The impossible God

Christian Century, Feb 13, 2002 by Lois Malcolm

Narrative is the basic form. Yet there are four basic narratives in the New Testament, and you don't have to choose between them. The narrative in Mark is different from that in Luke. Luke stresses continuity; Mark does not; John's Gospel is a meditation. In the rediscovery of narrative, many people seem to emphasize Luke--as if all the Gospel narratives are a kind of realistic narrative. But there isn't just Luke; there are three other stories as well.

The basic form of Christianity in the New Testament is narrative. But already in Matthew and the Epistles you encounter doctrines. In the reception of the Gospels through history, the most influential Gospel was Matthew, because the community was trying to organize itself and its beliefs. Doctrine is an important form, though to make it a central form, as many theologians have done, is disastrous.

The third form is liturgy. Eastern theology structured its insights around liturgy. And Dionysius's mystical theology must be connected to what he was doing liturgically and with ecclesial structure. Liturgy always has both form and structure, and we don't have to accept Dionysius's ecclesiastical and liturgical hierarchies to see that forms of worship structure our thoughts. This is why liturgical theologies are so valuable.

Where does Christ fit among these "gathered forms"?

We believe in "Jesus the Christ with the apostles." This is not simply a "Christ principle." It has to be related to Jesus. But it's not simply historical reconstruction either. It is the Jesus narrated by these confessing communities. And it's not "in" the apostles but "with" the apostles, beginning with the apostles' writing and the Hebrew Bible as the Christian Old Testament.

How does this Christology differ from the Christology you presented at the end of The Analogical Imagination?

In The Analogical Imagination, the main symbols were incarnation-cross-resurrection. Now I would add apocalyptic. When I was young, no progressive theologian would dare speak about the apocalyptic. Talk of the apocalyptic was handed over to fundamentalism. Bultmann, Rahner and others preferred to speak of the "eschatological." In The Analogical Imagination, I spoke of the apocalyptic as an important "corrective." I no longer say that. For me, the Second Coming is as critical a symbol as incarnation, cross and resurrection. The Bible for Christians ends with "Come, Lord Jesus." We are still messianic. Yes, Christ has come for us as Christians, but in an important sense he still has not come yet. We don't know who or what Christ will be or when his coming will happen.

I fundamentally trust the Christian tradition because as far as I can see the formulations of the Council of Chalcedon about the nature of Christ make perfect sense. The point really is Jesus Christ, the God-Man. The thing that will trouble some people is that I think Chalcedon is a beginning and not an end. We need a new language and new categories. Chalcedon and the other early ecumenical councils, whose work I fundamentally believe and trust, don't refer to the Second Coming. And they don't make much room for the Spirit, which relates to the Second Coming.