Christology in a pluralistic world.

Jersild, Paul

This opportunity to commemorate Mark W. Thomsen gives me particular pleasure for several reasons. The first is because of a long friendship that began during our student days at Dana College in Blair, Nebraska, where we were roommates. We both attended Trinity Theological Seminary of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church (UELC), which moved to the campus of Wartburg Seminary in 1956. From there we went our separate ways within the ministry of the church, but always managed to stay in touch.

Second, both of our fathers were pastors in the UELC, the church of Danish heritage that merged with much larger German and Norwegian churches in 1960 to form The American Lutheran Church. That common background gave us a religious heritage that was cherished by both of us during the course of our ministries. Our childhood church was marked by a deep piety rooted in the Inner Mission movement in Denmark, but it was characterized by a reserve typical of the Danish people. (1) One's faith was not "worn on one's sleeve," but it had a distinctive emotional element. It was marked by an earnestness that tended to focus more on the character of one's life than on the orthodoxy of one's beliefs. We both saw that spirit in the theologies of professors C. B. Larsen and T. I. Jensen, prominent members of the seminary faculty. (2) Trinity graduates typically resisted the kind of strict orthodoxy that was often found among their peers in other Lutheran churches.

Early Christology

Most of Thomsen's theological works have focused on Christology. Jesus Christ is at the center of the Christian faith, a truth that has loomed all the more importantly to him in light of his work on the mission field and continuing relations with adherents of other world religions, both on a personal and professional basis. He was a theologian who could admirably represent his church as a leader in its global outreach, emphasizing the centrality of Jesus Christ while also stressing the inclusive nature of the church's message. His adherence to the gospel was expressed in ways that certainly placed him within the church's orthodox tradition, while avoiding the exclusive claims that have marked much of orthodox theology. This characteristic of his theology was apparent from his earliest publications.

In his article, "The Lordship of Jesus and Secular Theology," Thomsen addresses the Christology of Paul van Buren, one of the secular theologians emerging in the 1960s who was associated at least indirectly with the "death of God" phenomenon. (3) In his book, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel: Based on an Analysis of Its Language, van Buren avowed the lordship of Jesus apart from faith in God, a position that was challenged by Langdon Gilkey in his Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language (4) Gilkey claimed that secular theology is self-contradictory when it affirms the lordship of Christ because that confession assumes faith in God. Without that faith, secular theology relinquishes any claim to be a Christian theology. Van Buren, in contrast, argued that the picture of Jesus conveyed in the Gospel records, "the man for others" who is driven by the spirit of agape, has the power to grasp and claim any contemporary person. Thomsen agreed, saying that the man Jesus, because of what we know about his life as depicted in the Gospels, can be experienced is Lord. "To be loved and to love, to be accepted and to accept, to be forgiven and to forgive are of value in and of themselves ... I am convinced with van Buren that it is in the story of Jesus that the Christian is grasped...." (5)

I believe this openness to what many of us in the 1960s and 1970s regarded as a questionable Christology reflects the influence of Herbert Braun, under whom Thomsen studied during his doctoral program at Northwestern University. While this openness characterizes the inclusiveness of his theology, it does not signify total agreement with van Buren. In another article, "The Lordship of Jesus and Theological Pluralism," (6) Thomsen compares van Buren's position with that of Schubert Ogden in Christ without Myth: A Study Based on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, concluding that Ogdens Christology is preferable to the empirical thinking of van Buren. (7) In contrast to both Bultmann and van Buren, Ogden affirms the "objective" reality of a God-revealing event in Jesus, in whom one actually confronts "the eternal Existence or Thou in whom all truth is grounded." (8)

In this article Thomsen also considers the Christology of the German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. (9) A distinctive feature of Pannenberg's Christology is his insistence on a historical ground for faith in Jesus, which he finds in the resurrection. He argues that both philosophical assumptions and historical facts demand recognition that death was not able to hold Jesus. Without this objective, historical basis, Pannenberg maintains that we could not recognize the Lordship of Jesus. Thomsen concludes that while he respects Pannenberg's argument and ultimately agrees with his conclusions, he finds it impossible to approach the Lordship of Christ from this perspective. Can one commit one's life for time and eternity upon the basis of "a neutral, nonvalue fact which at its very best is only highly probable and possibly only the most adequate interpretation of a series of events"? (10)

Thomsen finds the insights of van Buren and Ogden more persuasive, experiencing with van Buren "the self-authenticating claim and power of grace or love (agape)" in the story of Jesus, and being convinced with Ogden "that the claim of grace experienced in the story of Jesus is grounded in the Eternal Thou--in God." (11) While Pannenberg regards this approach as unacceptable, a mere grounding of faith in faith itself, Thomsen makes a valid point in a quote from Paul Tillich: "Exactly what can faith guarantee? The inevitable answer is that faith can guarantee only its own foundation, namely, the appearance of that reality which has created the faith." (12) It is precisely the experience of the believer in the encounter with Jesus, which leads to faith in the resurrected Christ.

These early articles on the lordship of Christ reflect a primary feature of Thomsen's Christology that carries throughout his writing. It is the impact of Jesus' life that is decisive: "In and through his story I find myself grasped by the self-authenticating claim and power of grace or love (Agape). The New Testament does portray Jesus as the man of grace; the man for others; the man free to love; the man driven by compassion, care, and concern; the man for whom life was a gift to be shared." (13) Only after experiencing these dimensions of the Lordship of Jesus does the Easter event bring a new and more comprehensive message, that this Jesus of Nazareth "was incredibly affirmed by the power which conquers death. The resurrection becomes God's cry from the beyond that death is not the last word ... that love is in reality grounded in the Eternal." (14)

The person of Christ

Christology has been traditionally divided into the person and work of Jesus Christ. Thomsen's Christology concentrates on the work of Christ rather than focusing on the issues posed by the fourth- and fifth-century Trinitarian and Christological controversies. When he refers to that subject, it is always in light of what was happening in the life of Jesus without attempting to spell out the implications of those events for the person of Jesus. For example, he writes: "... the fact that it was Jesus of Nazareth who was raised also indicates that this particular life, message, and death are to be identified with the unique, decisive, and final activity of God. He is in some way uniquely the Son of God, a mystery which we cannot possibly comprehend." (15) This last sentence would indicate that probing into the nature of Christ is less than fruitful, attempting to intrude on what has to remain as mystery. It is the nature of what was happening in his life that makes Jesus who he is, which leads me to believe that for Thomsen the meaning of the incarnation is expressed in his words that characterize Jesus as the "concretization" of the suffering love of God.

Thus the direction of Thomsen's Christology is not one that begins with who Jesus is in terms of his humanity and divinity in order to validate or understand what was happening in his life, essentially a philosophical enterprise. Rather, it is being grasped by his life, his ministry and teaching, his crucifixion and resurrection that form the basis for coming to conclusions about who he is. Faith sees in him the "final activity" of God. To know Jesus is to encounter the "Eternal Thou," the Ultimate Mystery of life. That finality was understood in historical terms within the Jewish context, but with the transition into the Gentile world and the Hellenistic tradition, the paradigm shifted from a historical to a metaphysical context. Here there is no way of understanding ultimate truth in terms of historical fulfillment of prophetic promises. In a cultural world where Aristotle's God was far removed from history, change, and mortality, the issue was now whether the divine Being could be identified with human flesh, an "incarnation."

This metaphysical world shaped the fourth century debate leading to the formulations of the Nicene Creed. Followers of Athanasius maintained the fullness of divinity in Jesus against the followers of Arius, whose mythological view of transcendence placed the origin of Jesus in a realm that was closer to the earth, an "extended" version of divinity, so to speak, not really embodying the true and ultimate God. Within that philosophical context, the Athanasian position, says Thomsen, was rightly affirmed as orthodox. However, he does not see the fourth century world of metaphysics as carrying an absolute or final version of the church's Christology. Amidst the many and various ways in which the meaning of Jesus Christ has been articulated, Thomsen concludes that two points are critical: " 1) The finality of Jesus Christ is to be maintained in our confession and mission. Jesus Christ the crucified and risen servant is the incarnation of God's presence and action in the world. 2) We are also aware ... that this confession has taken many forms within the history and the traditions of the church. Again and again new situations and contexts call forth new confessions of the Christian faith." (16)

Thomsen elaborates on this assertion by noting that there is already a variety of Christological formulations to be found in the New Testament, and that "what is essential to the Christian faith is not particular Trinitarian statements, but the integral relationship between the story of Jesus and the story of God." (17) He maintains this conviction in an article where he specifically addresses the Christology of Nicaea. (18) He argues that the faith articulated in the Nicene Creed can be just as adequately expressed with symbols and concepts that reflect a different time and culture. In fact, no one set of concepts can claim superiority or an absolute status for all time. Every Christology reflects its cultural milieu and thus brings a relative character to its conceptual language. While this is a truth widely recognized in a postmodern age, Thomsen is understandably dubious about whether it has been integrated into the thinking of the church.

From the early chapters of the Book of Acts, he lifts up a Christology of the Spirit as an example of an alternative option to the language of Nicaea. While the Nicene Creed presents an ontological view of the meaning of Jesus, speaking of an incarnation which brings the second person of the Trinity--the pre-existent Son--down to earth, a Spirit Christology conveys the meaning of Jesus within a historical-teleological framework, claiming a divinely bestowed finality to his life as the long-expected Messiah. "Thus in non-incarnational terms, the primitive church proclaimed that God was uniquely present and decisively active in Jesus who had been designated 'the Christ.' This meant that Jesus was to the primitive church that one in whom was to be found the ultimate meaning of life and history, for in and through him God himself was personally present and decisively active within history." (19) Thus Thomsen moves "from below" rather than "from above," from the man Jesus to the confession that "God was in Christ ... " (2 Cor 5:19).

While preferring Spirit language to that of the Nicene Creed, Thomsen still sees the necessity of affirming what he calls a "fusion of ontological ultimacy with historical-teleological finality" in the church's confession. The Western church is a child of the Greek tradition, with ontological categories still deeply embedded in its theology. That language, while no longer maintaining the dominance it once had, still makes it necessary to speak of Jesus as divine--God incarnate. But the emphasis for Thomsen properly lies in the question, "Where, or in whom, do we find the unique, decisive and ultimate presence of God and His action?" This is the primary question, while the secondary question is, "How do we, as Christians, account for the fact that we believe that Jesus is the answer to that ultimate question?" (20) To that secondary but still "extremely significant question," Thomsen beckons the non-believer to "come and see."

Jesus, "the Cosmic Crucified"

The expression in Thomsen's Christology that particularly captures the meaning of Jesus is "the Cosmic Crucified." Crucifixion was a horrendously violent and revolting way to execute the victim--a death reserved for traitors and criminals. Seeing Jesus on a cross profoundly challenged the hope among his followers that he would prove to be the Messiah, leaving them deeply disoriented and depressed. The events that followed were totally unexpected and overwhelming, leading them to the awesome cry "He lives!" For Thomsen historical investigation of itself cannot establish what was understood to be a resurrection. What we do know is that his disciples were overcome with a tangible sense of his presence, imbuing them with the conviction that out of death had come new life. This experience drove home their conviction that God was truly at work in the remarkable ministry of Jesus; he was indeed the Christ. The crucifixion now assumed an altogether new meaning that has challenged the believing community in every time and place to articulate, proclaim, and above all to live out in their own lives.

In Thomsen's description of Jesus as the Cosmic Crucified, we see a rich theology of the cross that emphasizes the paradoxical nature of the Christian message. In the crucifixion, faith sees a vulnerable, suffering God whose sacrificial love embraces the sinner. At the same time, a distinctive feature in Thomsen's understanding of the cross is the way he enlarges its meaning well beyond the human story, bringing its message of transformative, suffering love into every corner of the universe. The crucified Christ is the key to grasping the nature of the whole creation. The cosmos itself can now be seen in light of the suffering love of God that is "concretized" in the cross. "Every galaxy, every child, every creature, every electron, move within the compassion of God who 'weeps' in the midst of suffering and 'sings' in the midst of creation's joys." (21) An empirical mindset would certainly question the meaning of a claim that the suffering love of God permeates the universe, from distant galaxies to our evolving planet. Thomsen's response is that a Trinitarian faith "believes that the cross of the Cosmic Crucified lies within the heart of God and therefore the heart of the universe." (22) This is not an empirical description, but a metaphorical, faith-based affirmation of a redemptive power in all of creation whose full meaning awaits the final consummation. Thomsen sees this universal character of God's "saving Logos" in a number of Pauline letters and early theologians, citing Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine. (23)

Thomsen's view of the cross reveals an acute sense of the pain and suffering that runs throughout human history and, indeed, the whole of creation. The mission of God, centering in the violent death of Jesus, brings a "suffering-with-us presence" that would transform our lives by struggling with us against the powers of darkness. It is the struggle of a passionate love that does not crush our apathy and resistance with irresistible omnipotence, but persuasively draws us out of our brokenness. "Only vulnerable love authentically transforms life. Ultimate truth is crucified truth. Jesus as crucified truth calls us into participation in crucified truth." (24) This vulnerability and weakness is strikingly present not only in the cross itself but in the whole life and ministry of Jesus. Thus, both his life and his message concerning the kingdom of God are revolutionary, turning things upside down, as far as human expectations are concerned.

In addressing the crucifixion as atonement, Thomsen finds support in the works of Kazo Kitamori and Jurgen Moltmann. (25) Both of these theologians identify the cross with the suffering of God, a view that receives particular emphasis in Thomsen's Christology. He is critical of those atonement theories going back to Anselm that have pitted a God jealous of his honor, or a wrathful, justice-demanding God against the God of love personified in Jesus. (26) On the contrary, atonement centers in the suffering love of God, which bears our brokenness and has the power to reconcile and transform a wayward world. Because "Jesus' cross is also God's cross," the crucifixion reveals that the God of our faith is a vulnerable, suffering God, a loving God who can truly transform us from within. This does not mean, however, that there is no place for the wrath of God. In terms of its divine purpose, Thomsen sees God's wrath as a servant of his love, holding us responsible and making clear the destructive nature of our sinfulness. Thus, there is conflict and struggle for the hearts of human beings, a reality that leads Thomsen to look favorably on Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor motif as well as the works of liberation theologians that bring a compelling witness to the transforming, liberating power of the gospel. (27)

Jesus Christ and interfaith relations

Living now in the shrunken, global village of the twenty-first century, Thomsen forcefully lifts up the church's imperative to proclaim the universal and unconditional love of God in Christ Jesus. The church's history has too often betrayed a desire to restrict and control the good news, defining and confining salvation within the comfortable limits of the church. This is a betrayal not only of the church's mission, but also of the gospel itself. Thomsen roots the universal character of the church's gospel in a Lutheran theology of the cross, acknowledging that the sixteenth-century tradition must be "stretched" in order to enable its effective dialogue with the ecumenical and interfaith currents of our time. I believe this "stretching" can be seen in the broader vision that Thomsen brings to the cross of Christ, giving it a cosmic, universal dimension that speaks to the "global village" in which we live. This is not doing violence to the tradition; its validity is affirmed in its capacity to be interpreted anew in the changing circumstances of history. Thomsen is convinced that this reframing of an earlier theology of the cross not only brings new life to it, but also enables it to be "more faithful to the full biblical tradition." (28)

The implications of our recognizing the universal, all-embracing nature of the love of God concretized in Christ are profound, not least in the way the church relates to those of other faiths. It requires a self-critical consciousness that does not allow the church to identify itself with any given nation or culture, a situation that inevitably prejudices the church's image in the world. Nor can the church be authentic as the body of Christ if it claims as its own possession an Ultimate Truth, which actually transcends the church. That posture is the besetting sin of an imperial Christendom whose theology claims sovereignty over the gospel itself. It turns the church away from its mission as a servant community, the consequences of which are all the more severe in a pluralistic world where we are rubbing shoulders with people of many different faith traditions. In the twenty-first century, the imperative is all the more urgent that the church embody the ministry of Jesus, living out its mission as a serving and reconciling community.

The good news conveyed by the Cosmic Crucified is all too often reduced to the expectation of a heavenly reward if one believes in Jesus. For Thomsen, that view limits and even disavows the breadth and depth of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the freedom of the Spirit of God at work in the world. To be sure, the good news of cross and resurrection does address our mortality, bestowing hope that reaches beyond the grave. But for Thomsen, the message of the cross turns our attention to the realities of this world, where God is in solidarity with us in the pain and suffering that mark the human story. We are not alone in the ongoing struggle with the forces of evil that often appear to be overwhelming. As a former missionary, he is convinced that a universal understanding of the saving, reconciling love of God gives renewed vigor to the evangelistic mission of the church. The urgency in proclaiming the gospel message lies in the profoundly good news it bears, that of a gracious God whose love embraces the world rather than the means of saving the fortunate believer from eternal judgment. (29) This positive message is the "most authentic way to articulate the gospel" among people of other faiths. It also brings the imperative that an authentic witness to the gospel on the part of the faith community will demonstrate the life of discipleship, following Christ by participating in the quest for justice, reconciliation, and peace.

Conclusion

A statement of the British historian, Herbert Butterfield, was particularly meaningful to Thomsen and he often cited it: "Hold to Christ and for the rest be totally uncommitted." (30) This conviction both centers on the core of the gospel and gives an appropriate freedom and flexibility to the mission of the church. Thomsen laments the fact that Lutherans have not always claimed that freedom. The concern to keep and maintain an orthodox theology has too often threatened to imprison them in the past. As a Lutheran theologian and pastor, Thomsen loved his church enough to challenge it where he recognized the need of doing so. That made his contribution to the life and mission of his church all the more significant.

I close by quoting two sentences he wrote (note the added emphasis he gives them with italics) that express this spirit of critical devotion to the church and its mission: "It is essential to recognize that only a church with the capacity for cultural change and adaptability has the potential for being a faithful instrument of the Missio Dei. It is only when a theological tradition forms a foundation rather than a fortress that it can speak to a post-Christian and pluralistic century:" (31) The life and work of Mark Thomsen has been a persuasive witness to the truth of this statement.

(1.) The Inner Mission began in 1853 as a pietistic movement advocating small-group devotions and lay preaching.

(2.) Both served as professors of systematic theology at Trinity Seminary. Theodor Ingval Jensen served as the Dean of Trinity Seminary from 1946-56, and the President from 1956-61.

(3.) Mark W. Thomsen, "The Lordship of Jesus and Secular Theology," Religion in Life 41 (Autumn, 1972), 374-383.

(4.) See Paul van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel: Based on an Analysis of Its Language (New York: Macmillan, 1963) and Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God-Language (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).

(5.) Op. cit., 376.

(6.) Mark W. Thomsen, "The Lordship of Jesus and Theological Pluralism," Dialog 11 (Spring, 1972), 125-132. Hereafter cited as "Pluralism."

(7.) Schubert Ogden, Christ without Myth: A Study Based on the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961).

(8.) Christ without Myth, 163 as cited in "Pluralism," 127.

(9.) Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus--God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968).

(10.) "Pluralism," 130.

(11.) Ibid., 130, 131.

(12.) Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 114 as cited in "Pluralism," 131, note 36.

(13.) "Pluralism," 130.

(14.) Ibid., 132.

(15.) Ibid.

(16.) Mark W. Thomsen, Jesus, the Word, and the Way of the Cross (Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2008), 129.

(17.) Jesus, 140.

(18.) Mark W. Thomsen, "A Christology of the Spirit and the Nicene Creed," Dialog 16 (Spring, 1977), 135-138.

(19.) "Christology," 136-137.

(20.) Ibid., 136.

(21.) Jesus, 129.

(22.) Ibid., 54.

(23.) See Christ Crucified: A 21stCentury Missiology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2004), 36-37, and 116, notes 39 and 40.

(24.) Jesus, 129.

(25.) Kazo Kitamori, The Theology of the Pain of God (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1965); Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

(26.) Christ Crucified, 21-23.

(27.) Jesus, 26-29.

(28.) Christ Crucified, 11-12. See Jesus, 45-47.

(29.) Jesus, 10.

(30.) Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950), 146 as cited in Christ Crucified, 16.

(31.) Christ Crucified, 17. Thomsen's emphasis.

Paul Jersild

Professor Emeritus of Theology and Ethics at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary: Lenoir-Rhyne University, Columbia, S. C.