With regard to the event itself, we are planning (16) book panels on recent publications in Christology from biblical scholars, theologians, and philosophers. Each book panel will be composed of an interdisciplinary selection of around 4 world-leading scholars, most of which will be followed by a response from the author. The event will also include break-away sessions where graduate students and early-career academics will be able to present their own research on topics related to Christology (which will take place on December 11th–13th).
Wednesday, November 18th:
Matthew Novenson, The Grammar of Messianism
8:00 – 10:30 AM — (California)
11:00 AM – 1:30 PM — (New York)
4:00 – 6:30 PM — (London)
J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God
11:00 AM – 1:00 PM — (California)
2:00 – 4:00 PM — (New York)
7:00 – 9:00 PM — (London)
Thursday, November 19th:
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel
7:00 – 9:30 AM — (California)
10:00 AM – 12:30 PM — (New York)
3:00 – 5:30 PM — (London)
Chris Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology
12:00 – 2:30 PM — (California)
3:00 – 5:30 PM — (New York)
8:00 – 10:30 PM — (London)
Friday, November 20th:
Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion
7:00 – 9:30 AM — (California)
10:00 AM – 12:30 PM — (New York)
3:00 – 5:30 PM — (London)
Natalie Carnes, Image and Presence
10:00 AM – 12:30 PM — (California)
1:00 – 3:30 PM — (New York)
6:00 – 8:30 PM — (London)
Saturday, November 21st:
Timothy Pawl, In Defense of Conciliar Christology
5:00 – 7:30 AM — (California)
8:00 – 10:30 AM — (New York)
1:00 – 3:30 PM — (London)
Rowan Williams, Christ the Heart of Creation
8:00 – 10:30 AM — (California)
11:00 AM – 1:30 PM — (New York)
4:00 – 6:30 PM — (London)
Thomas Joseph White, The Incarnate Lord
11:00 AM – 1:30 PM — (California)
2:00 – 4:30 PM — (New York)
7:00 – 9:30 PM — (London)
Sunday, November 22nd:
Ian McFarland, The Word Made Flesh
8:00 – 10:30 AM — (California)
11:00 AM – 1:30 PM — (New York)
4:00 – 6:30 PM — (London)
Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key
11:00 AM – 1:30 PM — (California)
2:00 – 4:30 PM — (New York)
7:00 – 9:30 PM — (London)
8:00 – 10:30 AM — (New Zealand, Monday, November 23rd)
Monday, November 23rd:
Richard Cross, Communicatio Idiomatum
8:30 – 10:30 AM — (California)
11:30 AM – 1:30 PM — (New York)
4:30 – 6:30 PM — (London)
4:30 – 6:30 AM — (Fiji, Tuesday, November 24th)
Darren Sumner, Karl Barth and the Incarnation
11:00 AM – 1:00 PM — (California)
2:00 – 4:00 PM — (New York)
7:00 – 9:00 PM — (London)
Tuesday, November 24th:
Dong-Kun Kim, The Future of Christology
8:00 – 9:45 AM — (California)
11:00 AM – 12:45 PM — (New York)
4:00 – 5:45 PM — (London)
Joerg Rieger, Jesus vs. Caesar
10:00 AM – 12:30 PM — (California)
1:00 – 3:30 PM — (New York)
6:00 – 8:30 PM — (London)
6:00 – 8:30 AM — (Fiji, Wednesday, November 25th)
Wednesday, November 25th:
Tripp Fuller, Divine Self-Investment
5:30 – 8:00 AM — (California)
8:30 – 11:00 AM — (New York)
1:30 – 4:00 PM — (London)
William Willimon, “Concluding Remarks”
8:15 – 9:00 AM — (California)
11:15 AM – 12:00 PM — (New York)
4:15 – 5:00 PM — (London)
- Jesus Who?
- The Grammar of Christology
- The Jesus of History and the Task of Christology
- The Subject of Election
- Dialectical vs. Analytic Christology
- Conciliar Orthodoxy?
- The genus tapeinoticon
1. Jesus Who?
One of the biggest difficulties facing those who would like to enter into the realm of christological discourse centers on the question of what precisely we mean when we employ the word “Jesus.” Are we intending to refer to the psychosomatic entity who lived some two thousand years ago in and around Palestine? Or perhaps we have in view the various literary portraits of the central figure of the New Testament corpus? Or maybe we are calling to mind the metaphysical framework of the Chalcedonian Definition, not least of which includes the transcendental category of hypostasis that is not to be reduced to, or equated with, the assumed human nature? Whatever the case may be, lack of clarity about what precisely we want to denote and connote when invoking the word “Jesus” has and continues to create confusion amongst those in the inherently interdisciplinary sphere commonly referred to as Christology. Bearing that in mind, those who would like to respond to this prompt will be tasked with the responsibility of creating and explaining a detailed taxonomy about the various ways in which the word “Jesus” might reasonably be employed. Three possibilities present themselves:
(1) Jesus and History
Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with creating and explaining a detailed taxonomy that might distinguish between, amongst other things:
(1) the actual Jesus of history;
(2) the perceptions of Jesus as he was encountered in history;
(3) the memories about Jesus amongst those who encountered him (or learned of him);
(4) the risen/ascended/exalted Jesus, the one who served as the basis of early Christian faith;
(5) Jesus as he was “re-remembered” (for lack of a better word) in the light of one’s belief in his resurrection/ascension/exaltation;
(6) the Jesus of history as documented (however accurately) in the extant textual evidence; and,
(7) the historical Jesus as reconstructed by historians.Particular attention should be given to which of the above might or might not be in view when we say things such as “Jesus foresaw (or did not foresee) his impending passion,” or “Jesus grew in knowledge and understanding,” or “Jesus knew (or did not know) that he was the messiah,” or “Jesus knew (or did not know) that he was God the second person of the Trinity,” or “Jesus encountered Saul on the Damascus road.”
(2) Jesus and Metaphysics
Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with creating and explaining a detailed taxonomy that might distinguish between, amongst other things, whether “Jesus” might refer to: (1) the human nature alone (whether conceived in concrete or abstract terms); (2) the hypostasis / “person” alone (whether conceived as a “divine person” or a “divine-human person”); (3) the hypostasis / “person” and the human nature (whether conceived as a “divine person and a concrete/abstract human nature” or a “divine-human person and a concrete/abstract human nature”); or (4) the hypostasis / person and the human nature and the divine nature.
Particular attention should be given to which of the above might or might not be in view when we say thing such as “Jesus is the subject of election” (à la Barth), or “Jesus created the world,” or “Jesus was born of Mary,” or “Jesus suffered and died and rose on the third day.”
(3) Jesus, History, and Metaphysics
Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with creating and explaining a detailed taxonomy that coherently organizes and addresses both of the above two prompts. Particular attention should be given to answering the following: what might we mean when we say that “the infant Jesus did (or did not) know that he was God the second person of the Trinity,” or that “Jesus experienced temptation,” or that “Jesus was (or was not) able to sin,” or that “Jesus did (or did not) raise himself from the dead”?
2. The Grammar of Christology
Much of the debates surrounding contemporary christological discourse center on a number of technical distinctions made between (e.g.) the Logos asarkos and Logos ensarkos, the Logos incarnandus and the Logos incarnatus, the humanitas Christi and the extra Calvinisticum, etc. Indeed, at issue in these debates concerns nothing less than the identity of the eternal Word of God, the agent of creation, the nature of the incarnation, one’s understanding of the sacraments, and much besides. Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with the responsibility of carefully defining (perhaps amongst others) the following terms and assessing their suitability (or lack thereof) for christological reflection:
(a) The eternal Logos
(b) The Logos asarkos
(c) The Logos incarnandus
(d) The Logos ensarkos / Logos incarnatus
(e) The humanitas Christi
(f) The extra Calvinisticum
(g) The resurrected Jesus
(h) The ubiquitous Jesus
(i) The glorified Jesus
(j) The totus Christus
Particular attention should be given to questions like the following: Can we narrate the “life of the Logos,” moving forward, as it were, from the eternal Logos, to the Logos incarnandus, to the Logos ensarkos, to the resurrected Jesus, to the ubiquitous Jesus, to the glorified Jesus? Or is the attempt to narrate the “life of the second person of the Trinity” in these terms inherently problematic? What use, if any, may be found in appeals to the so-called extra Calvinisticum? Of which of the above may it rightly be said to have been the subject of election, the Creator of the world, born of Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, rose again, and will come again in glory? Which of the above must not be in view?
3. The Jesus of History and the Task of Christology
Cast against the backdrop of the ever-widening “ugly, broad ditch” between the disciplines of history, exegesis, and theology, the question of the significance of the Jesus of history for the task of theology is as relevant today as it has ever been. Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with addressing the following:
(1) What is the relationship between the lived history of the man Jesus of Nazareth and divine revelation?
(2) What is the relationship between the historical study of the man Jesus of Nazareth and the task of Christology?
(3) What is the relationship between the historical-critical study of the Gospel portraits of Jesus and the task of Christology?
Particular attention should be given not only to the intellectual context in which the gulf between biblical studies and theology originated, but also to the concerns for clarity identified in prompts (1) and (2) above. Indeed, respondents should consider it prerequisite to attend to prompt #1 (“Jesus Who?”) in particular when approaching this subject. Cf. Sarah Coakley, Christ without Absolutes, and N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, if additional dialogue partners are needed.
4. The Subject of Election
Much ink has been spilled over Bruce McCormack’s controversial proposal that Barth’s revised doctrine of election in Church Dogmatics II/2 constituted a shift in Barth’s understanding of the Trinity. While many are willing to concede that Barth’s account offers a compelling alternative to the decretum absolutum (“absolute decree”) of the Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination, not everyone is comfortable with how McCormack interprets Barth’s notion that Jesus is not only the object of election — the one in whom God’s salvific judgment is enacted — but also its eternal subject. Whatever the case may be, respondents to this prompt will be tasked with bringing McCormack’s proposal into critical dialogue with the Christological vision outlined in Ian McFarland’s latest book, The Word Made Flesh. In what ways might the two share more common ground than McFarland lets on? In what ways (if at all) are their respective convictions actually at odds with one another?
Particular attention should be given not only to McFarland’s explicit references to McCormack on pp. 30n14 and 87n42, but also to the concerns for clarity identified in prompts (1) and (2) above. Indeed, respondents should consider it prerequisite to attend to prompt #2 (“The Grammar of Christology”) in particular when approaching this subject. Cf. Michael T. Dempsey (ed.), Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology if additional dialogue partners are needed.
5. Dialectical vs. Analytic Christology
In recent years, two distinct schools of thought have been acquiring greater prominence: (1) “dialectical” theology; and (2) “analytic” theology. Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with assessing the viability (or otherwise) of these two schools of thought insofar as they impinge upon the task of Christology.
Particular attention should be given to the presuppositions, tools, methods, and goals of the respective schools of thought, along with an assessment of their relative significance (or otherwise) for theological reflection.
6. Conciliar Orthodoxy?
The question as to the nature of “conciliar orthodoxy” has proved relevant as of late, and attempts to answer this question have varied to a great extent largely dependent upon whether or not one has a preference for historical theology on the one hand, or systematic theology on the other. Respondents to this prompt will be tasked with addressing some (or all) of the following:
(1) Is there such a thing as “conciliar orthodoxy”?
On this point see, inter alia, Timothy Pawl, In Defense of Conciliar Orthodoxy (2016), and Virginia Burrus, “History, Theology, Orthodoxy, Polydoxy,” in Modern Theology (2014).
(2) In what ways might certain aspects of “conciliar orthodoxy” (if there be such a thing) stand at odds with (or in harmony with) various christological impulses in the New Testament?
On this point, consider addressing, amongst others, claims from Leo’s Tome, Maximus the Confessor on dyothelitism, and the conciliar commitment to Mary’s perpetual virginity.
(3) If “conciliar orthodoxy” is, as Richard Bauckham argues, a conceptual translation of the early high Christology of the New Testament into the idiom of Greek metaphysics, then what hope might there be for the Christian kerygma to be translated into different conceptual categories? Is this something that the Church ought to pursue, or is a retrenchment to patristic sources the best way forward for contemporary theology?
7. The genus tapeinoticon
Questions remain as to the compatibility of Martin Luther’s Christology and that of the Chalcedonian Definition. Is Luther best understood as the precursor to the modern endorsement of divine passibility, or simply an extension of his late medieval context? Whatever the case may be, multiple scholars on Luther’s theology have noted his unique understanding of the communicatio idiomatum (“communication of the attributes”), moving beyond a mere communication of divine and human attributes to his person, but instead to a sharing (in some sense) of certain attributes among the two natures. This becomes prominent, of course, in the Eucharistic debates wherein the genus maiestaticum (“genus of majesty”) is employed by some Lutherans to secure the ubiquity of Jesus’ humanity on the basis of a communication of attributes from the divine to the human nature. Respondents to this prompt, however, will focus their attention instead on the logical possibility of (what is now known as) the genus tapeinoticon (“genus of humility”) as it might or might not appear in Luther’s later Christology. It is our hope to have essays representing both sides of the debate — both with regard to Luther could rightly be said to have adopted the genus tapeinoticon and with regard to the viability of the genus tapeinoticon.
Particular attention should be given not only to David Congdon’s essay, “Nova Lingua Dei: The Problem of Chalcedonian Metaphysics and the Promise of the Genus Tapeinoticon in Luther’s Later Theology” and Richard Cross’ book, Communicatio Idiomatum, but also to the concerns for clarity identified in prompts (1) and (2) above. Indeed, respondents should consider it prerequisite to attend to prompt #2 (“The Grammar of Christology”) in particular when approaching this subject.
