Theologen van de twintigste eeuw en de christologie

Abstract

Theologically the twentieth century can be conceived as a century of Christology. In order to fill in the background for this, we first sketch the opposite position, in Arnold Van Ruler’s idea of Christ as an emergency measure. Van Ruler was, however, one of the rare theologians in the core of the twentieth century who resisted the wave of Christological thought that was initiated by Karl Barth. Barth firmly stated that Christ is the only source of revelation, and thus theology depends fully on Christology. Even Emil Brunner’s idea of ‘truth in encounter’ (which is sketched in §3) was opposed by a strict ‘No’ from Barth.

Hendrikus Berkhof can be considered as a transition to a thought in which the human being moves more to the centre of the stage. For Berkhof (§4) Christ was the revelation of true humankind, as revelation of God’s will. Later on theologians progressed further along this path. Liberal theologians — of whom William Thompson is taken as an example (§5) — saw in Jesus an expression of the idea of humanity, whereas the Dutch theologian Harry Kuitert (§6) brings Christology to an end by considering Jesus as a normal Jewish man, whose beliefs we can share — or maybe not.

In the meantime in Germany the pendulum moved in the other direction. Wolfhart Pannenberg (§7) tried to argue that Christ was the ultimate evidence of the divinity of Israel’s God. The   resurrection of Jesus is the objective proof of God. Jurgen Moltmann (§8) is in some ways close to Pannenberg, but he stresses strongly that Christ is an expression of God’s self-limitation, culminating in the crucified God. Thus God is the God of the poor and sinful, and of loving care for a suffering creation.

Roman Catholic theology is usually less liberal than Protestant theology is. But the confrontation with modern thought could not be avoided — and according to many theologians, should not be avoided. As representative of a theologian who tried to integrate both modernity and classical tradition the author chooses Piet Schoonenberg (§9), a theologian who merits more attention than he has been given until now. His reflections on Word and Spirit as different ways of expressing the mystery of Christ go back to a supposed variety of traditions in the early church. In the last paragraph the author summarises his own position in a reflection concentrating on the Nicene Creed and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.