Responses to Others’ Essays

Response to Jerome Van Kuiken

Jerome Van Kuiken has offered a stimulating development of the vicarious humanity of Christ that is much needed. Atonement is often restricted to simply one’s individual “acquittal” by the death of Christ. The vicarious humanity of Christ (VHC) expands and deepens that because the atonement is seen as Christ’s whole life taking upon the whole lives of humanity. Therefore, what Jesus is “doing” involves the entirety of our lives, including the global from a wider view, and the affective, including our emotions and trials. This includes the broad range of church historical existence, a novel yet important approach to the history of the church. Van Kuiken includes “political theology” in this; however, one might wish for an emphasis on a critique of “political theology” by the VHC as often being ideological than theological, and prefer, nonetheless, as some suggest Barth did, to reflect a proper “theology of politics,” that there are genuine implications of theology for politics. The ascension of Christ is properly given its significance as the basis for the living Christ. The goal is seen to be deeper “coinherence,” an interesting suggestion that reflects Torrance’s critique of dualistic thinking. This is where unitary thinking brings an affirmation of the whole of reality, including the breadth of the global as well as the individual depth of the affections, as I’ve tried to do in my works of faith and doubt, joy and despair, love, and beauty in the context of the VHC.

Response to Jacob Lett

Jacob Lett provides a provocative and needed revisit to the analogia entis, certainly because the critique of it was so important to Barth, and also because it has experienced somewhat of a revival in the hands of theologians like David Bentley Hart. What are the implications of the vicarious humanity of Christ for the critique and revival? Lett has his own interesting suggestion of bringing in the implications of sanctification rather than just justification. This is suggestive, I think, as Ray Anderson also offers a priority of sanctification before justification, but centered on Christ as “the Sanctified One.” In his holiness we can, therefore, see some implications of the VHC: it presents a depth to the atonement that includes not only the individual but all of creation. Lett suggests Jüngel's embrace of the analogia as the basis for hearing of the gospel, yet one might respond that communication is not the same as revelation and reconciliation. As Torrance comments on John 8:43, they did not understand what was Christ was saying (lalia) because they did accept his word (logos). Jesus’ being itself, through his speaking, displaces the centrality of our “longing” (Hart) or any “capacities” we might have. This is a true christocentric relation to the Creator-creature relationship, not any metaphysics, as provocative as attempts using Thomas and others are to also affirm a “similarity in ever-greater difference” as well.

Response to M. William Ury

M. William Ury offers an incisive and exhaustive study of the place of personhood in theology, rightly noticing the significance of Torrance as the theologian of personhood seen through what he calls “onto-relations.” As Ury suggests, Torrance offers an alternative to how personhood is understood that is based on the Trinity itself, not just individual rational beings (as in Boethius). (A dialogue with Paul Molnar’s work on the Trinity would be very interesting at this point.) In the light of the vicarious humanity of Christ (VHC), “vicariousness” might be interesting to relate to the personal in Torrance’s theology. Christ is the only one who truly sees “the face of God,” as Ury’s cogent treatment of the Old Testament might suggest. “Perichoresis as reciprocal love” in the Trinity certainly brings this out. Ury’s criticism of Torrance, however, as not providing a sufficient place for transformation or faith is a common critique. As I’ve mentioned in my work, however, the VHC provides the ground and the foundation for faith, which is often not indicated in some critiques, it seems to me. These practical implications for Torrance’s theology can be wonderfully seen in the practical theology of Ray Anderson (The Shape of Practical Theology and On Being Human, among many other works).

Response to Trygve Johnson

Trygve Johnson presents a highly stimulating study of the implications of the vicarious humanity of Christ for pastoral identity and ministry. He makes a persuasive case for the absolute imperative for theology to be reflected in the Church and its ministry. This is a theology that is both Christocentric and is passionate about human flourishing, even in the midst of fatigue and anxiety. Johnson helpfully engages the work of Charles Taylor for examining the roots of contemporary culture, such as being caught in reducing reality to “the immanent frame.” Taylor is not without a critique, it seems to me, even when it comes to his exposition. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, of course, present a theological place for “the world come of age” that is positive, and based on an incarnational theology. This would be in harmony with Torrance’s view of a “contingency away from God” as the basis for the scientific study of creation (Divine and Contingent Order). Unfortunately, there is no dialogue with Bonhoeffer in Taylor’s work. As Johnson rightly suggests, a theological response to our cultural malaise is needed that the VHC can help: “Jesus’ experience becomes our experience,” in the VHC, writes Johnson. Johnson generously cites my work on this, but he also mentions, of course, that I am building on the thought of Barth and the Torrances, among others. Their pastoral theology, along with that of Ray Anderson’s, has had a profound impact on my thinking and life, so the dichotomy between theology and ministry should never be accepted, especially if we embrace the vicarious humanity of Christ.

Response to Diane Ury

This contribution by Diane Ury is nothing less than inspiring, insightful, and provocative. She wrestles with the very practical problem of why people are leaving the church and not coming back and offers a distinctively theological response, suggesting “the alluring mystery of the gospel, the vicarious humanity of Christ.” This includes the basic issue of whether or not people know who Jesus is (I would add, at least in depth and breadth). Certainly, the Ascension is often left out, even though it is the ascended Christ who sends his Holy Spirit to have intimate daily relationships with us. Here is where Ury sees that Christ is not merely a healer, but “Jesus Christ is the Healing.” Here the vicarious humanity of Christ (VHC) is extremely relevant. This is where we know that even in the Ascension, our humanity is included in “all stages and experiences of our life.” Then provocatively Ury suggests a place for “entire sanctification’ (foreign to non-Wesleyan ears!). But based on the VHC, Christ’s faith means that “all of that life of faith is now my own.” This is a different, and more helpful, approach than many, that does not rest on our “co-operation” with God, but stresses the truth of a realized eschatology. Here we have a presence that we are in union with now in order to honestly face “our wounds” and “the lurking things within our natures.” Is this the Christ who is presented in our churches? Ury provocatively challenges us in this essay.