, , ,

To continue my thought from the comments on the Aesthetics of Christology: I believe that the understanding of the Incarnation is critical here. Apollinarianism, “God in a bod” theology, is back with a vengeance in modern day theology. The idea of Christ as some kind of mediator between the noumenal and phenomenal realms is popular in both evangelicalism (almost all of evangelical theology, possibly even Vanhoozer) and pomo theology (Derrida’s Christian students like Caputo and Kearney, Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy, etc.).

I would rather see this in Zizek’s terms: Christ is not a mediator between man (i.e. immanence) and God (i.e. transcendence), for Christ IS God (there is no logos asarkos). Mediatory Christology still leaves you with a kind of Lutheran anxiety – that is, “what then must I do?” The only difference between Protestants and Catholics is the answer – the latter says works, and the former faith. Barth’s theology, however, bridges this gap. The answer is neither works nor faith, for the question itself is the problem. The question assumes the stance of pure subjectivity (What then must I do?), while we must realize that such a notion is mythical.

To summarize the Barthian position (via McCormack): If the election of Christ (to be Incarnated and Redeem the world) is an eternal decision, and if God’s being is in becoming (i.e. being-as-act), then Christ is – to the world – always enfleshed. This is theology. Nothing could be more important. Instead, the question should be, “What then hath He done?” Does this, then, lead us into Fideism and Irrationalism? Hell no…