctive Christology. I note the expansive exegesis so as to highlight the fact that Fee does not lightly hold the Biblical writ, but bases his understanding of Pauline Christology on it, and not upon conjecture (Pneuma Review readers would do well to read his practical guide, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth). Fee’s constructive synthesis provides the following themes: 1) that Christ is the Divine Savior, 2) that Jesus is the Second Adam, effectively undoing what the first Adam did, 3) and that Jesus is both the Son of God and the exalted Lord of heaven and earth. In so doing, Fee demonstrates that Paul possesses a very high view of Christology. Fee consistently shows that Paul is unequivocal in his declaration that Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man at one and the same time. This is supported strongly within Paul by the ease with which he transitions between speaking of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, hence equating the two. Pneuma Review readers will value the attention to detail, along with the various chapter appendices serving as compendia of the relevant passages.

Reviewed by Bradford McCall

Publisher’s page: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/pauline-christology/334413

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 300 pages, ISBN 9780801026218.

Christology is one in a series of books published in recent years by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, a Finnish-born theologian who currently teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary. As the subtitle suggests, the author offers a broad, international and ecumenical approach to the doctrine of Christ. This book is the second of a three-part textbook series on God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all published by Baker Academic. Pastors, teachers and scholars will benefit from this introductory text which offers a comprehensive survey of biblical, historical and modern reflections on the doctrine of Christ. This lucid presentation of Christian thinking stands out particularly for its unique and comprehensive treatment of contemporary contextual Christologies in non-Western cultures and their multi-faceted theological approaches as, for example, in African, Asian or Latin American thought.

Kärkkäinen offers an exceptional overview of contextual Christologies that have emerged in and beyond the Western world. The reader will be hard-pressed to find another introduction to the subject with a similar spectrum of contemporary Christian thought. This highly relevant part of the book highlights the fact that Christology, like few other fields of study in theology, is intimately connected to culture and worldview. Feminist, black, process and postmodern approaches to the doctrine of Christ are among the images that bring color to this kaleidoscope of theological reflections. The book concludes with an important, if somewhat short, evaluation of the future of Christology.

Kärkkäinen also shines in his presentation of contemporary Western Christology. He introduces ten theologians who have written extensively on the doctrine of Christ, among them Karl Barth, Rudolph Bultmann and Paul Tillich from the first part of the twentieth century, as well as a number of contemporary representatives from the major Christian traditions, such as Karl Rahner (Roman Catholic), John Zizioulas (Eastern Orthodox), Jürgen Moltmann (Reformed), Wolfhart Pannenberg (Lutheran) and Stanley Grenz (Baptist). The only major Christian tradition not represented in this overview is Pentecostalism which, as the author remarks, has not yet offered a comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of Christ. This well-placed observation is sure to spark interest among Pentecostals; it reveals a glimpse of Kärkkäinen’s own Pentecostal origins and should be understood as an invitation to enter into dialogue with the rich and inspiring mosaic of contemporary thought on the person of Jesus Christ.

At a time when the continual publication of new books and articles on the person and work of Christ has created a panorama of opinions in which no one can keep up with all the developments, Kärkkäinen offers a concise introduction to the global situation. Similar to its companion volumes, Christology consists of about 30 chapters of very manageable length. The treatments of individual theologians generally consist of less than 10 pages each and make for a very enjoyable and educational reading experience. These snapshots of important theologians are undoubtedly the highlight of the book.

The Western authors chosen by Kärkkäinen in this volume are similar to those of the other books in the series. This has both positive and negative consequences. Kärkkäinen’s grasp of the various contemporary authors offers a remarkable survey of the Christological landscape that is sure to guide the reader into new territory. On the other hand, some readers may question Kärkkäinen’s principle of selection. For example, not all significant Catholic or Orthodox writers have been included in this survey. The immense Christological project of Edward Schillebeeckx, for example, is missing completely. In addition, a whole section on the growing importance of Spirit-Christology, not only among Roman Catholic theologians, would have been a justifiable and insightful addition to book.