Christology

B.Zirsangliana

Introduction
The term “Christology” (from Greek, Christos meaning ‘anointed one’ or ‘Christ’) refers to the study of Christ. It is concerned with the nature of Jesus the Christ particularly with how the divine and human are related in his person. Although this study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is the foundation of Christology, some essential sub-topics within the field of Christology include; the Incarnation, the resurrection, and the salvific work of Jesus (known as soteriology).
Approaches to Christology: methodologies

There are two major approaches to Christology, such as ‘cosmological’ approach and Anthropological approach. ‘These are also termed 'Christology from above ' and Christology from below' respectively. “Christology from above” start with the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, establishes his eternality, his agency in creation, and Jesus' unity with God is established by the Incarnation as the divine Logos assumes a human nature. On the other hand, “Christology from below” starts with the human being Jesus as the representative of the new humanity, not with the pre-existent Logos. Jesus lives an exemplary life, one to which we aspire in religious experience.

Christological controversies
Down through centuries much has been debated upon Christology. It was a fundamental concern from the First Council of Nicea (325 CE) until the Third Council of Constantinople (680 CE). In the early centuries, two school of thoughts such as Alexandrian and Antiocheans continuously debated about the person of Christ.
The Alexandrian School, led by Athanasius and later by Cyril of Alexandria, represented what scholars called the “Word-flesh” type of Christology. The primary emphases of this school were on the divinity of Christ and the unity of his person. Because of it’s emphasis on the unity of the person of Christ Alexandrian school was sharply opposed to the tendency to separate the divine and human natures of Christ that characterised the Antiochean School.

On the other hand, the Antiochean School emphasized the full humanity of Christ. In contrast to the Alexandrian “Word –flesh” Christology, they defended a “Word-human being” Christology. In other words the Antiochean School championed in the full humanity of Jesus.

The complex Christological debates after Nicea led eventually to the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.the fourth ecumenical council of the Church and the second great milestone in the development of classical Christology. The council of Chalcedon (451 CE) that defined Christ as; “In relation to the humanity, he is one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only Begotten, who is to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation.”
Most historians of Doctrine viewed Chalcedon as a careful balance of the emphases of the Alexandrian and Antiochean School. This creed did not solve the Christological problem but drew the boundaries within which orthodox confession of Christ was to occur. However, the most important thing in Christology is not the clarity of it’s definition or it’s logical consistency, but it is how it relates with our own life and situation.

Paradigm shift in Christology
The understanding and emphasis of Christology in the Patristic period was mainly confined within two dimensions; one is ‘Divinity of Christ and his relationship with the Father (God).secondly, ‘the human nature of Christ. Infact all the Christological controversies that arose in the classical Orthodoxy can be ascribed to the conflict between these two natures.

“Enlightenment marked a final break with the medieval world view. The move away from a theocentric world to one centred on human concerns. Man begins with himself in his search for understanding. The new emphasis on intellectual advancement and moral achievement inevitably changed the direction of modern Christology. Jesus ceased to be the logos incarnate, or the Divine son of the Father and became instead the great example of moral excellence, or the simple teacher of common sense religion.

Christology from a feminist perspective
The most remarkable model of Christology that emerged in the 20th century is feminist Christology (or Christology from a feminist perspective). In spite of divergence in theological trend, almost all the theological paradigms including liberation theology had been done from the perspective of the poor and oppressed. Towards the close of 20th century the Christological question, ‘Who do you say that I am? receives a response from the experience of women with a different dimension.
As feminist Christology concentrates on liberation from structures and system of domination, it is not surprising that feminist Christology initially focused it’s concern on the liberating praxis of the historical Jesus. Here, feminist Christology shares with almost all forms of modern the exegetical desire to retrieve the historical Jesus as the basis of Christological reflection.

The need for a contextual Christology
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from his prison cell wrote, “Who is Jesus Christ for us today? Or more precisely, “Who Christ really is for us today?” Our context might be different from that of Bonhoeffer, but this is the most important question to reflect upon in our Christological formulation. “In Christological construction, it is usually the context of the people that must determine the way Christology is articulated. As our historical experience and worldview influence our thinking and expression, so the context in which we live needs to be taken seriously in Christological construction.” Christology is ever in danger of valuing the past more highly than the present-future. Therefore the past, including the life, the death and resurrection of Jesus should be considered as “prologue to the present act”
J.Sobrino rightly said that ‘for doing Christology is not much a question but identifies it’s setting, in the sense of a real situation, as the poor of this world, and the situation is what must be present in and permeate any particular setting in which Christology is done. Thus, need to develop a Christology which is relevant to a particular time and place. From a third world perspective ‘Christology’ should be ‘from below’. This approach did not overlook Christ’s divinity but emphasized his humanity. To make a relevant Christology, we need to emphasise his humanity and our formulation of Christology should be directed towards our human life situations. Only when Christology is contextual one can discern Christ’s significance in life and relate himself / hersel to Christ.

Conclusion
Christology is a response to the Question of Jesus, “who do you say that I am.” We still response to this question from a different contexts and experiences. It is important for us that in our Christological study and formulation, the context in which the message should be addressed it to be taken in to account. Furthermore, traditions and practices of one’s culture and the emerging social realities needed to be taken seriously. And thereby doing so, Christology would be constructed meaningful and relevant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alister E.McGrath, Historical Theology, Oxford: Blackwell publishing, 1998
2. Colin J.D. Greene, Christology in Cultural perspective, Michigan: Eerdsmans publishing company, 2003,
2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and papers from prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge ed. London: SCM press 1953’reprint 1979
3. L.H.Lalpekhlua, Contextual Christology; A tribal perspective, New Delhi: ISPCK, 2007
4. Michael L.Cook, Christology as narrative quest, College Ville: The liturgical press, 1997
5. Oscar Cullman, the Christology of the New Testament, Philadelphia: the Westminster press, 1963,
6. Paul P.Enns, The Moody handbook of theology, Chicago: Moody press, 1989
7. Tom F. Driver, Christ in a changing world, London: SCM press Ltd, 1981
8. Van A.Hervey, A handbook of theological terms, London: Samuel bangster &sons Ltd, 1964