Theology Today - Vol 45, No.4 - January 1989 - BOOK REVIEW - A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality: Part 3: Christ in Context

478 - A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality: Part 3: Christ in Context

A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality: Part 3: Christ in Context

By Paul M. Van Buren

San Francisco, Harper &Amp; Row, 1988. 312 Pp. $29.95.

The witness to Jesus Christ is constitutive of the Christian faith. How this witness is made and interpreted is decisive for Christian self-understanding. Historically, this witness has been interpreted as being "against the Jews," as Athanasius disclosed in the "Answer to the Jews," which he appended to his On the Incarnation of the Word. When theologians of the nineteenth century began seeking both basis and warrant for their christological claims in ostensibly empirical claims about the historical Jesus, the anti-Judaism of classical christology was retained and newly "justified" on critical-historical grounds.

The uniqueness of Christ, once understood as that of the deus homo, was interpreted on empirical-historical grounds as Jesus' conflict with all forms of Judaism. The work of Christ, once understood as delivering us from sin and death, now became the job of delivering us from bad religion, that is, Judaism. In either case, salvation could be found only in Christ, whether that salvation was understood as life and light or as true religion.

While there have been some christologies that have sought to revise our understanding of the constitutive Christian witness in ways that avoid the traps set both in the tradition and modern revisionist approaches (for example, Schubert M. Ogden's The Point of Christology), none has sought so thoroughly to rethink christology in ways appropriate both to the apostolic witness and to the new awareness on

480 - A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality: Part 3: Christ in Context

the part of the (or at least some) churches that God's covenant with Israel is "irrevocable" as has Paul van Buren's Christ in Context.

Consequently, this christology itself makes its own kind of "call and claim" upon the attention of responsible theologians. What van Buren offers here is a full, systematic christology, beginning with considerations of the place of christology, ending with eschatology, and dealing with every topic in between. Two rules govern the discussion: "Every proper Christological statement, however 'high', will make clear that it gives the glory to God the Father," and "Every proper Christological statement will make clear that it is an affirmation of the covenant between God and Israel." Other rules also come into play. The God to whose greater glory christology is done is the God of Israel, and grounds for criticizing the anti-Judaism of historical christology are available in the Apostolic writings and the earliest apostolic witness. The linguistic rule, that context is essential to understanding, requires an understanding of the Jewish context as the "fundamental" context of the "things concerning Jesus of Nazareth." There is what might be called the rule of humility: the church should acknowledge God's claim "as the witness to Jesus presents him as having done: without making any claim for himself."

Throughout the text, van Buren "thinks with the church" by taking the christological tradition, particularly that of the great creeds, with great seriousness. He engages in a strenuous conversation with it and often sheds penetrating new light on the conflicts within it (for example, the Arian-Athanasian conflict). He has the same strenuous conversation with the apostolic writings. He seeks a critical reappropriation of the tradition, not its abandonment. The result is an inspiring new departure in christological reflection, one that should evoke not only criticism, but a seriousness in asking and answering new questions about how the constitutive witness of the church is to be understood. Van Buren's christology does not answer the questions generated by traditional christology; rather it reconceives christology so as to avoid raising those questions in the first place. If it raises questions, it raises new questions. Whether one agrees or disagrees, the terms have been redefined and no responsible christology can now be done that fails to address these questions.

Van Buren here gives us an idea of what a christology that "says nothing that could not be said in the presence of the burning children" would look like. It deserves a most serious look.

CLARK M. WILLIAMSON

Christian Theological Seminary
Indianapolis, Indiana