Just wondering why you think these are mutually exclusive positions. Do you believe the historical Jesus was rejecting a life centered on compassion and spiritual practice? Or is it possible Jesus understood so deeply and so unquenchably what compassion is that his life – his historical life – aligned completely with God’s Heart and Mind and created a way for the rest of us to know God as God really is?
1 Like
Excuse me?
It wasn’t me who said:
2 Likes
Archbishop Michael Ramsey’s view of the Resurrection, drawn from his published writings, sermons, and theological essays:
Ramsey insisted that Christianity begins with the Resurrection, not merely as a doctrine but as the event that made all Christian belief possible. In his book The Resurrection of Christ (1944), he writes:
“It is both historically and theologically necessary to begin with the Resurrection. For from it, in direct order of historical fact, came Christian preaching, Christian worship, and Christian belief.”
For Ramsey, the Resurrection is not a later mythic embellishment of Jesus’ life — it is the origin of the Church’s proclamation. Without it, the entire structure of faith collapses.
5 Likes
He said that the problem is identifying Jesus with God. He then proceeded to tell me that I lack humility and quoted Matthew 25, implying that I don’t care about the poors. But I can hardly be surprised: someone with the discernment to declare that Christians have believed a lie for 2000 years would no doubt also feel fully entitled to judge my lack of humility and my supposed indifference to the poor, without knowing absolutely anything about my life. Evidently, dismissing 2000 years of Christian teaching while making assumptions about other people’s lives and inner motives (even implying that they don’t care about the less fortunate) is entirely compatible with humility. Ubi maior, minor cessat, as they said in ancient Rome.
We live in interesting times indeed.
3 Likes
I would ask you why
Why should this be opposed to the truth that He is our God and our Lord? I fail to see any connection between accepting this and rejecting His divinity and seeing Him as a mere enlightened mystic, which would be a complete negation of the Christian faith, of the faith that Christians have held from the beginning.
I mean I don’t see why charity, love and compassion should be set in opposition to truth.
2 Likes
It’s also literally the most ancient testimony we have.
“This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” -James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 854–55.
“It goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” - Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered(Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), p. 48.
“The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s …” - John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), p. 254.
“The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. … the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” -Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 466
The dating ranges from a few months to at most two or three years after the event, making it by far the earliest testimony we possess concerning His resurrection. To insist on calling it a later construct, when the evidence points so clearly in the opposite direction, is to do precisely what they accuse Christians of doing: imposing a later construction on a genuinely early tradition.
3 Likes
* Because the God you seem willing to treat as just another god in a barrel of gods to choose from has done great things for me. The literal interpretation that you say “causes the problem” is the reason my name is not John Sterling Mayfield and that I am not now a drunk—or dead. [A walk down my Memory Lane](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PoLrVqVzjt_pXt3QzjqLkttrGQ3Jbj1-/view?usp=sharing).
I’m afraid that you have, like many before, taken my comment out of context, which is “why do scientists not believe.” I actually understand why you would do that and your personal story is of course touching and I’m glad for you, but we weren’t originally talking about you. I only mentioned my story because you wanted to understand my framing.
You have, unfortunately, reversed what I meant. My point is not that God is merely one among a barrel of gods, but that human beings across cultures are pointing toward the same underlying reality that grounds our lives. God is understood as one not because He is the sole survivor in a field of competing deities, but because He is the ground of all being itself. The unity lies in the nature of the reality being described, not simply in the number of gods permitted by a tradition.
Throughout history, human beings have described this transcendent reality in many different ways, often shaped by their cultural context and stage of spiritual or philosophical development. Some traditions understand it as the totality of all that exists, including you and me, others speak of it as an interactive personal presence. Elsewhere it is described as Dharma, Tao, Primordial Purity, or by a range of other names.
Despite the diversity of language and symbolism, these descriptions can be seen as different attempts to articulate the same profound mystery that underlies existence itself.
* Our separate paths to where each of us is today have led us to very different conclusions.
* My first job after graduating from high school was as a resident night attendant in a mortuary. Around the same time, when I was eighteen, I had to help find a nursing home for my father and step-mother.
* After being discharged from the U.S. Navy in February 1971, I traveled with two companions through northern Greece, Turkey, Iran, into Afghanistan, across Pakistan, and into India. By the grace of my God I did not get lost there permanently, but eventually spent a week in Bangkok before returning to the United States.
We do have very separate paths and like humanity, our paths have left us with different narratives. But that is what I’m talking about. I validate your experience in my understanding of where faith comes from, but I validate any number of experiences that I have heard of. From a subjective perspective, they are all true, but I tend to see them all in the sense of being “fingers that point to the moon.” Our language cannot express our experience fully unless we are poets and even then, our cultural divide can make it difficult.
* I’m a former Catholic Charismatic and have had the experience of living with and caring for the elderly long before becoming one myself. Anointings and sacraments are meaningful and memorable, and their value should never be underestimated.
* It seems clear to me that your experience has led you to value Christianity primarily as a mystical and ethical tradition centered on compassion and spiritual practice. But as someone who has benefited—far more than I deserved—from the love of people who believed in the historical, resurrected Jesus, the mystical pales in comparison.
From what you say, I am glad that you have found such a community, and I am not criticising them. At the same time, my concern extends to the rest of humanity, and above all to those who suffer. The exclusivity with which some Christians defend their faith can sometimes be heartbreaking. I believe that Jesus saw his own people as having a particular calling—to be “a light in the darkness” and “the salt of the earth”—and he focused his message primarily on them. Yet his tragic death also stands within a long line of prophets of compassion whose lives bore witness to self-giving love.
Your experience of the mystical may indeed pale in comparison with the love you have experienced in that community. In my own case, however, mystical experience encourages me to become the love that you describe and to be a channel for the love that arises from an awareness of divine unity.
In this sense, my experience of the mystical resonates with what Paul expressed, though my interpretation differs slightly from yours:
“Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross.”
I understand this passage as pointing to something universal. We all participate in the divine nature and what some traditions call Atman. Yet when human beings come to feel that they possess power or status, they may begin to see themselves as equal to God in a possessive sense. The passage suggests that Jesus showed another way: he relinquished such claims. Instead, he became a servant of all, humbling himself even to the point of death. In doing so, he revealed what the nature of agape truly is.
1 Like
I appreciate the spiritual seriousness of your reading, but I’m afraid it doesn’t survive contact with the actual language of the hymn.
Philippians 2 is not describing a universal divine principle equally shared by all human beings, it’s describing Christ as one who already stood in a uniquely exalted condition before his self-emptying. Gordon Fee states it plainly: “[Philippians 2:5–7] makes the two points that are crucial to NT Christology: (a) Christ was both in the ‘form’ of God and equal with God, and therefore personally preexistent, when he chose to ‘empty himself’ by taking the ‘form’ of a slave” (Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007], p. 388). Gerald O’Collins says the same: “Philippians 2:6–8 suggest a pre-existent, divine state, contrasted with Christ’s ‘subsequent’, humble, human existence” (Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009], p. 250). N. T. Wright is equally explicit: “The pre-existent son regarded equality with God not as excusing him from the task of (redemptive) suffering and death, but actually as uniquely qualifying him for that vocation” (The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991], pp. 83–84).
In other words, the hymn is not saying that all of us share the same divine status and that Jesus merely models a better way of living it, it’s saying that Christ descends from a height that is not common to humanity in general. If everyone equally participates in the same divinity in the sense you suggest, then the whole force of that contrast collapses.
And the hymn does not conclude by saying that all human beings awaken to their shared divine nature. It concludes by saying that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” and “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” O’Collins notes that “Philippians 2:10–11 echoes Isaiah 45:23–4, a classic Old Testament passage celebrating YHWH, the one and only God of Israel and of the whole world” (Christology, p. 144). Richard Bauckham then draws the conclusion you simply cannot evade: “The exaltation of Christ to participation in the unique divine sovereignty shows him to be included in the unique divine identity” (God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], p. 47).
And that is exactly why your universalizing reading fails: in Isaiah, every knee bows to YHWH alone, and in Philippians that universal homage is rendered to Jesus Christ as Lord.
That hymn is not dissolving Christ into a general mystical principle latent in everyone, it’s placing Christ within the unique divine identity itself. Once that is granted, the text cannot be made to say that all of us equally share what belongs uniquely to Christ.
So with respect, this is not really an interpretation of the passage, It is replacement of it. You are taking a hymn about the unique preexistence, humiliation, exaltation, and universal lordship of Christ, and recasting it with your personal meditation on a divinity supposedly shared by all human beings.
If the hymn applies to Jesus the universal homage that Isaiah says belongs to YHWH alone, by what possible exegetical right do you humbly turn that into a statement about a divinity equally shared by everyone?
Also, If Christ’s divine status is nothing more than a universal reality shared equally by all human beings, then why does the hymn present his humiliation as something unique, his exaltation as something unique, and, more importantly, his lordship as the object of universal confession?
1 Like
Looks like we have reached the real difference between us. Correct me if I’m wrong: you seem to understand Christianity primarily as one symbolic language among many for describing a universal mystical reality. I, on the other hand, understand Christianity and the earliest followers of Jesus as making particular historical claims about what God has actually done in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Those are two very different worldviews, and they naturally lead to very different conclusions. My point is simply this: my faith rests on those historical claims, not only on mystical experience or symbolic interpretation.
5 Likes
This, of course, plays into my hands, because how can I have “the same mindset as Christ Jesus” as it says in the verse before if he was uniquely exalted? It would be the same as expecting me to copy a far-advanced alien that comes to earth. This is where scientists obviously baulk and say, “Okay, now we have a supreme being coming down to earth.”
I understand the Christology, of course. I was, after all, someone who preached the Gospel. However, I found that the Jesus who told his followers to follow him was deeply human in everything except in the retelling of his story. In fact, it was a dear old lady that I was driving home from a meeting who said to me, “Rob, how can frail old me attempt to have the mindset of Jesus. He was God!”
I asked her whether it would make any difference if Jesus were an exemplary human being, and she said, “of course it would! He would know my problems, even if he was never as old as I am.”
I asked, “What if you already have divine nature but you have to awaken to it and have to learn to know yourself?”
She looked at me for a moment and was quiet until I stopped to let her out, and then she said, “That’s why the kingdom of God is within. It’s about letting go of my ego, my pretences, my weakness and letting God work in and through me.”
I asked, “Does that make a difference for you?”
“Oh yes,” she said, “At my age, every day could be the last day, and I sometimes struggle to remember what is important, and I’m afraid that I won’t be good enough. But now, I don’t have to be heroic like him, I can just let go and surrender to his love.”
This little conversation on a wet evening in Germany made a lot of difference. It reminded me of the story of the widow who gave her “farthing” and was unnoticed, but who was praised by Jesus for giving all she had, whereas the rich gave a small portion of their wealth. There are examples of people being praised for being compassionate and not thinking about it, or when Jesus said to figuratively go the extra mile, give your shirt if they want your coat.
This is the “self-emptying” of the Gospels, because you are more than you think. Your physical life is like a garment that you will discard at the end of your life. The spontaneous compassion that Jesus encourages is set against the riches that prevent us from going through the “eye of the needle”. It is a society built on this that would be a light for the world and salt of the earth.
But Christianity has chosen to bow the knee rather than follow. Preachers say, “There is nothing you can do because there is no good in you. You need the redemption of the cross.” If that were so, being the same mindset as Jesus would not be possible. You make little old ladies like the one I spoke to despair because she is noticing her memory fade, and will she remember to believe?
Having worked with many patients with dementia, this is a real problem for many people, but if the memory is part of a human coil that we will discard, and my core being is already with God, then this problem goes away. Even the man who led the Bible group and was passionate about memorising scripture and telling people on the street they needed Jesus had dementia to the end of his life. It was deeply unsettling for his wife, but she found consolation in the thought that he was already in God in his weakened condition.
Many traditions have the idea that we forget who we are when we focus on biological survival. That is the job of the ego, but the ego must step aside and allow the recognition that our physical existence is not only temporary, but we are, in fact, part of the divine unity. Jesus, of course, articulated it in the symbolic language of Jewish prophetic and mystical tradition rather than in the metaphysical vocabulary used in traditions such as Vedanta or Buddhism.
In mystical interpretation, kenosis becomes the spiritual path (The Way) itself in which the ego yields so that divine life may be expressed through the person. With Jesus, this translates unity into relational love and instead of saying explicitly “you are the divine,” he emphasises loving God, loving neighbour and serving the least.
The recognition of divine unity, therefore, appears as radical compassion. This is why the central ethical expression becomes agape: self-giving love.
God is beyond human understanding and therefore, we may have differing opinions and viewpoints about these matters (differing images of God). I can understand some points in your comment.
Even in many polyteistic religions, there can be seen a development towards a monotheistic ideal, in the form of a god, spirit or energy that is the source of all the other gods. In that, we can perhaps see a tendency towards increased understanding about the God above everything else. It is easy to think that all the religions strive and can be ways towards God.
Doing good works is a good goal. From the viewpoint of Christianity, good works are expected but they do not save anybody. What is good behaviour is not sufficient for having peace with God.
With Christianity and especially the teachings of Jesus, the ‘problem’ is that the message is quite strongly exclusive. Jesus is pictured as the way, the truth and the life, so that there is no salvation in any other name. If you disagree with that, you are not debating against us contemporary Christians, you are debating against the writers of the biblical scriptures and what is told as the words of Jesus.
When faced with two disagreeing teachings, the teaching in the biblical scriptures vs. yours, my choice is what the biblical scriptures tell.
3 Likes
Looks like we have reached the real difference between us. Correct me if I’m wrong: you seem to understand Christianity primarily as one symbolic language among many for describing a universal mystical reality. I, on the other hand, understand Christianity and the earliest followers of Jesus as making particular historical claims about what God has actually done in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Those are two very different worldviews, and they naturally lead to very different conclusions. My point is simply this: my faith rests on those historical claims, not only on mystical experience or symbolic interpretation.
I appreciate that, but I also know we cannot rule out the possibility that what we call “inspired” scripture was written by men and women, and that only a small portion of these writings was eventually selected for canonisation. That selection was made by particular communities and leaders whose choices inevitably reflected the religious concerns and priorities of their time, roughly three centuries after the events themselves.
This does not necessarily diminish the value of the texts, but it does remind us that the formation of scripture took place within history. The process of transmission, interpretation, and selection was shaped by human judgement as well as by faith.
Consequently, the history that unfolded after the life of Jesus has inevitably influenced how those events were remembered and expressed. In the same way, the theology that has developed since then has been shaped by nearly two thousand years of intellectual, cultural, and scientific development. Each generation has engaged with the tradition through the lens of its own knowledge and experience, contributing new layers of interpretation to the understanding of the original message.
What is disturbing for me is the way in which some forms of American evangelicalism appear to underplay the call to spontaneous compassion that runs so strongly through the teachings of Jesus. The emphasis often seems to fall instead on personal belief, individual salvation, and moral boundaries, sometimes at the expense of the immediate, uncalculated response of compassion toward those who suffer.
In this framework, acts of social solidarity are occasionally criticised for being insufficiently selective, as though compassion must first pass through filters of doctrinal agreement, moral judgement, or group identity before it can be expressed. Yet the ethical impulse that emerges from the teachings attributed to Jesus seems, at least to me, to move in the opposite direction. Compassion appears there as something immediate and unguarded and an instinctive response to human need rather than a carefully measured distribution of aid to those deemed worthy.
One of the most striking features of the Gospel narratives is that care is extended across boundaries: to the poor, the sick, the socially marginalised, and even to those regarded as outsiders or enemies. The compassion depicted there is rarely conditional. It does not appear to ask first whether the recipient belongs to the right group, holds the correct beliefs, or conforms to an approved moral status.
When social solidarity is criticised for being “too indiscriminate,” it can therefore feel like a departure from that spirit. Spontaneous compassion, by its very nature, does not calculate worthiness in advance. It arises from a recognition of shared humanity and vulnerability, and from the intuition that suffering itself is sufficient reason for care.
For me, this raises an important question about the direction of religious life. If the awareness of divine unity truly deepens our understanding of one another, then the natural consequence should be an expansion of compassion rather than its restriction. The call, as I understand it, is not merely to hold correct beliefs, but to allow compassion to flow more freely, beyond the boundaries that our social, political, or religious identities sometimes create.
1 Like
This is your terminology, but not mine. Following Jesus’ words, “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me,” I don’t see it as “good works” trying to earn some redemption, but following the nature of God.
It is spontaneous because of our love of God, to which Jesus attached the love of our neighbour.
Matth. 25 continues: “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
The idea that humanity requires a form of substitutive redemption to appease God’s wrath is not explicitly present in the Gospel narratives. The focus of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels appears to be far more centred on repentance, forgiveness, compassion and the transformation of the human heart than on the notion that divine anger must be appeased through a sacrificial substitute.
Throughout the Gospel accounts, God is frequently portrayed as someone who forgives freely and actively seeks reconciliation with humanity. Parables such as the father who forgives his prodigal son or the shepherd who searches for his lost sheep present divine mercy as something that precedes and invites repentance, rather than something withheld until a debt of punishment has been paid.
Jesus’ message seems to call people to a renewed way of life, one marked by humility, mercy and love for one’s neighbour. Forgiveness is offered generously, often without reference to a required transaction. The emphasis lies in the restoration of relationships rather than in the satisfaction of divine wrath.
The idea that Christ’s death functions as a substitutionary sacrifice to appease God’s anger developed more explicitly in the centuries that followed, particularly as Christian thinkers attempted to interpret the meaning of the crucifixion within the legal and sacrificial frameworks familiar to their own cultures. While these interpretations have become influential within certain strands of Christian theology, they represent just one way of understanding the significance of the crucifixion.
1 Like
There are several ‘models’ or explanations of what happened in the crucifixion, that is true. I think that more than one of these models may add to our understanding, so it is not about selecting one ‘correct’ out of the many viewpoints.
Crucifixion is just one part of what happened, in a series of events from the incarnation to the resurrection. Incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection are all important parts of Christian faith. John uses the incarnation as a criterion of separating false doctrines from the true ones (rejection of gnostic and related beliefs). Resurrection has been pictured as crucial, even to the point that everything we believe is worthless if Christ did not resurrect. Crucifixion is described with many expressions, including the concepts of sacrifice and payment among the others.
2 Likes
Many Jews historically did not reject the idea of resurrection itself, but rather questioned the timing, meaning, and individualisation of the resurrection claimed about Jesus. The disagreement is therefore less about whether resurrection is possible and more about how and when it happens.
In the Judaism of the first century, many groups, especially the Pharisees, believed in a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age, when God restores justice. Because of this expectation, the Christian claim that one individual had already been resurrected in advance would sound unusual. If resurrection marks the final transformation of the world, then a Jew might ask, If Jesus has been raised, why is the world still broken? Why are the dead not all rising? Where is the messianic age of peace?
In other words, resurrection in Jewish thought was typically collective and eschatological, not isolated and mid-history. Early Christians addressed the Jewish objection about timing by developing a new theological idea. In Paul’s letter, Jesus is called “the firstfruits of those who have died” (1 Corinthians 15). The idea that Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning of the final resurrection and that the rest will follow at the end of the age was a creative reinterpretation of Jewish eschatology.
In fact, the earliest Christian belief in the resurrection still looks extremely Jewish, especially in the writings of Paul. It suggests that the first followers of Jesus Christ did not think they had created a new religion at all.
1 Like
It was not a “creative reinterpretation”. It was a reinterpretation that followed the facts that they themselves witnessed and that they were willing to be persecuted and face death to continue to preach.
And precisely the fact that a single resurrection preceeeding the final one was completely outisde the Jewish orthodoxy of the time (just like calling a man “God over all blessed forever” as in Romans 9:5) is what shows that something extraordinary happened that led them to that otherwise unthinkable belief and to that stubborn willingness to preach that truth unto death itself if necessary.
And what happened is outlined in the creed that I mentioned above which is the most ancient testimony we possess and was received by Paul, not invented by him (as basically all modern historians recognize).
You are obviously free to try to spread your errors, just be aware that they will amount to nothing, because Christ’s sheeps hear His voice and will never deviate from the truth.
2 Likes
I appreciate the pastoral concern in what you are saying, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of it, but it still doesn’t answer the exegetical problem.
You are assuming that, if the hymn tells believers to have the same mindset as Christ, then Christ cannot be unique in any serious sense, but that simply doesn’t follow. Ethical imitation doesn’t require ontological equality with the one being imitated. Children imitate their parents without being their equals; disciples imitate a master without sharing the master’s status; and in this passage the hymn is plainly urging imitation of Christ’s humility, not replication of Christ’s pre-existent condition.
In fact, your objection reverses the hym’s logic, because the force of the exhortation depends precisely on Christ’s unique status. Gordon Fee states it plainly: Philippians 2:5–7 teaches that “Christ was both in the ‘form’ of God and equal with God, and therefore personally preexistent, when he chose to ‘empty himself’ by taking the ‘form’ of a slave.” The point is not that all human beings share that status, but that the one who uniquely possessed it did not exploit it. That is exactly why His humility is morally compelling.
So no, this is not like being told to imitate an alien. It is much simpler than that: the hymn is saying, in effect, “if the one who stood in the highest possible condition chose self-emptying service, what excuse do you have for pride? “ N. T. Wright makes the logic explicit: “The pre-existent son regarded equality with God not as excusing him from the task of (redemptive) suffering and death, but actually as uniquely qualifying him for that vocation.” In other words, Christ’s uniqueness is not an obstacle to the argument, it’s the BASIS of the argument.
Your story about the elderly woman is moving, but it doesn’t decide the meaning of Philippians 2, because the question is not which reading feels easier to live with, but what the hymn is actually saying.
And the problem becomes fatal for your view when one reaches the end of the hymn, as the hymn doesn’t end by saying that humanity should awaken to its divine depth, it concludes by saying that “every knee” will bow and “every tongue” confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord.”
As I have already shown, O’Collins notes that Philippians 2:10–11 “echoes Isaiah 45:23–4, a classic Old Testament passage celebrating YHWH, the one and only God of Israel and of the whole world.” And Richard Bauckham draws the unavoidable conclusion: “The exaltation of Christ to participation in the unique divine sovereignty shows him to be included in the unique divine identity.” Once the hymn applies to Jesus the homage due to YHWH alone, your universalizing interpretation collapses, because the text is not about an equal divinity shared by everyone. It is about the unique lordship of Christ.
So with respect, and as I have already told you, what you are offering is not really an interpretation of Philippians 2, It is a replacement of Philippians 2 with a spiritual anthropology drawn from elsewhere. You begin with a mystical framework in which everyone shares the same divine reality, and then you pour the hymn into that mold, but the hymn moves in the opposite direction: from Christ’s unique pre-existence, to Christ’s unique humiliation, to Christ’s unique exaltation, to Christ’s unique confession as Lord by all creation.
So the real problem is very simple: if the hymn is speaking of a divinity equally shared by all, why does it not end with the exaltation of humanity, but with the universal confession that Jesus Christ is Lord? And if the worship language borrowed from Isaiah belongs to YHWH alone, then I’m going to ask you again: by what exegetical right do you dissolve it into a statement about the divine status of everyone else?
2 Likes
And let me add one more thing: your reading of Christ bears a very disturbing (at least to me) resemblance to the logic of the Grand Inquisitor.
Not because you openly reject Christ, no, the deeper danger is more subtle: you retain the language of Christ while emptying it of precisely what makes Christ irreducible.
In Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, the tragedy is not that Christ is denied in so many words, it’s that Christ is corrected: He is judged too demanding, too absolute, too difficult for weak and suffering human beings, and so He must be reinterpreted into something more bearable, more therapeutic, more humane, more manageable.
That’s atrikingly close to what your reading does.
The Christ of Philippians 2 is not a symbol of the divine depth already latent in all people. He is the one who was “in the form of God,” the one who descends in self-emptying humility from a uniquely exalted condition, and the one before whom every knee will bow: your reading dissolves all of that.
Christ becomes not the uniquely pre-existent Lord, but the illustration of a universal principle, His kenosis becomes the story of what all of us are meant to discover about ourselves, His uniqueness is flattened into mystical anthropology and His lordship is softened into spiritual inspiration. The scandal of Christ is replaced with a message about inner awakening, divine unity, and therapeutic surrender.
And that’s exactly where the parallel with the Grand Inquisitor becomes crucial: the Inquisitor cannot tolerate the real Christ because the real Christ stands over man, judges man and refuses to be reduced to what man finds comforting. So Christ must be translated into something more livable, namely He must be made less absolute and more useful, less divine and more psychologically accessible, less a Lord before whom one kneels, more a principle one can absorb.
That is not a rejection of Christ, it’s something even more dangerous: a replacement.
And that’s what your interpretation does as well. It keeps the moral beauty, the compassion, the language of love, the tenderness toward the weak, but it strips away the very thing that makes Christ who he is: his uniqueness.
Christ isn’t merely an instance of what we all are. He is not simply the clearest example of a divine reality shared equally by all. He’s the one to whom the very hymn you quoted applies the words of Isaiah about the worship due to YHWH, as I have already shown. That is why every knee bows before him. Not before humanity. Not before the divine unity within all beings. Before Jesus Christ as Lord.
Once that is universalized, Christ ceases to be Christ in the Christian sense and He becomes a mirror in which humanity admires itself under sacred language.
And this is precisely why the parallel with the Grand Inquisitor is so serious: both approaches keep Christ’s vocabulary while refusing Christ’s sovereignty, both preserve his tenderness while evacuating his transcendence, both claim to honor him while quietly making him safe for human weakness.
But the Christ made safe for human weakness and for human modern spirit shaped by the so-called enlightenment is no longer the Christ before whom every knee bows.
He is an idol shaped in man’s image.
All of this is, in essence, the ancient temptation of the serpent: not to receive divinity from God, but to collapse the distinction between God and man by turning salvation into self-discovery, and worship into self-recognition.
1 Like
That is a curious comparison. My stance is probably closer to Alyosha’s sensibility in The Brothers Karamazov than to the Grand Inquisitor. Alyosha embodies compassionate faith, mistrust of legalistic religion, and the belief that love is the core of the Gospel.
But, since you bring it up, Dostoevsky’s parable asks a disturbing question, namely, would humanity actually reject Christ if He returned with the same message of radical freedom? This seems to intersect with my concern that religious systems sometimes domesticate the radical ethical call of Jesus.
In The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky uses the speech of the Grand Inquisitor not to defend the Church, but to expose a temptation that religious institutions constantly face: replacing spiritual freedom with control. This is exactly what I am concerned happened with the church. Did you notice what Jesus’ answer to the Grand Inquisitor was when he had made his case?
He kissed him.
In modern Christianity, we have constructed a perfectly rational system, but that system has no love in it. All the replies I gave have focused on love, but not one of yours has engaged with that.
1 Like
My point is simply the logic of your reinterpretation of Christ resembles the logic that Dostoevsky exposes in the Inquisitor.
That logic is this: Christ, as he stands, is too absolute, too unique, too demanding, too difficult to accept for human beings; therefore he must be reinterpreted into something more universally accessible, more inward, more therapeutic, more immediately consoling. That’s precisely the move I see in your reading.
And this is why simply invoking love does not settle the matter. The Grand Inquisitor himself speaks in the name of compassion. He speaks constantly of human weakness, of what people can bear, of their suffering, of their need not to be crushed by an impossible burden. In other words, he too speaks the language of care. The problem with him is not that he lacks concern for humanity, the problem is that his compassion no longer trusts Christ as he is. It therefore feels entitled to correct him.
That is why I don’t think Alyosha actually helps your case here, as Alyosha doesn’t love by softening Christ’s uniqueness, he doesn’t preserve love by dissolving Christ into a universal spiritual principle. Alyosha’s compassion is born from surrender to Christ, not from revision of Christ*. He doesn’t stand over Christ with a pastoral criterion and ask which version of him will be most bearable to frail people. He receives Christ as true, and precisely for that reason he loves.
That is also why I think your use of the kiss is mistaken. The kiss is not Christ’s endorsement of the Inquisitor’s reasoning, it’s not a silent admission that doctrine must give way to a more humane reinterpretation. On the contrary, the whole force of the scene lies in the fact that Christ answers with love without conceding anything. The kiss is not approval; it’s judgment in the form of love. Christ doesn’t say, “You were right to correct me for the sake of humanity.” He remains himself, and the Inquisitor is the one who cannot bear that.
And that is exactly where your reading becomes dangerous: You aren’t merely saying that love matters, you’re saying something much stronger: that the truth about Christ must be reformulated if it appears too severe, too exclusive, too metaphysically elevated, or too difficult for the world to accept. In other words, love becomes the criterion by which Christ is edited. But once that happens, love is no longer the fruit of truth; it becomes a tribunal standing over truth.
That is why your final complaint (that my replies have not engaged with love) isn’t quite fair. The issue is not that I have ignored love, the issue is that I, like every Christian, don’t think “love” can be invoked as a solvent against the truth of Christ. Christian love is not love in abstraction. It is not merely therapeutic reassurance, nor the reduction of the Gospel to whatever feels most existentially comforting.
So the real divide here is not between “system” (the “rational system devoid of love” that you speak of, which seems to me like a boogeyman that you created) and “love”, it’s between two radically different understandings of love:
- One that receives Christ as true, even where he is absolute, unique, and difficult.
- And one that feels compelled to reinterpret Christ until he becomes more bearable to human need.
The first is the love of discipleship, of creatures that recognize their creaturality, the second is the temptation of the Grand Inquisitor.
So my concern is not that you speak of love too much, It is that your account of love requires a Christ that is no longer Christ.
And that leaves two unavoidable questions.
- If the kiss doesn’t change Christ’s identity or ratify the Inquisitor’s correction of him, why do you treat it as if love were permission to reinterpret Christ into someone less absolute than he is?
- And if compassion becomes the criterion by which Christ’s uniqueness, lordship, and divinity must be softened to make Him more acceptable, how is that not precisely the Inquisitor’s temptation in a gentler form?
*Alyosha does not respond to Ivan by softening Christ, reinterpreting Christ, or translating Christ into a more bearable spiritual principle for weak human beings. He does the opposite, as I said: he submits to Christ as he is. And what’s the Inquisitor’s real crime? Not hatred of Christ, but the presumption that Christ’s truth is too difficult for human beings and must therefore be revised into something more manageable. That’s precisely the logic Alyosha rejects, as he doesn’t stand over Christ with a pastoral criterion and ask which version of him would be easier for the world to live with, he stands under Christ.
This becomes even clearer in Alyosha’s own spiritual breakthrough in the chapter on Cana. There he doesn’t discover that Christ is merely a symbol of a universal divinity latent in all people, he actually encounters Christ as someone objectively greater than himself, someone to whom he must surrender. Father Zosima says of Christ: “Do not fear Him. He is terrible in His greatness, awful in His sublimity, but infinitely merciful” (Book VII, ch. 4). That isn’t a Christ reduced to therapeutic spirituality, it’s a Christ who remains sovereign, overwhelming, and real.
And Dostoevsky makes the result unmistakable. After that encounter, he writes that “something firm and unshakable as that vault of heaven” entered Alyosha’s soul, and that this idea “took possession of his mind” for life (Book VII, ch. 4). In other words, Alyosha is not the man who reshapes Christ into a more consoling idea. He is the man who is seized by Christ and changed by him.
That‘s why Alyosha actually stands against your position: the whole point of Alyosha is that he does not correct Christ in the name of compassion: he entrusts himself to Christ and lets Christ correct him.
Put simply: Alyosha does not domesticate Christ for the sake of man; he lets man be remade by Christ. That is the exact opposite of what you are doing and I would even say that using Alyosha to strengthen your point is…I’m not going to say disingenuous but certainly incorrect.