Roger Haight Jesus Symbol of God
Roger Haight's Jesus Symbol of God (Orbis Books, 1999)[1] stands as a bold, ambitious attempt to construct a systematic Christology attuned to the challenges of postmodernity—historical consciousness, religious pluralism, social critique, and a demand for intelligibility in a fragmented world. He presents a robust and apologetic Christology, meticulously crafted for a postmodern intellectual landscape. This means he will intersect with Wolfhart Pannenberg and diverge from Karl Barth. Central to Haight's project is the conviction that our understanding of Jesus (Christology) must emerge from our experience of salvation (soteriology). Haight, a Jesuit theologian, begins "from below," grounding his reflection in the historical Jesus of Nazareth as the concrete symbol mediating God's salvific presence. Revelation is always historically mediated, faith is experiential and soteriological (rooted in encounters of salvation), and theology must be symbolic: dialectical, tensive, and participatory rather than literal or propositional. Jesus, as the central concrete symbol, draws believers toward God while making God's presence real in history.
Haight navigates an intricate theological point as he clarifies that religious language, including scripture, operates symbolically, inviting engaged experience rather than serving as direct factual reports about God. This view of scripture has a problematic view of the role of scripture in the faith and life of the church. Scripture no longer has its regulative role. It is no longer a rule of faith.
Haight frequently references Pannenberg, who, with his emphasis on revelation as historical (culminating in the resurrection as a public, proleptic event verifiable in principle by historians), represents a contrasting pole to Haight's more existential-symbolic approach. Haight critiques historicizing the resurrection too strongly (e.g., rejecting Pannenberg's view of it as an empirical "historical fact" open to scrutiny, arguing it risks reducing transcendence to this-worldly imagination). He argues that the resurrection of Jesus is a transcendent object of faith rather than a purely empirical historical event. Yet he draws on Pannenberg-like ideas: universal divine presence, mediated revelation, and the need for Christology to imply a theology of religions. Haight's "from below" method echoes Pannenberg's historical orientation, as well as that of Hans Kung. This emphasizes a starting point in human experience rather than divine essence. However, he pivots toward symbolic mediation and postmodern pluralism rather than Pannenberg's strong apocalyptic-historical realism. This creates tension—Haight appreciates Pannenberg's apologetic rigor but softens its objectivist edge to fit experiential, dialectical faith.
On liberation theology, Haight integrates its prophetic-political reading of Jesus (e.g., Jesus as liberator, founder of a movement against oppression, emphasizing the kingdom's transformative social dimension). Chapters on salvation, liberation, and the Christian life portray Jesus' ministry as confronting systemic injustice, inspiring disciples to form communities of equals that challenge dominative power (including patriarchy). Salvation becomes both personal (addressing sin, guilt, death) and social (transforming structures for justice and life). I offer a counter-critique: liberation theology's focus on oppression sometimes led to alliances with socialist-communist regimes in Latin America (some anti-American, tied to China/Russia/Iran, supporting gangs/cartels), resulting in increased oppression rather than liberation. The real-world impact of liberation theology highlights often-unintended consequences despite noble intentions to address oppression. Recent shifts toward libertarian/conservative politics (more positive toward the USA) suggest a reversal. This observation underscores a real risk Haight engages but does not fully address: when prophetic zeal prioritizes systemic critique, it can inadvertently support new forms of domination. This observation resonates with Haight's own concern for a salvation that is both individually transformative and socially just, challenging religious privatism to offer an interpretation that makes a tangible difference in public social history.
Strengths of the book shine through: its apologetic openness to postmodern questions (pluralism, suffering, meaning), criteria for Christology (faithfulness to tradition, intelligibility, empowerment of life), and preference for Spirit Christology over classical Logos models (better suiting pluralism and universal grace). Spirit Christology underscores the immanent presence of God within Jesus' humanity.
The book does not shy away from contemporary concerns. Haight addresses the pressing issue of religious pluralism, advocating for an inclusive "theocentrism" where Jesus mediates an encounter with a God active in all religions. The pluralism of today intersects with the pluralism found in the christologies of the New Testament. The reinterpretation of Nicaea and Chalcedon as symbolic affirmations of God's real presence in Jesus (no less than God at work for salvation) preserves dialectical mystery without metaphysical overreach.
Haight concludes with a Trinitarian understanding that is primarily soteriological: affirming God's unique oneness, while asserting that God's saving action is genuinely enacted through Jesus and the Spirit. This perspective aligns more with Moltmann and Pannenberg than a Barthian starting point.
Critically, however, Haight's symbolic framework and pluralism leanings drew Vatican scrutiny. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2004 Notification identified "serious doctrinal errors," including insufficient affirmation of Jesus' preexistent divinity, the Logos, and unique salvific mediation—concerns that echo worries about subordinating tradition to postmodern plausibility. Haight's normativity of Jesus (central for Christians, but not exclusive/constitutive for all salvation) moves toward theocentrism, fostering dialogue but risking dilution of Christ's uniqueness for some readers.
Overall, Jesus Symbol of God is a landmark in progressive Catholic theology—cogent, experience-driven, and dialogical. It rewards careful study for anyone wrestling with Christology in a pluralistic age. It has limits: a symbolic-existential approach may underplay historical-eschatological realism (Pannenberg) and the mixed real-world outcomes of liberationist commitments. It invites ongoing debate about balancing fidelity to tradition, cultural intelligibility, and prophetic action. For theologians, students, or believers seeking a postmodern reimagining of Jesus as God's symbol, it remains important reading—provocative, clarifying, and, at times, unsettling. It rewards careful study for those wrestling with Christology in a pluralistic age, while inviting debate about the balance between tradition, intelligibility, and prophetic action.
Here is a Trinitarian statement based on the book, suggesting that the Trinity is soteriological, it is about the saving work of God, rather than exploring divine essence or divine identity, thereby prioritizing economic Trinity over the immanent Trinity.
"We confess one unique God, the transcendent Creator who is immanently present to the world in a love that saves humanity through Jesus and in the Spirit. This one God is revealed as Father, the source of all being and salvation; as Son, decisively and concretely mediated in history through Jesus of Nazareth, the symbol in whom no less than God is encountered for our liberation and healing; and as Spirit, the dynamic, indwelling power of God's self-communication that empowers Jesus' life, actions, and resurrection, and continues to actualize saving grace universally in human experience and other religious mediations. We confess the oneness of God and confess the saving action of God is mediated to human existence through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. we confess that God is by nature a saving God, actively present and at work for our salvation. The doctrine of the Trinity thus safeguards the truth that God's saving action in Jesus and the Spirit is real and originates from God's own nature as a God who saves—uniting us to the one God through differentiated, historical, and existential encounters that call forth faith, transformation, and dialogue in a pluralistic world."
This formulation stays close to Haight's key points:
- It begins with God's unity and soteriological character (the "point" of the Trinity is to protect the economy of salvation).
- It treats Father/Son/Spirit in terms of economic roles (how God acts for salvation) rather than starting with an immanent, preexistent inner life.
- Jesus is the central, normative concrete symbol mediating God (truly divine in presence and action for Christians).
- The Spirit enables universal grace, fitting Haight's pluralism and Spirit Christology.
- It remains dialectical: affirming real distinction in mediations while insisting on oneness, avoiding what critics (like the CDF) saw as reducing the Trinity to mere symbolic functions or unitarianism.
Comments
Post a Comment