'The Cosmic Christ' - written by Fr Gresham Kirkby
The 'Cosmic Christ' is the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the instrument of creation and the directing force of human history, expecially, but not exclusively, in Israel. This is brought out in St John's prologue (John 1:1-18) and in Colossians and Hebrews.
The prologue of St John goes back to Genesis 1-2:4, the first story of creation here. As also in the second creation story, 12:4-24, there is a reference to the 'Spirit', (Wind or Breath of God), so that there is from Genesis onwards an adumbration of the Trinity. In the first story, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.' And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. The pattern is repeated. At every stage of creation God spoke the word, and it was done. (In the second story the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being).
This led to a belief in Israel that the word and the breath were in some sense the attributes of God, so in psalm 33:6 we read, 'By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.' Much later we come to the Wisdom literature; though its origin is ascribed to Solomon, it is much later. The Greek word for Wisdom (Sophia) is feminine, which has misled some people into calling the Holy Spirit, She, but it is Christ who is the wisdom of God. Santa Sophia in Istambul is dedicated to Christ.
Christ came into the world when it was created through him. As Wisdom he took root in Israel. As Christ said, 'Salvation is of the Jews'. Nevertheless, Christ is 'the light who enlightens every man'. In the bible stories Adam and Noah representing everybody come before Abraham and the particular revelation given to him, and then renewed by Moses and Joshua, while Jeremiah promises a 'New Covenant', fulfilled in Christ.
'In the fullness of time', Christ present in the World, took human flesh. In that flesh he died, rose again, and was 'taken up' in glory. But he is still present in the world; the heavenly Christ remains the Cosmic Christ. Before the Ascension he said: 'All power is given to me in heaven and on earth'. Also 'lo, I am with yu always, even to the close of the Age'. The true meaning of the Ascension is given in Ephesians 4: 'Christ ascended far above all heavens, to fill all things with his presence' (ie in order to be everywhere). There is really one coming of Christ, which we perceive in various different ways; from the Ascension he comes as Glorified Man in power, bringing judgement and blessing. Pentecost was the first sign of it - the pouring out of the Spirit of Life and Unity upon his followers which created the New Israel and the New Covenant, 'God in Us'. (The Final Coming is a revelation in glory of one who is present and active through the Spirit, subsequent to the Creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth as in Revelation).
ARCIC Report on Our Lady - review by Fr Gresham Kirkby (Nov 2005)
Since I don’t agree with either the report or the critique, if I didn’t believe something different, I would be inclined to agree with someone on ‘Question Time’ recently that ‘Religion is past its sell-by date’!
The Report is slippery. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception – which many or most confuse with the Virginal Conception of Jesus – is based on the notion that Original Sin and the Fall are historical events rather than useful “myths” to describe the human condition. Original Sin is regarded as an inherited trait, and Baptism as a ‘sin-ectomy’ (preferably performed as early as possible) and so something had to be thought up for Mary. Even Newman regarded the dogma as a ‘luxury’ – a new departure in defining doctrine.
The corporeal assumption of Mary seems to be first attested in the 4th century, because a high-ranking couple wanted to venerate the tomb of Mary. It would seem to involve a resurrection (on the third day?) and an immediate ascension – or else the translation of a dead body by angelic tomb-robbers. In any case it involves an ‘empty tomb’. When I celebrate the Assumption of Our Lady, I take it to mean as Salvationists proclaim of their deceased soldiers, that she was ‘promoted to glory’. I would hesitate to use ‘Assumption’ of the Martyrdom of ss Peter and Paul, though ‘Natalia’ is rightly used of all the saints. It is extraordinary that the Old Testament should imply something like a supposed assumption for such a legendary figure as Enoch. Elijah was such a great figure that the Jews made him an exception to the general rule concerning the departed. As for the Penitent Thief and Stephen, nothing unusual is claimed for them.
The Commission did not consider what is taught in the New Catechism – though Rome is naturally ‘cagey’ about it – that Jesus, like Julius Caesar & McDuff, was not ‘of woman born’, but by some sort of ‘spiritual’ caesarian birth. This is a 2nd century Egyptian tale, a form of the Docetic heresy, implying that Jesus was not truly human. But in general there is a ‘whiff’ of Gnosticism about the Report, a claim to superior knowledge not within the understanding of ordinary Christians.
As an Anglican Catholic I do not go all the way with the Evangelical Critique. While I can give a ‘general assent’ to the 39 Articles – originally 42, but 3 were dropped and others revised – I am not bound to the views and ordinances of Cranmer & co, and the Privy Council! I have always prayed ‘All that she has lost restore’, but that does not include all the nonsense of that ‘Old Curiosity Shop, the Medieval Church’. I think the real objection to Marian devotion is that she is treated as ‘soft option’.
The real need is to recover the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and Mary’s Magnificat is fully in line with this. Catholics and Evangelicals need each other. A recent book by an Evangelical scholar firmly upholds what on the basis of a few hints I have held for some 60 years. I think we need to rediscover Maurician theology, of which Michael Ramsey was the last exponent, and to go forward from there. To do this it will be necessary to see where Schweizer was mistaken. But as 2006 is the centenary of ‘The Quest for the Historical Jesus’, maybe the time is ripe for a revolution in Theology, and a New Reformation!
Additional Notes:-
1. On asking the Prayers of the Saints – The Saints reign with Christ, and they judge the Nations, so it is reasonable to ask their prayers.
2. There appears to be a desire to assimilate Mary’s Assumption to Christ’s Resurrection & Ascension, but at the same time in theological circles there is a tendency to suggest that when Jesus died on the Cross he entered into glory ‘in the fullness of his person’, but that what happened to his body is irrelevant. For some time the ploy has been to invent a form of words which can be interpreted in two ways. This is not Unity in the Truth, which is what matters. That is why I have always maintained that ecumenical discussion should be on the problems about ‘What is the Gospel?’
(2)Postscript to the Church &Bomb Report – Why the General Synod of the C of E rejected ‘Unilateralism’ (by Fr. Gresham Kirkby)
- The Synod. This is the Parliament of the C of E. In the supposed interests of democracy lay people have in recent years formed a Third House, the other two being bishops and clergy. In practice only the well-to-do and leisured lay people have the time to spare, so the House of Laity inevitably tends to be elderly and ‘conservative’. The three houses vote separately on domestic issues, and on matters of ‘church order’ the clergy have been accused of ‘dragging their feet’, but it is probably true that on social issues (and especially the Bomb) the clergy are more progressive than the bishops and the laity.
- The Report. A major criticism is the lack of theological content (Theology is ‘God-Talk’). Chapter 6 is entitled, ‘Wider theological and ethical considerations’. On page 105 we are told that ‘Christian ethical reflection takes the secular profoundly seriously, seeing it as both the setting for and material of Christian obedience’. This in fact is the theological basis of the Report, but Mrs Thatcher would probably concur with some reservations, maybe – and the Bishop of London certainly would. It goes on to refer to what it calls “an alternative Christian tradition”, which maintains that concern for the world’s life and its affairs is a distraction from the primary task of Christians. The Kingdom which is to be sought is “not of this world”; it can only properly be pursued once all concern for this world has been set aside. For an exposition of this view it refers to E.R.Norman, ‘Christianity of the World Order’ (Oxford 1979 p85). Still on the same page it suggests that “this understanding of the nature of Christainity draws some support from parts of the New Testament ….. it is likely that Jesus and his immediate followers expected that the world would soon pass away and that the coming of the Kingdom of God would bring about an entirely new order.” What this means is not explained, and the biblical reference given does not bear out what it is presumed to mean. The Report in fact evades the fundamental question, What is Christianity all about? In a manner not entirely convincing it falls back on its ethical position, which in fact any good humanist might take. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that had the Report seriously questioned the theology of E.R.Norman – which in a vague, untheological way underlies the thinking of most English people – it might have discovered a more robust outlook, at once biblical and world affirming.
- The Debate. It is generally agreed that the Archbishop of York (Blanch) made the most theological speech – but what theology! He maintained that Christians ought to view the prospect of “the end of the world” joyfully, and nuclear destruction could be the way it would happen. (The Bishop of London was anxious to delay “the end” as long as possible). (Some years ago the late Archbishop Fisher made a similar pronouncement to that of Blanch; Archbishop Ramsey on being asked to comment said flatly, “heresy”.) Clearly much depends on what is meant by “the end of the world”. It is important to note that it enshrined a double ambiguity. What is meant by “end”? Is it destruction or completion? And what is meant by “world”? Is it earth, or society as it is organised?
- Some theological considerations. The Gospels derive from a Semitic background, in which there is a way of looking at the relationship of “this world” and the things of this world to the world to come quite foreign to our way of thinking. The Jews of the time of Christ thought of history as consisting of six ‘ages’, to be followed by a seventh, ‘God’s Age’, when justice and peace would be established on earth. The idea of the Millenium lies behind the New Testament writings; the of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ as the ‘land beyond the sky’ is quite unbiblical. By the 2nd century and originally semitic religion was transplanted to Gentile soil, through the medium of the Greek language. Inevitably there was a loss of the Jewish understanding, for which neither Constantine nor Augustine is to blame. For nigh on a thousand years Western Christianity had to get by with a Latin Bible (the Vulgate). From this the earliest English translations were made; and subsequent words and phrases have influenced subsequent thinking. The King James’ Bible (the Authorised Version) did not drop down from heaven in 1611, as many seem to think. Though a translation from the Greek and literary masterpiece it incorrect and misleading in many respects. There are two words* both translated as world (also in J.B.) – neuter of which means earth ( ). One is Kosmer which means ‘the World order’ (almost, ‘the system’) and this in spite of E.R.Norman indicates the true meaning of ‘My Kingdom (or Kingship) is not of this world’. The other is aeon, ‘age’ or ‘era’, hence ‘the end of the age’. All this was quite clear in the Revised Version of 1881-85, the work of a band of highly competent Greek and Hebrew scholars. The contrast in the Gospels is between ‘this age’ and the ‘Age to come’. It would be an over-simplification to see this as the end of capitalism and the dawn of socialism, but such would be nearer the meaning than the theological nonsense uttered by some bishops, apparently endorsed by the members of Synod, and not seriously challenged by those responsible for the Report.
*There is another word, ‘OIKOMEN’, which means the inhabitable world – practically the Roman Empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment