In the end if we don’t see ourselves rightly, relative to Christ and the cross, then how can we ever say that we are able to study and know God aright? Doing theology apart from Christ as the “beginning” or starting point sounds more like Luther’s theologia gloria, “theology of glory”, and negative theology—which I think is a dead end.

peace.

I am thinking less of placing Jesus at the center and more of discovering Jesus to be the center, no matter what we initially place at the center, no matter where we begin theological inquiry.

So perhaps theology is a necessarily inductive process? Or perhaps we can refer to the hermeneutical spiral? Maybe we do start with Jesus at the center, but in our reading and thinking, we are (at least in principle) open to the idea that if the text points us elsewhere, we follow it. In other words, even if we start with X or Y at the center, if we follow a hermeneutic of humility and openness, we aren’t necessarily bound to end up in the same place.

So whether we start with Jesus, or a vague sense of transcendence, perhaps all it means to say that Christ is the center of theology is that we have noticed that thoughtful, honest, and humble inquiry has consistently led to a view of Christ as the pinnacle of theology.

I had an experience once that bears mentioning. I started this study on political ethics in a mixed religious context. An Islamic professor offered his help but he asked for my starting point. At the time I was using Bonhoeffer’s Ethic and had to honestly say that I saw Christ as the only beginning. That was the end of the conversation, which I found unfortunate. I never really furthered the study either.

Lesslie Newbigin offers so much in terms of interreligious dialogue beginning with Christ. I wish I had the essay he wrote on starting points next to me now. . .

First, along with those that have intimated it leads to an unhelpful “orthodoxy” claim that shuts down conversation, I have found that it is almost impossible to explore freely when people around you are shouting – not Christocentric enough! all the time. I think we need to be free to explore without having our voices shut down prematurely. It is fair to put ultimate conclusions to the test, but rational exploration may occur in any number of ways.

Secondly, it isn’t trinitarian enough. Christ is the decisive revelation, yes, but we are also in relation, because of Christ, with the other persons of the trinity and it is fair and reasonable to use them as starting points as well. Actually, given that behind our faith is always the work of the Holy Spirit, perhaps it makes most sense to begin with the Holy Spirit without whose presence we could not be doing theology at all. It is the Spirit which enables us to comprehend the revelation of Christ.

Finally, and this is just reiterating what you already said, who can even pinpoint the beginning of their theology? I was asking questions about God long before I came to know or understand Jesus. What does it mean, to recognize genuine theological insight in non-Christian traditions if all theology begins with Christ? Does this mean we are adamantly bound to an exclusivist faith?

Good questions.

Now I’m definitely not saying that either of you are attempting to summon Lakotosian models ;) but I am wondering what type of methodology “Christ as the center” would look like? Is this simply a picture-heuristic saying that, even if we “start” with Christ, that the “starting position” itself is always later altered by further discovery?

I agree with Travis, and I personally think Calvin’s two-fold knowledge of God is helpful here. Knowledge of God as creator, and thus self, as creatures of God, first begins epistemologically with Christ as the redeemer. Even OT “saints” only had knowledge of God as Creator insofar as the Levitic/Mosaic framework was oriented towards, and prefigured in the Christ (there seems to be a dialectic of sorts).

Let me think more on this . . . I appreciate Barth on this as well.

Surely, saying that “I begin my theology with Jesus” and using this as a trump card in theological debate is no more helpful than calling my own theology “orthodox.”

I have always been confused when people speak of “starting points” in theology. Whether the declared starting point be Marxist social critique, the mouth of the Vatican, or Jesus himself, our actual starting point must usually be something of which we are only dimly aware.