Logos v Spirit Christologies

Talking with an Orthodox person about Christology made me think about some things. In particular, I want this essay to explore ways that Christology can be conceived of, and how various members of the Church have understood themselves in light of their view of Jesus Christ. By way of introduction, whenever “Jesus of Nazareth” is used, that title is normally used to describe the historical Jesus of Biblical scholarship), whereas “Jesus Christ” or “Jesus the Christ” is often used to describe the resurrected Jesus of faith. Now, the traditional Christian answer to “what makes Jesus of Nazareth be Jesus the Christ” has been, historically speaking, the combination of the Logos and the Spirit. However, though most doctors of the church (going all the way through Calvin who emphasized the two in his Institutes) would grant that both are important, I believe there has typically an emphasis on either the Logos or the Spirit. These emphases, or clusters of images, I believe, can lead to important differences in metaphysics, perceived value of other religions, and even Christian ethics. If one emphasizes the Logos cluster of images, one will tend to focus on the Johannine texts, which talk about the pre-existent Logos (or Sophia) that is incarnate of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit in the fullness of time. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was always Jesus the Christ, starting at conception through the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ ministry may have started later, but there will be visible signs of Jesus’ miraculous existence, as one sees in some non-canonical texts like the Gospel of Thomas. A strong Logos Christology emphasizes Jesus Christ’s uniqueness. Christ, and no one else, is the final redeemer because Christ, and no one else, is the incarnation of the Logos. Other religions will likely not be emphasized because they are not based on incarnations of the Logos, and a priority on Christian claims, and dogmas may occur. For instance, the church communities in Alexandria struggled with how to reconcile the Logos with human nature (was Jesus of 2 minds, 2 wills, 2 souls?), and many later-condemned heresies came out of Egypt because of that struggle. Also, because the Logos came down from heaven at the appointed time, in the fullness of time, there seems to be a view of necessity. The one Logos came down at the one appointed time in history. By contrast, the other cluster of images, the ones concerning the Spirit, will place priority on Jesus’ ministry as the starting point, perhaps even saying that Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus the Christ when the Holy Spirit came upon him in baptism, after the Holy Spirit empowered Him to rebuff Satan’s advances (in the 40-day wilderness period). Whereas Logos Christologies tend to be very metaphysical with all kinds of distinctions and clarifications, Spirit Christologies tend to eschew metaphysics. The divine and human spaces seem much more easily viewed as non-competing in a spirit outlook, and historically speaking, there are far fewer heresies associated with a Spirit emphasis. There also seems a greater receptivity for nonreligious or interreligious dialogue because the Spirit is more open and free and contingent. The Spirit is free, and the Scripture likens the Spirit to the wind, for no one knows where the Spirit is blowing. We can feel its effects, but we cannot control it. Moreover, Spirit workings are more easily viewed as consistent with miracle workers today. After all, when the Spirit comes upon someone, whether it be Jesus or the prophets of old, the Scriptural testimony is that miracles happened. To sum up: 1. Logos-centered Christology may tend to prioritize the Christian tradition to the extent that there is no need to dialogue with other religions because only Christianity is based on the incarnate Logos. 2. Logos-centered Christology will probably be more vulnerable to heresies because of its metaphysical and philosophical emphases. Perhaps, like the sacraments, there will be all kinds of distinctions and predicate/attribute clarifications, etc. 3. Logos-centered Christology will be more resonant with conceptions of necessity, unity, finality, design, and order. 4. Spirit-centered Christology seems much more open to other religious symbols and imagery because the Spirit cannot be controlled and chooses whomever it chooses. 5. Spirit-centered Christology seems resonant with conceptions of contingency, freedom, openness, receptivity, anointing, and empowering. 6. Spirit-centered Christology more easily views divine and human spaces as non-competing. Regarding Christian ethics, I think the difference between a Logos and Spirit-centered Christology becomes very important. Just consider these thoughts. A Logos-centered Christology is less likely to say we should imitate Christ because we can’t imitate Christ. Only Christ is the incarnate Logos. The best we can do is to be “in Christ,” which has historically been understood as partaking of the sacraments and being under the authority of the bishop. A Spirit-centered Christology, by contrast, very much affirms our ability to imitate Christ. The important marker in Jesus becoming the Christ was the anointing and empowering of the Spirit. Imitating Christ can thus be understood as being open to God’s Spirit and participation in the Spirit’s work of freedom and love in the world. As Gregory of Nyssa said in his Life of Moses, true virtue is openness to encounter God in God’s darkness. Virtue in this way can be developed in mystical contemplation or in political activism or in a myriad of other ways because of the diversity of the Spirit’s works. Whereas a Logos-centered Christology may affirm the incarnational sacraments (Catholicism) and/or kataphatic images of Jesus Christ (evangelicalism), a Spirit-centered Christology may affirm apophatic experiences. God’s infinitude and “darkness” seem more compatible with the freedom of God’s Spirit. Fewer rules and regulations may correspond best with God’s freedom. Openness, not determination and predication, are the ways for virtue under this cluster of images.