Theanthropos

(Some context: this a short reflection on five commentary articles from "The Global Bible Commentary," edited by Daniel Patte, concerning the question, "Who is Jesus Christ?" from the perspectives of five scholars from Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and the Western tradition.)

I never would have said this... say... 5 years ago...

After reading the five commentaries, I found myself most uncomfortable with the Orthodox contribution from Fr. Mihoc.

Why?

To be honest, it is because I am going through a phase in my faith journey where I have deep, difficult, and stormy questions about the very nature of Christ Fr. Mihoc so passionately defends. On top of that, he defends it with the cornerstone of tradition and historical narrative that I am beginning to doubt. Can Jesus be fully man and fully God? How? The Gospels only say so much (as I'm sure we will study in depth). How much can I trust the Councils, the Creeds?

Can I be a Christian and question the orthodoxy of Jesus Christ's "Theanthropos?"

Fr. Mihoc passionately says that I cannot. Specifically, "We know who we really are as Christians by correctly formulating who Jesus Christ is... Erroneous Christological formulations are directly related to concrete, existential distortions of Christians' self understanding and way of life."

And if he is right,

I am not in a safe place right now.

"...believing in the person of Jesus Christ also means living an intimate life of communion with him," Fr. Mihoc reminds me. And so even in my doubts, I still have a faith in my relationship with Christ, however he might be composed. It is the deep communion that manages to keep me more than afloat. It keeps me moving forward.

And that is why I resonate deeply with the Latin American and Asian commentaries offered by Dr. Richard and Dr. Abesamis. They speak of Jesus intimately, even in their doubts of what the West may have recast him to be. Even in sketchy "Historical Jesus" endeavors, there is an acknowledgement of the power of Christ for the lives lived today in the majority world which cannot find faith in creeds, but only in the true Church, a body of people incarnating the principles Christ left on his disciples.

"In Latin America, the quest for the historical Jesus is less Jesus-centered, because it is envisioned in the borad context of the Jesus Movement and from the perspective of a concern for the origins of Christianity as a global reality," Richard shares.
And I heartily agree, for that is where I am today.

As for the "Western" perspective offered by Dr. Duran that so many here have taken issue with. I found her writing creative and somewhat refreshing, but over all very, very, very dark. This was certainly the most "emotionally" challenging piece to read, if only because it paints a picture of Jesus, not as savior, but as a sort of ex-boyfriend who was abused and used. She writes of the messy relationship the West has had with its "Savior," literarily twisting the spear with her "what if," questions, waiting to see if there is water and blood. Indeed, Jesus and the West have many issues to work out, but she hammers on the point of that nail in a rather masochistic manner... as if crucifying the West will somehow bring redemption back to Jesus' name.