The Idealist's Philosophy on the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ

By Daniel B. Karpouzian, Student

Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, but is he unique in history?

An essay hosted at PhilosophyClassics.com

In recent years numerous theologians have explored and written about the topic of Christology. Various views have been presented, some predominantly focusing on Christ’s human element, while others have put more of an emphasis on the divine aspect of Christ. There are four main views that are presented in the area of Christology. They are: conservative, idealist, liberal and radical. Because of the spectrum of views presented, one might have problems finding a balance between the human and divine elements of Christ. The idealist view of Christology attempts to bridge the gap between the human and divine elements of Christ.
The idealist view of Christ falls in the middle in comparison to the conservative and liberal groups. Unlike the conservatives, which give little or no recognition to the human condition of Christ, idealists believe in the historical Jesus and the importance he had in the history on mankind. In fact, “they see history and human experience as the realm of God’s action and revelation” (Cowdell, 17).
Even though the idealist view does acknowledge the human aspect of Christ, their Christology is essentially a theology “from above”. Idealists tend to put more importance on the divine nature of Christ. Even though the importance is placed on Christ’s divine nature the idealist do not deny Christ’s human nature. Essentially, this view separates the idealists from the liberalists. Liberalists disregard the divinity of Christ and have a theology “from below” that focuses on the historical impact of Jesus. Ultimately, the idealists view emphasizes Christ’s divinity, but it is also unique from other views because it accepts the humanity of Christ and his impact on history.
The three main theologians that have contributed greatly to the Christological debate are Karl Rahner, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Walter Kasper. These theologians have some similarities in their views and are grouped together to form the idealist view. Although Rahner and Pannenberg have slightly different perspectives, they are both still indeed idealistic. So to bridge the ideas of these two, we have Kasper, who not only bridges the aforementioned theologians but also is a link between the idealist and the liberal views.
Karl Rahner was a man who had no support from liberals and no support from the conservatives, each group found something in his theology that they could not agree on. Rahner viewed Jesus almost more as man than God. This is the view that most conservatives would not accept. Rahner also says that Jesus’ resurrection proves he was more than a prophet, but a man that was saved by God. It was these beliefs that caused problems to arise. Rahner was known as a radical Roman Catholic in his time and was often looked down upon by the Vatican in Rome. In order to understand his idealistic view we must understand his views on the human person and how truth is revealed, how Jesus relates as a human and God, and lastly how people outside Christianity can benefit from the grace message of Jesus Christ without being “hearers of the word.”
Karl Rahner was born in Freiburg. He was foremost a Jesuit Priest. Karl Rahner believed that revelation is a “key” and there is a “keyhole” divinely prepared in each person’s soul. He also believed that each person in this world is essentially “hearers of the word.” Each person will have a revelation from God in their own way, and in time God will fill that “keyhole” in their soul with the revelation of Christ. Rahner states that the knowledge of God is “a posteriori”. What he means by this is that what one experiences in their world is going to be the source of their revelation. Basically, no two people will have the same experience with God because each person will recognize their experiences differently.
When exploring Rahner’s views of Jesus as both human and divine, one will find that Rahner believed that Jesus lived a human life. The revelations Jesus received from God were received in the same way that other humans received them. However, only Jesus must have understood and exhibited the unique and extensive divine claim on his life in order to be the final revelation that God sent to his people.
Rahner also touches on the historical view of Jesus. Rahner highlights six different points or questions concerning the historical view of Jesus:
1. Jesus was a reformer within the religious milieu of his time.
2. Jesus was close to the religious outcasts.
3. Jesus expected that his mission would mean mortal conflict rather than the successful conversion of Israel.
4. Jesus faced his consequent death as the will of God.
5. Jesus intended to gather disciples.
6. Questions of the pre-resurrection Jesus.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, a leading theologian of the twentieth century, proposes another perspective on the idealist thought. Born in 1928 in Stettin (modern Poland), Pannenberg was not raised a Christian and survived the horrors of being a soldier in World War II. Interested in music and intellectual pursuits, Pannenberg had virtually no contact with the Church. During his young adult years, he did have a “supernatural experience.” Later, after an instructor encouraged his looking into Christianity, Pannenberg’s actual conversion occurred.
After World War II, he began to study theology. While studying under Karl Barth (a “radical” conservatist), he developed his own systematic theology, leaning more towards observing God’s General revelation through creation than his teacher (Heltzel, 1994). Pannenberg integrated his theological and scientific studies in almost every aspect of his work. Very important influences on his understanding of history were the philosophies of Hegel, Dilthey and Heidegger (Cowdell, 1996, p110). Through this influences, Pannenberg eventually came to believe that the ontology of things, including God, would only be known at the end of history, “when all the facts are in” (Cowdell, 1996, 110).
Contrasting other theological standpoints, Pannenberg’s looks “behind” to the resurrection for its center point, and “ahead” to the eschaton in which the reality of God and the meaning of all cosmic history will be fully revealed at last (Cowdell, 1996, p 108). He believed that only after everything is said and done on this earth will humans know who God truly is. In searching for the historical Jesus, he decided that Jesus is unique above all other gods, based upon the firm belief that the resurrection was in fact historically accurate and did occur. In viewing the resurrection as central to his theology, he believes that without it there would be no truth in Jesus’ claim to divinity. His view of the uniqueness of Jesus is woven together with his understanding the human condition (Cowdell, 1996, p 114). The essence of humanity is “openness” to their environment, and this is only understood through history, and history is only understood through the resurrection and life of Jesus Christ (Cowdell, 1996, p 115).
He studies the revelation of God to humans through the history of humankind. However, Pannenberg understands revelation as historically located and written in the language of facts—a language which will be fully translated and understood only in the eschaton—things to be in the future of the kingdom of God (Cowdell, 1996, p 113). This gives light to his support of the “theology of hope,” similar to the Roman Catholic liberation theology in Latin America. “Theology of hope” restores a full-blown “biblical” doctrine of eschatology to centrality in Christian theology in the face of all attempts by liberal theology to see it historically actualized through human effort, or else to personalize and demythologicalize it (Cowdell, 1996, 24).
Pannenberg is suitable for classification as an “idealist” because of his high dependence on revelation as coming through history and for his metaphysical vision—vast, overarching, based on futurity (Cowdell, 1996, p 135). Christians throughout time have interpreted history in light of their faith in Jesus Christ, and this is essentially what Pannenberg is practicing in his theology. His faith in the resurrection and the things to come is molding his interpretation of history and humanity. His contribution to twentieth century theology is crucial in that he successfully combined the results of historical critical exegesis and the concerns of classical dogmatic Christology (Cowdell, 1996, p135). However, he never gave a true black and white answer to why Jesus is unique above all other gods (Cowdell, 1996, p 136). In the end, his emphasis on the resurrection as the crux of theology is simply a matter of faith.
Walter Kasper’s idealist view of Christology is closely related to the earlier mentioned Rahner and Pannenberg, but with a greater emphasis placed on the historical Jesus, although noticeably less than the liberal views. Kasper’s view is seen as a passage from the idealists to the liberals. This is due to the fact that he, like the liberals, emphasizes the Logos being embodied in Jesus, but existing everywhere. He also places a greater value on the historical Jesus than the other idealist theologians but less than the liberals. Kasper’s “resurrection centered” Christology is one that places high value on the historical Jesus, while still being aligned with the common thoughts of other idealist thinkers.
Kasper’s theology is rooted in his Roman Catholic beliefs which he acquired from his association with the University of Tubingen, where he was a professor of theology. The University of Tubingen is known for their use of reason, tradition and scripture when it comes to theological thought. They are also known for respecting the tradition of the belief and worship in the church while analyzing it in light of scripture.
One of the focal points of Kasper’s Christology is the resurrection, which he says brings uniqueness and finality to Jesus. He makes a distinction between the resurrection and discovering revelation in Jesus and to the church through the Spirit. Kasper also stresses the connection between Christology and Soteriology through the reality of the historical person of Jesus. This history, according to Kasper, is seen through the Christian faith. However the Christian faith is not the only basis for faith. Kasper makes a distinction between Jesus and kerygmatic faith. Kasper also places a strong value on the exclusivity of Jesus’ originality supported by reality of his death and resurrection. Kasper notes also that the resurrection opened a new-found freedom in Christ that can be examined through current day experiences.
Kasper’s view on Soteriology is also related to the resurrection. He notes that salvation was gained through the death and resurrection based on two factors: the obedience of Jesus and God’s actions. The virgin birth and the dissension of the Holy Spirit are also key dynamics that reinforce Kasper’s view on the role of the resurrection, playing an important part in his idealistic view of Christology and Soteriology. According to him, there are three areas that we benefit in from the resurrection, ascension and dissention of the Sprit. They are the life, light and creative power released through these events. Kasper also points out that the Holy Spirit is not only upon Jesus but it envelopes his entire being. This is what enabled him to accomplish these things.
The actual role of historical Jesus and the human condition are often overstated, with revelation or a heavily idealist philosophy of history adding far more weight to claims for Jesus’ “uniqueness and finality than those responsible will admit” (Cowdell 83). This has caused some Christians to afford Jesus a special status that they have little backing for. Why is Jesus in his simplicity and humility seen as the incredible human being? This is a question idealists need to answer. There is also a doubt as to why Jesus is set in this unique and final status, given the historical reservations which are voiced and the apparent inability of idealists to account for the genesis of such faith in the believer, or indeed to justify their belief in Christ’s universal efficacy. In addition to these more general concerns, internal difficulties identified in the major approaches of Rahner and Pannenberg are found to render their elegant solutions rather less than totally convincing (Cowdell 83, 84).
Idealism is considered theology from above and from below. Can it be both? Theology from above leans heavily on aspects of divine revelation, as well as in natural theology, as in the tradition of Aquinas. Theology from below emphasizes a strong reliance on the human condition and the impact of the historical Jesus. Idealism tries to find a meeting place between these two extremes. Is this possible?
One problem with this approach is that idealists tend to use their philosophy of Jesus’ humanity to add far more weight to his earthly uniqueness and individuality (Cowdell 83). This can lead to viewing Jesus in extreme terms only, where every action, from least to great, is viewed as original and supernaturally perfect. If Jesus took a drink of cold water, an idealist might try to show the eternal ramifications of such a decision, when in reality Jesus was a normal human being like us with many of the same needs. We cannot puff up the simplicity of who Jesus was simply to show him as more unique than all others before or after.
Rahner did not see the natural and supernatural as two parallel realities, but rather had the inability to see nature apart from grace, and could not see any aspect of human knowing apart from knowledge of God (Cowdell 88). Idealists tend to base their philosophy of Christology and Sotierology on personal cognitive abilities to explain Jesus’ person and work and how it affects the entire cosmos. Seeing nature and grace as intertwined means everything created has divine elements in it. This misses the limits of the human mind and its ability to comprehend the fullness of who God is or his mission in the world. Idealist would tend to be very confident in their ability to explain how Rahner implies that there is no revelation if it is not heard, which means that Christ can only be revealed through the faith of people who believe him. This would be the other extreme, which states that Christ is not a revelation of God unless humans receive him in faith. This would emphasize the human influence of Christ on our world, and strongly detach him from the divinity he rightfully held. Looking at revelation through these eyes, we see a strong historical figure that had the power to persuade people to a life of faith, regardless of truth behind his claims of divinity. Did people have faith in what Jesus did (his miracles, healing, acceptance, compassion), or who he was (forgiveness, atonement, grace)? Did his being have an influence on people’s decision to believe in him, or were they just interested in his earthly influence? Idealism doesn’t seem to have answers for these questions.
Lastly, Pannenberg believed that the divinity of Jesus could only be seen through the resurrection. It is unclear then, how people would be able to see aspects of divine revelation in the other parts of Christ’s life. And, if there is not clarity in recognizing Jesus’ divinity before his resurrection, there is not enough reason to believe that the revelation that occurred after the fact was either significant or divine.
Although Webster’s online dictionary defines idealism as, “One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations” or, “One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary,” it is so much more than either of those explanations. Unfortunately, Webster’s dictionary tends to be a rather conservative work, so therefore their definition can tend to be slightly biased.
Idealists such as Rahner, Pannenberg, or Kasper may have been scoffed at by the conservatives, or pitied by the liberals, but their theology was more elegant than either camps. They are able to show how Christ bridged the gap between the human and the divine. This aligns with the Assembly of God’s view on Christ, and is more fitting to someone who was both fully human and fully divine. People confused the issue of Idealism, because they both saw Christology from ‘above’ and ‘below’ which gives a more holistic view of Christ, and his mission here on Earth.
Take Pannenberg, for example. He was a scientist, and was able to fully integrate science, and his faith. He was able to show how science was part of the general revelation of God, and not something that detracted from it or disproved it. On the other hand, some idealists took the concept of Christ’s uniqueness too far, when they attach extreme, metaphysical relevance to everything Christ did. To draw from the text as an example, Christ drank water. This is relevant because it shows us Christ’s humanity, but it is not an act that had never been accomplished before, and was not necessarily an act that we all must view as theologically profound; he was just thirsty so he drank.
The idealist theology does lead to some unanswered questions about the nature of Christ and how he was viewed by his contemporaries, but it is far more accurate in showing that the God that we worship is both fully man, and fully God. How ironic it is that a theology that is not accepted by either the conservatives or the liberals has such strong roots in both groups. Besides that, how unusual is it that people from either group came together with very similar views on Christ. Does this mean that the idealists are correct? No, but it does show that God is able to grant special revelation about his nature to his people.







Works Cited
Cowdell, Scott. Is Jesus Unique? A Study of Recent Christology. New York: Paulist
Press, 1996.
Heltzel, Peter. “Wolfhart Pannenberg”.
http://www.people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_856_pannenberg.htm 14 April, 2003.
“Idealist”. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. 16 April, 2003. .