164
BACK TO CHRIST
BACK TO CHRIST
movement known as Chiistianity. Our attention must be limited to tlie theologies in which the new feeling for the historical Christ has exerted some marked influence.
(1) We begin with that form of the movement which departs least from traditional orthodoxy, and to which the terra ' Christo-centric ' is usually applied. In this case the return to Christ has not led to anything like a reconstruction of doctrine ; the most that has been undertaken is a revision. The traditional doctrines receive a reinterpretation and a fresh grounding in the light of the fuller knowledge of, and keener feeling for, the Christ of history. In the words of the most distinguished representative of the Christo-centric movement in this country, ' We cannot conceive and describe the supreme historical Person -without coming face to face with tlie profoundest of all the problems in theology ; but then we may come to them from an entirely changed point of view, through the Person that has to be interpreted ratlier than through the interpretations of His Person. AVhen this change has been etlected, theology ceases to be scliolastic and becomes historical. ' *
This claim to break with the scholastic method is partially, but only partially, justified. The doctrines of the Church are no longer treated as sacrosanct, and as the first principles of theological construction. Still further, it is recognized that even Scripture cannot be received as the ultimate .source and norm of doctrine. Tlie Apostolic con- ception of Christianity is not formally authori- tative. We must not look at Christ merely throu";h St. Paul's eyes ; it is possible for us to see tTie Christ whom St. Paul saw, and to estimate St. Paul's thoughts from the vantage ground of this immediate knowledge. The idea of an external authority is not, however, surrendered ; it is only carried back to the last possible resort, the con- sciousness of Christ. Whatever can be derived from the consciousness of Christ has an autliori- tative claim on our acceptance. And since His history is of a piece with His consciousness, tlie two must be taken togetlier. The theological task is therefore to interpret God tlirough the history and the consciousness of the historical Christ.
But here the question postponed at the beginning presses for an answer. The term ' historical Christ ' is not unambiguous. AVhat are the contents of His consciousness, what are the facts in His history, which give to Him His meaning for faith, and which must be regarded as constituting His historical l)ersonality ? We know Jesus from the Synoptic Gospels as the teacher of an ethical ideal supreme in its depth and height, and of a religion of pure inwardness and spirituality. We obtain glimpses into an inner life of intimate and unbroken fellow- ship with God. He was conscious of a unique vocation, to bring men to the knowledge and ser- vice of the Father in heaven, and to introduce the Reign of God on eartli. In His consciousness of this vocation and of His equipment for it. He accepted the title of Messiah. He carried out His vocation witli an obedience to God tliat never wavered, with a trust in God that no stoim could shake, with a love that shrank from no sacrifice, and that never giew cold. He accepted the cross in the confidence that God's purpose would not be overthrown by His death, but established. This at least criticism leaves untouched ; and for some this human Jesus is the Jesus of history, and, at tlie same time, tlie Divine Christ, the Saviour of tlie world. The constitutive facts in His Person and history are the religious and ethical facts. But such is not the view of those whose position we are now describing. Accepting these facts, they do not regard them as supplying an adequate con- * F!iirbairii, Christ i'» Modern Theology, p. 8.
ception of the Christ of history, or as disclosing the deepest meaning of His life. For Christo-centric as for traditional theology, tlie elements of cardinal importance in Christ's consciousness and history are the miraculous elements. The facts that give to His inner life its character are His moral perfection and consciousness of sinlessness. His assertion of a unique knowledge of God, and of a Sonship different in kind from that possible to His disciples. His assertion of His Messiahship and pre- existence. His demand for absolute devotion to His Person, His claim to a superhuman authority in forgiving sins and in dealing with OT institu- tions and laws. His claim to be the Saviour of the world, the arbiter of human destiny, the final Judge. Similarly His outer life receives its char- acter from the Virgin-birth, the Miracles (inter- jjreted in the strict sense), and, above all, from the bodily Resurrection. The historical Christ is the transcendent and miraculous Christ, the Christ who was conscious of a superhuman dignity, and who was declared by the resurrection from the dead to be the Son of God witli power (Ro l"*).
This conception of Christ, with its subordination of tlie moral and religious in His consciousness and history to the miraculous, carries with it two momentous consequences. In the first place, it in- volves the view, is indeed founded upon it, that tlie Revelation of God is to be found not primarily in Christ's Person and ministry, but in the doc- trines in wliicli these are interpreted. Christ is brought before us as primarily a problem that demands solution. What constitute Him a prob- lem are the above-mentioned facts in His con- sciousness and liistory, which cannot be accounted for except on the hypothesis that He was a super- human, supernatural Being — a Being that stood in a relation to God beyond any that can be described in ethical terms. These facts are singled out as the essential ones, just because they set the problem and provide the basis for the transcen- tlental hypotliesis. The solution of the problem is given in the NT doctrines of Christ's Person and work. The Person and work constitute the facts ; the doctrines supply their explanation or interpretation. Apart from the doctrinal inter- liretation the facts might still retain a certain ethico-religious significance, but they would lose their highest, their essential, meaning. It is the interpretation or construction that is the essential thing in Christianity. The gospel is not given with the character, teaching, and ministry of Christ, in tlieir direct appeal to the heart and conscience ; only the doctrinal interpretation of these facts — that the pre - existent Son of God assumed human nature, lived among men, and atoned by His death for their sin — has a right to the name. Christianity is given only when Christ is speculatively construed.*