What do you think?
Rate this book
Yesterday & Today - Study of Continuities in Christology by Colin E. Gunton
In this study of the relation of form, content, and method in christology, Colin Gunton argues for the continuity of modern times with the patristic era. While he believes that the philosophical, theological, and cultural problems facing moderns are similar to those that confronted the Fathers, Gunton does not ignore the distinctively modern context.Because the development of modern culture provides a more "this-worldly" context for christological discussion, says Gunton, the question becomes how far it is possible for the this-worldly figure of Jesus of Nazareth to be conceived as the presence of the eternal God in time and place. Gunton pursues the question by first discussing the place of the Bible in christology, and then comparing the way philosophical presuppositions have operated in some modern and ancient christologies.In exploring the relation of Jesus Christ to space and time, Gunton shows that contemporary difficulties about a theory of incarnation, far from being peculiar to the modern era, in fact derive from ancient thought forms. He develops a view of the language of christology which avoids the rigidities of some recent approaches. Finally, Gunton examines the relation of christological thinking to questions of soteriology and to the world of political culture.
- GenresTheologyPhilosophy
Paperback Bunko
First published January 1, 1983
8 people want to read
About the author
Colin E. Gunton
40 books17 followersColin Ewart Gunton (1941-2003) was a British systematic theologian. As a theologian he made contributions to the doctrine of Creation and the doctrine of the trinity. He was Professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College London from 1984 and co-founder with Christoph Schwoebel of the Research Institute for Systematic Theology in 1988. Gunton was actively involved in the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom where he had been a minister since 1972. He was arguably the most important British theologian of his generation.
Gunton's most influential work was on the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. One of his most important books is The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity" (1993), and is "a profound analysis of the paradoxes and contradictions of Modernity." The One, the Three and the Many remains a "majestical survey of the western intellectual tradition and a penetrating analysis of the modern condition."
Gunton's most influential work was on the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. One of his most important books is The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity" (1993), and is "a profound analysis of the paradoxes and contradictions of Modernity." The One, the Three and the Many remains a "majestical survey of the western intellectual tradition and a penetrating analysis of the modern condition."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 27, 2011
Gunton argues that the content and form of ancient, synodal Christology, particularly that of Chalcedon, are necessary one for the other (Gunton, 5). He posits this thesis aware that recent attempts in Christology (Pannenberg and Rahner) are uncomfortable with the “Greek-ness” of the early church, label it as “dualist,” and reject it, instead opting for a “Christology from below.” Such a Christology starts with the man Jesus who may be a vehicle for the divine, or attains the highest point of the love of God for us, but in any case is not to be confused with Logos Christologies that do not take into account human experience.
Gunton, however, sees the problem with both Christology from above and below as the same: dualism. Both seem to posit a dialectic between time and eternity in the sense that one cannot co-penetrate with the other. Gunton wants to maintain the conclusions of Chalcedon without the language and mindset of Chalcedon. This is particularly problematic, as Gunton himself is aware, since Gunton had previously argued that form and content are interrelated. He is not deterred, though, for he thinks he can maintain the conclusions via biblical theology. He argues God's self-communication is revealed through Jesus (79). Gunton is aware that any attempt to answer the “above/below” question, assuming they have dead-ended, must also deal with the problems of time, space, and eternity, to which he devotes his next chapter.
Questions of time and eternity often hinge upon usually unexamined presuppositions. As Gunton notes, modern metaphysics, especially concerning the divine and human natures, time and eternity, etc., suppose that these realities are “opposites or contradictories to each other” (86). In a very interesting move, Gunton notes that for Schliermacher God was “absolutely simple and unconditioned” (87), which presupposition would later dominate the rest of the discussion. For Gunton's discussion, this is the foundation of “dualism” (though Gunton does not spell it out this way). The only way to combat this dualism is it insist that these realities are not opposed ontologically, as noted by Leontius (93).i Gunton goes on to say that post-Kantian theology is for us what the doctrine of impassibility was for the Fathers (97).
In his chapter on “The Logic of Divine Love” Gunton continues with his usual slams against Augustine. If one compares page 106 with page 110, Gunton shows how Kant almost quotes Augustine word for word in his definition of time. Both draw upon Platonic images of “time as the moving image of eternity.” The former marks change as opposed to the latter. There is a difference, though, for Kant the preferred is time, not eternity. For Augustine it is the reverse. But, as Gunton notes, both share a key presupposition: both are dominated by the old Hellenistic pessimism of time's fleetingness (107). This is problematic for Christology, for if the two are so radically juxtaposed how can God (eternal) co-inhabit the temporal?
Gunton then sharpens his focus on Augustine. Given Augustine's view of simplicity and truth (e.g., the more simple one is the more being it has, and the more being it has the more true it is), then for Augustine, despite his Catholic conclusions and dogma, to be in creation and time is ultimately to be lacking in being (and ultimately, good) (109). In other words, change is the problem.
The rest of the chapter deals with “space” and is quite interesting. Surprisingly, and contra Bultmann, the New Testament really does not use spatial metaphors all that often: Christ came in the fullness of time and the word became flesh (12-113). In other words, the New Testament is more interested in time than in space. Therefore, Christology must seek a view of eternity “co-inhering” in time. In other words, the structure of time itself must allow for an eternal dimension.ii
The question of space, though, cannot be dismissed just yet. The problem is that we are Newtonians who hold to a “container” doctrine of absolute space (114). Gunton notes that our problem with understanding transcendence and immanence is that we tend to view things in exclusive categories: a thing is here and cannot allow something else to be here. In short, we have a tendency towards nominalism—objects are dead matter. The best way to refute the container notion of space is the idea of music. When a triad is played hear in one and the same place three tones which create a new chord, yet nothing is excluding the “others” (115). Therefore, space and time must be seen in terms of perichoresis. (I've been challenged on this point, but I maintain that Christology not only solves the problems of theology, but also of ontology and science itself. Anyway, Thomas Torrance said the same thing).
Gunton ends his work with a discussion of dualisms within Christology as it relates to Christendom. Which should be ultimate: the suffering, liberal, “Lutheran” Christ, or the Byzantine Pantokrator? I'm not entirely sure how Gunton answers this question.
Criticism and Conclusion
In terms of Gunton's thesis I think he is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants the conclusions of the early church without submitting to its authority. While I believe the Bible teaches the hypostatic union, I don't think it is self-evident. I suspect many will not be persuaded by Gunton's exegesis. Secondly, Gunton keeps criticizing “the Fathers,” but the only people he really identifies as “Fathers” are Origen and Augustine: one was condemned for heresy and the other simply cannot be made the universal template of the church.
Gunton isn't always faithful to his criticism of the Fathers, though. He notes that Nicea destroyed much of Hellenism, even if retaining its language and patterns. He notes that homoousion is incompatible with mainstream Hellenism (49). He goes even further in stating that Athanasius's doctrine of perichoresis “destroyed classical ontology” (135-136).iii If that's true, as I believe it is, then it doesn't make sense to keep labeling these same guys as “Hellenistic.”
On an interesting side-note: Gunton, following Torrance, notes that Protestant worship is Apollonarian, since only the mind is involved. More specifically, we are not worshiping the whole Person of the Logos with the entire humanity of the Logos, given Protestantism's aversion to beauty, incense, bells, etc (147).
Gunton, however, sees the problem with both Christology from above and below as the same: dualism. Both seem to posit a dialectic between time and eternity in the sense that one cannot co-penetrate with the other. Gunton wants to maintain the conclusions of Chalcedon without the language and mindset of Chalcedon. This is particularly problematic, as Gunton himself is aware, since Gunton had previously argued that form and content are interrelated. He is not deterred, though, for he thinks he can maintain the conclusions via biblical theology. He argues God's self-communication is revealed through Jesus (79). Gunton is aware that any attempt to answer the “above/below” question, assuming they have dead-ended, must also deal with the problems of time, space, and eternity, to which he devotes his next chapter.
Questions of time and eternity often hinge upon usually unexamined presuppositions. As Gunton notes, modern metaphysics, especially concerning the divine and human natures, time and eternity, etc., suppose that these realities are “opposites or contradictories to each other” (86). In a very interesting move, Gunton notes that for Schliermacher God was “absolutely simple and unconditioned” (87), which presupposition would later dominate the rest of the discussion. For Gunton's discussion, this is the foundation of “dualism” (though Gunton does not spell it out this way). The only way to combat this dualism is it insist that these realities are not opposed ontologically, as noted by Leontius (93).i Gunton goes on to say that post-Kantian theology is for us what the doctrine of impassibility was for the Fathers (97).
In his chapter on “The Logic of Divine Love” Gunton continues with his usual slams against Augustine. If one compares page 106 with page 110, Gunton shows how Kant almost quotes Augustine word for word in his definition of time. Both draw upon Platonic images of “time as the moving image of eternity.” The former marks change as opposed to the latter. There is a difference, though, for Kant the preferred is time, not eternity. For Augustine it is the reverse. But, as Gunton notes, both share a key presupposition: both are dominated by the old Hellenistic pessimism of time's fleetingness (107). This is problematic for Christology, for if the two are so radically juxtaposed how can God (eternal) co-inhabit the temporal?
Gunton then sharpens his focus on Augustine. Given Augustine's view of simplicity and truth (e.g., the more simple one is the more being it has, and the more being it has the more true it is), then for Augustine, despite his Catholic conclusions and dogma, to be in creation and time is ultimately to be lacking in being (and ultimately, good) (109). In other words, change is the problem.
The rest of the chapter deals with “space” and is quite interesting. Surprisingly, and contra Bultmann, the New Testament really does not use spatial metaphors all that often: Christ came in the fullness of time and the word became flesh (12-113). In other words, the New Testament is more interested in time than in space. Therefore, Christology must seek a view of eternity “co-inhering” in time. In other words, the structure of time itself must allow for an eternal dimension.ii
The question of space, though, cannot be dismissed just yet. The problem is that we are Newtonians who hold to a “container” doctrine of absolute space (114). Gunton notes that our problem with understanding transcendence and immanence is that we tend to view things in exclusive categories: a thing is here and cannot allow something else to be here. In short, we have a tendency towards nominalism—objects are dead matter. The best way to refute the container notion of space is the idea of music. When a triad is played hear in one and the same place three tones which create a new chord, yet nothing is excluding the “others” (115). Therefore, space and time must be seen in terms of perichoresis. (I've been challenged on this point, but I maintain that Christology not only solves the problems of theology, but also of ontology and science itself. Anyway, Thomas Torrance said the same thing).
Gunton ends his work with a discussion of dualisms within Christology as it relates to Christendom. Which should be ultimate: the suffering, liberal, “Lutheran” Christ, or the Byzantine Pantokrator? I'm not entirely sure how Gunton answers this question.
Criticism and Conclusion
In terms of Gunton's thesis I think he is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants the conclusions of the early church without submitting to its authority. While I believe the Bible teaches the hypostatic union, I don't think it is self-evident. I suspect many will not be persuaded by Gunton's exegesis. Secondly, Gunton keeps criticizing “the Fathers,” but the only people he really identifies as “Fathers” are Origen and Augustine: one was condemned for heresy and the other simply cannot be made the universal template of the church.
Gunton isn't always faithful to his criticism of the Fathers, though. He notes that Nicea destroyed much of Hellenism, even if retaining its language and patterns. He notes that homoousion is incompatible with mainstream Hellenism (49). He goes even further in stating that Athanasius's doctrine of perichoresis “destroyed classical ontology” (135-136).iii If that's true, as I believe it is, then it doesn't make sense to keep labeling these same guys as “Hellenistic.”
On an interesting side-note: Gunton, following Torrance, notes that Protestant worship is Apollonarian, since only the mind is involved. More specifically, we are not worshiping the whole Person of the Logos with the entire humanity of the Logos, given Protestantism's aversion to beauty, incense, bells, etc (147).
December 19, 2012
Gunton spend a lot of time telling us what other people think... analysing those thoughts... giving feedback and criticism... and then not drawing a conclusion with conviction... It was around this time that my fascination with Gunton began to fade... All of this, (not just Gunton, but the rebirth and resurgence of Trinitarian thought), began to feel like a game... fun and all... but really in the end, self indulgence... I want to encounter Christ and the Trinity... not just read about it and find another category to think in.
Read
July 27, 2011This is a fascinating study on how it is possible for Jesus to bridge our time and the eternal time. Gunton shows how the orthodox christology is very much valid for today and how theologians like Bultmann are inconsistent in their christologies.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews