Posted by: Nick Norelli | September 30, 2007

Unitarians & High Christology

The question I want to ask in this post is can Unitarians hold a high Christology?  I have had conversations with Unitarians in which they have said that they have a very high Christology although they deny the deity of Christ.  My question is, is this possible?  Does it not seem more like mere lip-service than an actual reality?  Raymond E. Brown said:

Scholars distinguish different kinds of christology. “Low christology” covers the evaluation of him [Jesus] in terms that do not necessarily include divinity, e.g., Messiah, Rabbi, Prophet, High Priest, Savior, Master. “High christology” covers the evaluation of Jesus in terms that include an aspect of divinity, e.g., Lord, Son of God, God.

[Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to New Testament Christology, (New York: Paulist, 1994), 4]

If the standard Unitarian position is one that denies Christ’s divinity then can the following statement be true?

I have no problem with a high Christology, an exalted Lord Jesus, I give him praise for what he has done, what he is doing, and what he will do. I worship Jesus as my King and Messiah that will return to rule the world. But I will not rob Yahweh of what is rightly his, and his alone, worship as God.

[John O commenting on "Did Jesus Think He Was God? - John 17:3"]

If we follow Brown’s simple definition then this particular Unitarian holds a low Christology.  Anthony DeMarco said:

Is Jesus God? To most Christians for the past 1700 years, the answer has been a firm Yes. To them, the question was settled in the fourth century at the Council of Nicea, which proclaimed Christ to be “God of God, Light of Light…of one essence with the Father” in its Christological creed (Christology being the study of Christ’s nature). Not everyone agreed and, to this day, many people dissent. We, of course, are in that minority. As a result, we unitarians are frequently accused of demeaning Jesus by disagreeing with the creed.

["Basics of Biblical Christology for Unitarian Christians" in Focus on the Kingdom, 9/8, (May 2007), 1.] (Online Here)

Is it not demeaning to treat Jesus as less than God rather than as God? Is not the act of demeaning simply to lower someone’s character, status, or reputation?  Again I ask, is it possible for Unitarians to hold a high Christology?

I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this…

B”H 

Posted in Christology, Unitarianism

« Inerrancy & High Views of Scripture
Confessiones »

Responses

“Is it not demeaning to treat Jesus as less than God rather than as God?”

If he is God, then yes. If he is not, then no. As you quoted me, I give Jesus a great deal of honor, respect, and worth. But without the Father YHWH, Jesus is nothing - for that is the God that Jesus called on for help.

Arguing from definition is a useless task when not everyone gets to contribute to the definition :)

By: JohnO on September 30, 2007
at 5:24 pm

John,

Words have meaning, meaning that we do not all get to vote on or contribute to. How would you propose that we argue if not according to the definition of words and terms? Granted, certain terms’ meanings change over time but I don’t believe that you can demonstrate that this is the case with the term ‘high Christology’.

My question is can a Unitarian genuinely hold a high Christology — I don’t believe that they can. Now you seem to want to redefine the term to mean something that it does not, and perhaps in time the definition will shift to something more amenable to your current position, but until then what? Can you honestly say that your Christology is high according to the meaning of the term? And if not, then why use the term at all?

By: Nick Norelli on September 30, 2007
at 5:34 pm

:Does it not seem more like mere lip-service than an actual reality?

Definitely. And that is by no means the only lip-service that disregards or outright defies actual readily verifiable reality that Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us engage in. Unitarian*Universalists quite regularly make a total mockery of the various “principles and purposes” that they ostensibly “covenant” to affirm and promote.

The Unitarian*Universalist U*Us that I know have few qualms about attacking someone’s character, and lowering their status, or reputation however I am not sure that having doubts about Jesus being God, or even the Son of God, fits that description.

By: The Emerson Avenger on October 4, 2007
at 9:35 pm

Since Unitarianism is non-creedal, there’s nothing to stop Unitarians holding a high Christology.

As a monist (one Divine, many faces) I would say that Jesus is a deity, in the same way as Krishna, or Buddha or Kwan-Yin or Odin. But then I’m one of those annoying Pagan Unitarians :)

As far as the Gospels are concerned, what evidence for the Trinity can you find there? (Apart from all three Persons being mentioned, which is not the same as the complex theology of the Trinity, such as perichoresis, coinherence, hypostases, etc.)

By: Yvonne on November 19, 2007
at 5:02 am

Yvonne,

Actually, there are quite a few Unitarian groups that are ‘creedal.’ The Arians of the 4th century certainly were (I’d recommend Franz Dünzl’s little book on the History of the Trinity in the Early Church for more on this — see my review on the side bar), and modern Unitarians of the Modalistic variety (i.e., the UPCI) affirm statements of belief and doctrinal commitments.

But in the post I had in mind so-called ‘Biblical’ Unitarians (of the Socinian variety). This is also group that is somewhat creedal (see the Racovian catechism). This particular group holds Jesus to be a mere man with no hint of divinity — that qualifies by definition as a ‘low’ Christology.

As far as your questions about the Gospels (did you have in mind just the 4 or the entire NT?) are concerned, it would be like asking what evidence you find for an oak tree in an acorn. A developed creedal Trinitarianism is the result of reflection on what the Bible said, but we can see what I call an ‘elemental’ Trinitarianism in the NT.

So I can find all of the seeds that grew into creedal doctrine of the Trinity in the 4 Gospels (and by extension entire NT). For the record, perichoresis is coinherence and hypostasis is a word used in the NT (see Heb. 1:3 — ὑποστάσεως) — but as I’m sure you are aware, this was a term that was used in different ways in the East and the West and one that developed a more concrete meaning over time.

By: Nick Norelli on November 19, 2007
at 11:35 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories