This is the second post in a series about Unity and Re-claiming the Christian heritage. In this post I'd like to focus particularly on Christology and Soteriology, or who Jesus is and his role in the process of salvation/liberation.
First of all, I should state up front that there are many Jesus' to be found out there - the variety of portraits of Jesus found in biblical scholarship, Christian theology, church worship and liturgy, and even other religions (recall, for instance, the important and revered role of Jesus as prophet in Islam). Here I'm combining my understanding of biblical studies and Christian theological discourse and history to forward a way to bridge "traditional" approaches to Jesus and salvation with Unity. Or more accurately, I'm trying to forge a way to integrate certain mainline/traditional theological doctrine into a Unity context.
Throughout Church history there have been several different models of understanding who Jesus is. The earliest Christians articulated the following confession: "Iesou Christou Theou Yion Soter -- Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." Jesus, for them, held the title "Christ" or "Messiah," which means "the annointed one" of God's establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth. He was also "Son of God," which was a title also often applied to the Roman Emperors. In these early Christian communities, Jesus was seen as God's special Son sent to inaugurate reconciliation with God and redemption. And this liberating, transformative role also speaks to his role as Savior or healer of the individual soul, humanity, and all creation.
Now, there were several early Christian groups who understood Jesus rather differently from one another. For instance, there were the Ebionites, or Judean Christians, who saw him as only human, but still regarded him as the greatest rabbi and prophet who was the Messiah/Christ ushering in God's new Kingdom or rule on Earth. On the other side of the spectrum were Docetic Christians (from "dokeo" meaning "to seem or appear") who asserted that Jesus on appeared human but was, in reality, totally and solely divine or God. And then there were various shades and combinations in between on the spectrum. The eventual "orthodox" perspective claims that Jesus was and is 100% human and 100% divine, totally human and totally God (adds up to 200%, I know, but this is not math but faith experience and reflection). This "fully human, fully God" view has been affirmed by the Fillmores and Unity leaders throughout the years, but then adds that we are like Jesus in this way. We are different from Jesus only by degree or perhaps office/role but not in kind or species.
The central element that I believe Unity has lost or is in the process of losing is the discipleship and devotional elements in regard to Jesus. In normative Unity, especially in Charles Fillmore's writings, Jesus is affirmed as our way-shower, elder brother, and/or great example. I'm wanting to kick this up a notch and show how more explicitly discipleship and devotional understandings of Jesus make sense in Unity and can be brought in to our theological understanding. Concerning discipleship, this involves following Jesus' way of living, the manner of his relationships, the transformative content of his teachings, and learning from his death and resurrection what sacrifice for truth and liberation means. Being a disciple of Jesus simply means claiming Jesus as a/the central figure whose life is worthy of complete emulation due to his transparency to God.
Concerning devotion, this is a bit more controversial in Unity. This is because most Unity folks make a significant distinction between the religion of Jesus and the religion about Jesus, or faith of Jesus versus the faith in Jesus. Many Unity people have given up on the belief that Jesus saves or liberates by virtue of some sacrificial atonement or penal substitution. Well, quite frankly, I count myself in among them. However, this doesn't mean that we must completely discard or discredit faith in Jesus. In redefining and clarifying what this means, faith in Jesus involves embracing the faith of Jesus. There is a devotional tenor here. Devoting our spiritual intention, attention, and energy to aligning our thoughts, words, and actions with the pattern of God's disclosure and expression in and through Jesus' whole life. If he, as is widely asserted in Unity, is the one who has most fully manifested his Christ nature, then it would make perfect sense to put trusting acceptance (faith) in his whole personhood (his teachings, way of life, mindset, relationality, etc.) that fully reveal who and what God is. We may devote our spiritual life and growth to Jesus, looking to his example and thus guidance, and give him thanks in gratefulness for his God-consciousness. And when we devote ourselves this way to Jesus, we become further inspired, awakened, enlightened, and transformed by the impact our relationship with his life has on us. And this is not simply a literary relationship but a dynamic, living relationship with Christ Jesus (the "ascended Jesus," as Charles Fillmore puts it) who is still living in and among us and is available when we call on him in consciousness, in prayer and meditation or in other contemplative practices.
In "traditional" Christianity there has been essentially four distinct soteriological views concerning Jesus. There are four ways of understanding the role of Jesus in the process of liberation or salvation from the human condition, which is sin, "missing the mark," or a sense of estrangement/alienation/separation from God (in Unity this is normally understood to be estrangement from God in consciousness, since we are always one with God).
The first soteriology is often called "Christus Victor." This the belief that Jesus the Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection, has defeated the devil or Satan (however understood) in some kind of cosmic battle. His victory has liberated humanity from the bondage to sin that the devil/Satan has had over us. This particular perspective was very popular in the first few centuries of the early Church and was revived again in the 20th century in the theological work of Gustav Aulen.
Another view may be called "penal substitution." This was most influentially articulated in the 12th century by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury. This has become the dominant understanding of salvation in Protestantism and Catholicism in the West. The idea here is that all humans owe all possible honor and obedience to God. Through the sin of Adam and Eve, all of humanity has incurred an infinite debt and dishonor to God who is infinite. However, as we are finite creatures, we cannot possibly fulfill this debt. Only God, who is infinite and eternal, can satisfy this debt. Thus, only a being who is both human and God could right this wrong. Enter Jesus Christ, who is understood to be the God-man who took on the punishment that humans deserved and fulfilled the debt obligation to God since he is fully divine. On this view, Jesus accomplishes salvation for humanity by reconciling us to God.
One view of salvation that holds importance in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is what may be termed theosis, or divination. That is, when the eternal Logos/Word became human as Jesus Christ, the human and divine natures were completely united, allowing for the cleansing or purification of humanity through identification with Jesus. By virtue of personal, mystical union with Jesus, the Christian is transformed into greater likeness of him - human and divine. The meaning is often stated: We become by grace what God is by nature. And this is accomplished through conscious identification with Jesus.
The final view is the one most normatively understood in Unity circles. I term it inspirational influence; others call it moral influence theory. This was first explicated most comprehensively by medieval scholastic Peter Abelard. This is essentially the outlook that when the Christian encounters the life of Jesus in scripture and prayer, s/he is inspired, enlightened, transformed in mind, body, and spirit. Jesus' entire life profoundly impacts and influences the person into greater experience and expression of God's Love.
The last two - theosis and inspirational influence - I believe are able to be integrated into a Unity Christian soteriology that, if explained in New Thought language, would be tenable for many or most Unity folks. I like to state it this way: Jesus, as the pinnacle demonstrator of the Christ Spirit within all, reveals and discloses who/what God is for humanity. Most of the time we don't live out our true nature as the Christ/image of God, and so we need a concrete human exemplar that demonstrates the fullness of human potential that we rarely, if ever, witness -- Jesus. Aligning ourselves with and following Jesus (the identification of theosis) as the perfect pattern of human life totally transparent to God and completely imbued with God's Spirit brings liberating, transforming, and "saving" experience. That is, Jesus saves by showing and offering us his life, which allows liberation from a sense of estrangement from God and others and liberation into an awareness and experience of God's immediate presence of Love and Wisdom.
Through this union of traditional teaching and New Thought re-interpretation, I believe it is definitely possible and, indeed, spiritually important to bring Jesus back into the center of the Unity movement. While not everyone will agree with this viewpoint, I think it's one that is viable for the movement, one that not only puts us back in touch with the roots of Unity but also moves us forward into new ways of re-claiming and finding transformational import in and through the most influential spiritual individual person in history.
I look forward to further dialogue and conversation about Jesus and new ways to re-claim him for Unity in the 21st century. Peace!
Great stuff, Jesse. Jesus was, and is, a Master. In nearly all spiritual traditions, the appropriate way to relate to a Master is with devotion!
ReplyDeleteI have heard it said that Unity is "the thinking man's religion." I tend to see alot of Unity folks approaching spirituality in an intellectual way. But I daresay that Spirit can never be known or understood intellectually - hence the importance of devotion, to open the heart, to surrender.
I think that to really know Jesus - as a man, as a Master, as the Christ - requires more than a study of his life and teachings. To really know Jesus calls for devotion to him, a personal relationship with him, and mystic union with him.
Well put, Ben. The heart is the center of devotion.
ReplyDeleteResponding to the first part of the blog, Jesse, I appreciate your challenge to Unity people to continue in the search for Jesus rather than abandoning him as a central figure. I have heard Unity youth leader equate Jesus with Gandhi, King and Mother Teresa. I think Jesus deserves more devotion than them. We can wholeheartedly embrace the idea of devotion to Jesus: the example that he lived from the consciousness of the Divine. This is, I believe, the impetus behind my fervent desire to know what kind of man Jesus was: my desire to cut through the myth that is enmeshed in the gospels and know what might be reliable and what is made up by the writers in order to support their political and cultural bias.
ReplyDeleteAnd, to reply to your second comments about soteriology, it seems perfectly reasonable to think of Jesus as a way-shower AND mystical (not just intellectual) pattern of perfection. Several of our colleagues at Unity institute welcome a discussion about the mystical union of ourselves to the spirit or consciousness of Jesus as a way to be uplifted into union with The One.
Thank you Jesse for a scholarly explication of some of the current controverrsial issues in Unity. As Unity theology evolves in this millenium, it is clear that we need to revisit and rethink who Jesus is to us and what salvation means in the context of Unity beliefs. And we need to approach this whole process with humility and awareness of our divinity.
ReplyDeleteMany Unity students have found great spiritual relief in learning to relate to Jesus as Way-Shower, a window into the nature of the Divine. That idea resonated more strongly than Jesus as "savior" of the traditional Christian church. However, we can, in our enthusiasm to embrace our Christ nature, lose track of our human nature and fall into patterns of magical thinking through misapplication of our Unity principles.
If we can find our way back to a truly humble, devotional, reverential relationship to Jesus as the avatar of spiritual expression that he was and is, then perhaps we can the metaphysical malpractice and spiritual arrogance that we in Unity can sometimes demonstrate. When I hear someone in Unity asking another Truth student "What was in your consciousness that attracted that?" I wonder if that is a question Jesus would have asked his followers.
As we continue to search for what Jesus actually said, did and taught, it becomes clearer and clearer that to actually follow the Way that he showed us is quite demanding and requires true humility.
As I read this post the following question kept pushing its way to the forefront: "What would Jesus say?" While the question itself is essentially unanswerable to any degree of certainty, I find it central to the discussion for a variety of reasons. Haven't all the descriptions/roles of Jesus been assigned to him postmortem, and in some cases while he lived? Aren't our soteriological categorizations of Jesus based on the various interpretations of his words and actions for which we have dubious authority? Would the 1st century Rabbi who lived in Roman-occupied territory accept the claims we have made for him?
ReplyDeleteAs you alluded to, if we are to look to Jesus as the example, which one do we look to? Do we ask ourselves "What would Jesus do according to Mark?...or Luke?...or Paul?...or whoever authored the gospels?" True there is much overlap in each of these views, but also nuanced yet significant differences. To be in Unity implies acceptance of Fillmore's interpretation of Jesus' life, teachings, and role. Given the available choices, we could do worse :)
I agree with, and from the pulpit often speak about looking to Jesus when responding to the wondrous complexities of life. Yet I would propose that bringing Jesus back to the center is worryingly akin to reviving the 'middle man' ideology that Jesus seemed to be trying to eliminate. When he (reportedly) said to go to the closet and pray to the Father in secret (Matt 6:6) I take that to mean he was affirming the I-God relationship. I think that is where the focus needs to be: deepening and developing our relationship with Divine source with less focus on what others say about that source, including Jesus. While the life and teachings of Jesus can indeed inspire, enlighten, and transform, and are an irreplaceable launching platform, at some point must we not leave even him aside and pursue God for and through ourselves?
Ogun, your questions are timely, appropriate, and ones that Christians from many denominations are struggling with - and it's time we actually revive this struggle within Unity. This is my whole point.
DeleteI definitely understand the question of "which Jesus?" It takes discernment within a community of faith to try to address this question, and I'm trying to revitalize these issues within Unity, for those of us for whom Jesus is important, at least.
Your last point about ultimately getting rid of the "middle man" and discovering the direct, unmediated experience of God is poignant and I agree with you to a certain extent. However, for me, cultivating a relationship with the risen Jesus "in the ethers" or "4th dimension" (to use Mr. Fillmore's language) is not antithetical or dissonant with this direct encounter with God. In fact, looking to Jesus' life, teachings, etc. as inspiration motivates me to find that direct relationship he spoke of and calls my consciousness higher so as to be most fully prepared and receptive to unmediated experience of God. Even on the mystical oneness side, Jesus is still relevant and central for me and many others in our movement. So, I'm hoping to cultivate and celebrate a place for those of us who wish to keep Jesus at the core of our spirituality.
Peace.
I was raised eastern orthodox (Russian to be precise) and live in a monastery for a few years. Theosis and Unity appear on the cover to be close. The ultimate goal may be the same, but the path there is completely different. You stated theosis as such "We become by grace what God is by nature. And this is accomplished through conscious identification with Jesus". EO would agree with the first part, though it is usually stated "God became man so man can become God", which was coined by Gregory of Palamas. The second part you state appears to be more in line with Unity and not EO. In the EO church it is more about groveling and asking forgiveness for the evil person you were born as and are. The EO church has the whole original sin thing just like the Catholic church, so it is replete with the whole sin and guilt thing. When I was a novice, I used to pray "Lord jesus Christ son of God, have mercy on me a sinner" several hundred times a day, like all good monks and EO lay people do.
ReplyDeleteI think the goal of EO theosis and unity may be the same, however the path there is strikingly different. Unity is a wakening out of your ignorance while the EO is a purifying of your evil sinful flesh.