{"id":5825,"date":"2020-10-27T18:42:49","date_gmt":"2020-10-28T01:42:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/"},"modified":"2021-09-28T20:17:31","modified_gmt":"2021-09-29T03:17:31","slug":"tripp-fullers-open-and-relational-christology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/tripp-fullers-open-and-relational-christology","title":{"rendered":"Tripp Fuller&#8217;s Open and Relational Christology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Tripp Fuller\u2019s book <em>Divine Self-Investment: an Open and Relational Constructive Christology <\/em>makes an important contribution to understanding Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this essay, I summarize Fuller\u2019s book. I show how he affirms Jesus as a special expression of divine self-investment. As one who joins Fuller in embracing an open and relational theological vision, I am especially grateful for this work. It helps us better understand the person and work of Jesus in our time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed alignright is-type-rich is-provider-amazon wp-block-embed-amazon\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Divine Self-Investment: An Open and Relational Constructive Christology\" type=\"text\/html\" width=\"500\" height=\"550\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen style=\"max-width:100%\" src=\"https:\/\/read.amazon.com\/kp\/card?preview=inline&#038;linkCode=kpd&#038;ref_=k4w_oembed_cS6igR7wXGeni0&#038;asin=1948609290&#038;tag=kpembed-20\"><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In a follow-up essay, I&#8217;ll engage Fuller&#8217;s work to wrestle with a question I have been asking for decades: in what sense should we say Jesus exerts causal influence today? But this essay is an overview of Fuller&#8217;s primary points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues for Contemporary Christology<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>At the outset, Fuller aims to \u201cinvestigate the possibility of a robust constructive open and relational Christology.\u201d To do this, he 1) lays \u201cout a broadly open and relational vision,\u201d 2) \u201csituates the constructive function of contemporary historical Jesus research,\u201d and 3) \u201cproposes three pairings of contemporary Christologies that share a thematic center with distinct trajectories.\u201d An adequate open and relational Christology, says Fuller, \u201cneeds to include the historical Jesus, the existential register of faith, and the metaphysical referent to God.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Christians typically account for who God is by telling the story of Jesus. Each age must make sense of Jesus and how to articulate the ongoing encounter with God that Jesus mediates. This means, says Fuller, contemporary theologians ought to offer constructive proposals that include \u201cthe historical person of Jesus, the contestability of God, and the irreducibly confessional nature of identifying Jesus as the Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The liberal Christian theological trajectory offers important resources for Christological work. But liberal theology often offers a muted and reductive account of Christ. The problem, in part, is liberal theology\u2019s wariness of metaphysics. Fuller offers an open and relational metaphysics as a remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fuller\u2019s project is not merely academic. He believes this work matters for the life of the church. \u201cThe inability to articulate just how God was present in Christ and how that reality shapes the character of life together,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cdestroys the very integrity of the church.\u201d This articulating should not be aimed at <em>proving <\/em>Jesus with evidence that demands a verdict. But neither is it limited merely to the subjective confession of the believer. Fuller unites the confessional and metaphysical through the historical person of Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">21st-Century Obstacles<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The 21st-century theologian faces obstacles when doing Christology. Many people today regard God as unnecessary to account for the existence of the cosmos or to ground morality. Consequently, many people no longer assume God exists. Theology has been \u201cdispersed from the center of town,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cto the private study of some but not all people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A 21st-century theologian must speak adequately about the historical Jesus. Fuller\u2019s project builds from the contemporary awareness that history is an ongoing venture and the future is open, not settled. The contemporary theologian must account for the historical Jesus without allowing the often-naturalistic account of that quest to determine Christological formulations fully. To put it another way, metaphysical speculation must play a role in efforts to understand Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A contemporary theologian should acknowledge the subjective element in Christological formulation. Fuller calls this subjective element \u201cthe existential register,\u201d because it also includes whether the person studying Jesus will claim him as the Christ. No one can obtain objective certainty on Christological matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The 21st-century theologian also faces metaphysical questions about God\u2019s relation to the world. \u201cHow one understands the reality of God, the possibility of divine action, and the nature of divine revelation,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cwill dramatically affect one\u2019s Christology.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The contemporary theologian functions as what Fuller calls a \u201cbelieving-skeptic.\u201d Theological questions today \u201care not settled upfront with triumphalist zeal or deflationary prolegomena.\u201d But the Christological confession today cannot be about the historical Jesus alone. It cannot even be about how God is present in Jesus. Contemporary theologians must also consider whether God exists and how we best understand God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To address these issues, Fuller engages prominent themes and theologians of contemporary Christology. He explores how we might best conceive of the historical Jesus in light of contemporary scholarship. From this, Fuller launches into comparing various Christologies. To address Spirit Christologies, he looks at contemporary Catholic theologians Roger Haight and Joseph Bracken. To address Logos Christologies, Fuller turns to Kathryn Tanner\u2019s post-liberal work and John Cobb\u2019s process theology. A final comparative chapter explores the Reformed Liberal theologian Douglas Ottati and Korean American Methodist theologian Andrew Sung Park.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Open and Relational Theology<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>As the subtitle of the book suggests, Fuller aims to offer an \u201copen and relational constructive Christology.\u201d To help the reader, he summarizes primary themes in open and relational theology at the outset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The \u201crelational\u201d word primarily identifies the idea God affects creation and creation affects God. This means, Fuller says, \u201cThe history of our cosmos is the product of an ongoing process in which both God and the world are full participants.\u201d This vision stands in stark contrast to traditional theologies that portray God as unrelated, unaffected, and determining outcomes singlehandedly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Open and relational theology stands in contrast to theologies that portray God as distant. Christologies that consider God distant, says Fuller, often interpret concepts like incarnation &#8220;against the backdrop of radical divine transcendence from the world.\u201d While open and relational theologians affirm the otherness of God, they don\u2019t think of this otherness as divine distancing only crossed once in Jesus\u2019 incarnation. God didn\u2019t invade creation from the outside, nor is Jesus a one-off divine entrance and exit in history. From an open and relational perspective, God is always present and plays an essential role in each moment of creation\u2019s becoming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Open and relational theologies reject forms of naturalism that deny the presence and operative power of God in the world. But they also object to forms of supernaturalism in which God is primarily understood as acting upon the world from the outside. Forms of panentheism that speak of God and creatures co-creating in each moment fit the open and relational vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Open and relational theologies not only say creation affects God, they also say God\u2019s experience changes in the ongoing process of existence. Fuller heads off the usual criticism of this view by arguing that God\u2019s experience changes moment by moment, but God\u2019s nature remains constant. In terms of love, this means God\u2019s feelings and expressions of love vary. But the fact that God loves remains steadfast, because God\u2019s nature is immutable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An open and relational analysis of existence points to creation\u2019s moment by moment becoming. This view plays a key role in Fuller\u2019s own Christological formulation. The basic idea is that each moment in a creature\u2019s life involves inheritance from the past, the gift of possibility for the future, and the responsibility of freedom in the present. A creature\u2019s life also requires God\u2019s ongoing self-investment. \u201cFor an open and relational theologian,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cthere is nothing more natural than the Creator co-creating the world in each moment with the world.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fuller addresses the \u201copen\u201d portion of open and relational theology by emphasizing God\u2019s ongoing experience of time. Because of time\u2019s incessant flow and genuine creaturely freedom, God cannot foreknow with certainty all that will someday occur. But the God who cannot exhaustively foreknow isn&#8217;t blind. God knows everything knowable, which includes the completed past, the becoming present, and possibilities for the future. \u201cGod is very much aware of what is both possible and probable on the immediate horizon,\u201d says Fuller. \u201cLike a flashlight pointing the way forward in the dark, awareness of the future is much clearer for what is near.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Historical Jesus<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Given the quest for the historical Jesus and sense of ongoing history, many today begin Christological reflection \u201cfrom below.\u201d This common phrase means the one engaging in Christological construction starts with Jesus as human. Fuller laments that those who begin from below often assume claims about God\u2019s action must be bracketed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Open and relational theology resists this bracketing. Using Peter\u2019s confession, \u201cYou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,\u201d Fuller argues contemporary Christology should start not from below nor from above but from within. By \u201cwithin\u201d he means the existential confession of Jesus as the Christ. But this confession is only the beginning, not the conclusion. And it may be deconstructed and reconstructed in an ongoing engagement with Christ, as fresh ways of understanding the Christian mission emerge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This existential confession of Jesus as the Christ does not arise <em>ex nihilo<\/em>. \u201cThe open and relational theologian,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cneeds to take account of the genuine influence that creaturely cooperation and participation played in the history of Israel.\u201d The expectation of a Messiah emerges in actual history, as does the revelation of a covenantal God. In fact, this God, says Fuller, chooses \u201cto invest Godself in the world with this people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Unlike Christologies that assume an overly transcendent God, open and relational theology says God neither foreordains nor foreknows from the foundation of the world the specificities of Jesus\u2019 life. And God enters covenantal relationship \u2013 self-investment \u2013 long before Jesus emerges in history. An open and relational Christology embraces the dynamic openness and contingencies displayed in Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While Jesus is not God\u2019s <em>only <\/em>expression of self-investment, he enjoyed a special relationship \u2013 \u201coneness\u201d \u2013 with his <em>Abba<\/em>. This special relationship involved Jesus\u2019 responses to God\u2019s self-investment. And the community that emerged in response to Jesus was not a community divinely predetermined. They too responded to God\u2019s self-investment as witnessed in Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Spirit Christology<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Fuller, Spirit Christologies affirm the fullness of Jesus\u2019 humanity and the fullness of God\u2019s presence in Jesus. \u201cIt was through the faithfulness of Jesus to Abba,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cthat a unique and particular bond between God and humanity was established.\u201d Because of Jesus\u2019 fidelity to the Spirit, a qualitatively new relationship with God emerges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A significant number of theologians turn to Kenosis Christologies to account for God as revealed in Jesus. Fuller rejects Kenosis Christologies that say a preexistent one rescinds divinity to become incarnate in Jesus. Fuller argues, instead, that Jesus understood himself to be known and loved by the one he called Abba. In light of this understanding, Jesus trusted God\u2019s call to be a faithful servant in and through his humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fuller extends Kenosis beyond Jesus. An open and relational Christology can connect the kenotic pattern of Jesus\u2019 subjectivity to that of God\u2019s within Israel\u2019s covenantal context.\u201d In fact, \u201cthe faithfulness of the Spirit-filled Jesus himself would not have been possible,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cwithout the living tradition of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The open and relational emphasis upon the past, the gift of possibility, and the responsibility of freedom fit Spirit Christology well. What the Spirit does in the present is influenced by the past. But the Spirit and creaturely responses also influenced that past. In terms of Jesus, says Fuller, this means, \u201cwithout the faithfulness of Abraham and Sarah, the Exodus from Egypt, the voice of the Prophets, and so on Jesus could not have been the Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>God\u2019s work in the world, in the history of Israel, and in Jesus \u201crevealed both a new possibility for the world,\u201d says Fuller. This new possibility \u201cmakes the singular relationship of Jesus to God definitive for both God and a new potential possibility for the world\u2019s continued future.\u201d In Jesus, says Fuller, \u201cthe intention and desire of God for the world has been revealed.\u201d Jesus\u2019 response to the Spirit introduces a new reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Logos Christology<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Most Logos Christologies lead to tensions if not contradictions. They usually begin with a pre-existent Christ who is both the eternal Son and Word of God. This starting point moves the typical Logos Christology to say the wholly spiritual Christ was united with physical creation in a \u201chypostatic union\u201d that resulted in Jesus as the Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fuller rejects the hypostatic union approach. He does so in part because of the spirit-matter dualism it assumes. Fuller suggests a non-interventionist account of incarnation. In this account, the self-investing God is always already present to creation but especially revealed in Jesus. God\u2019s creative initiative is necessary, but this initiative is not fully determinative. It requires creaturely response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To spell out what his open and relational Christology entails, Fuller draws from the work of John Cobb. Cobb describes God as the ground of freedom, the ongoing Creator, the call for creation, and the giver of possibilities. God does this by providing an initial aim moment by moment to Jesus and all creation. \u201cThe initial aim of God in each moment,\u201d says Fuller, is \u201ca potential embodiment of God in the world\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Jesus, God\u2019s initial aim co-constitutes the very self-hood of Jesus. \u201cIn Christ,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cthe distance between the source of the initial aim and the response to it is dissolved.\u201d In this, we find a fusion of God\u2019s will and Jesus\u2019 will. The result is a profound revelation of God in Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fuller&#8217;s Christological vision extends beyond Jesus\u2019 own response to God, as important as that response is. \u201cAn open and relational Logos Christology,\u201d says Fuller, \u201cconnects the universal history of the cosmos with both the person of Jesus and the disciple\u2019s salvation history.\u201d To put it another way, \u201cThe Word which became flesh in the person of Jesus was the same Word that was present through the Spirit over all Creation.\u201d This \u201cincludes calling the people of God throughout Israel\u2019s history into its fullest expression in each moment of becoming.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By emphasizing both Jesus\u2019 response to the Spirit and the work of Christ in all creation, Fuller unites the central themes in Spirit and Logos Christologies. This union grounds a contemporary Christology to affirm Jesus\u2019 special relation to God, God\u2019s relation to the entire cosmos, and our own personal relations to the divine. \u201cWhen one has encountered God in and through Jesus Christ, the history of God\u2019s ongoing investment in the world can be reinterpreted,\u201d says Fuller. This history of God\u2019s investment includes evolutionary emergence, a special relationship with Israel, and our own lives today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Cross and Hope<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The God who relates to and suffers with the world is profoundly revealed in the cross of Jesus. This Nazarene identifies with the downtrodden, forsaken, and hurting. God not only brings salvation in the cross, but a suffering God also needs saving. This salvation is &#8220;not an external solution to the never-ending pattern of victim and violator,&#8221; says Fuller, &#8220;for God is also the victim.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If Fuller concluded his book by saying God needs salvation, one might wonder if his Christological vision offers eschatological hope. Fortunately, Fuller&#8217;s vision is hopeful. This hope is grounded first in God\u2019s covenantal faithfulness toward all creation.&nbsp; God is committed to suffering with us\u2026 all!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Secondly, Jesus\u2019 resurrection provides grounds for a future with promise. But even this divine work occurs alongside a redeemed community that cooperates. After all, eschatological theories that require divine intervention through solitary power, says Fuller, \u201crun contrary to the nature of love and the integrity of relationships.\u201d Our hope is not established by a God who could overrule creation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe promise of the God of love is that God will be ever faithful,\u201d says Fuller, and this God offers \u201cgreater beauty, healing, and goodness to each moment of the Creation\u2019s becoming.\u201d In short, the Divine self-investment we see most powerfully in Jesus\u2019 resurrection is the first fruits for the hope of all creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>I am impressed by Tripp Fuller&#8217;s work on Christology. He articulates an open and relational vision of Jesus that makes so much sense! <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While this essay has summarized Fuller&#8217;s book, a subsequent essay will engage Fuller&#8217;s view that Jesus &#8220;mediates&#8221; God to us. The follow-up essay is less a criticism and more an inquiry. But I strongly recommend that those who engage Christology from an academic perspective to get and read Tripp Fuller&#8217;s book!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tripp Fuller\u2019s book Divine Self-Investment: an Open and Relational Constructive Christology makes an important contribution to understanding Jesus of Nazareth. In this essay, I summarize Fuller\u2019s book. I show how he affirms Jesus as a special expression of divine self-investment. As one who joins Fuller in embracing an open and relational theological vision, I am [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,12],"tags":[59,446,926,7063,7102],"yst_prominent_words":[1223,1224,1226,1232,1234,1235,1259,5388],"class_list":["post-5825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open_and_relational_theology","category-and_the_kitchen_sink","tag-jesus","tag-christology","tag-jesus-christ","tag-tripp-fuller","tag-open-and-relational-christology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5825"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=5825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}