Scholarsboth inside

and outside theChurch have

given compara-tively little

attention to theMormon belief

in Christ, hisperson and

work.

18 SUNSTONE/APRIL 1985

Toward a MormonChristologyAre we disciples to the Christ of history or the Christ of the creeds?By Keitlz E. Norman

one of the most strident and historicallypersistent charges against Mormonismhas been that it is not a valid Christianreligion at all. Curiously, this assertion isbased upon Mormon theology (doctrine of

~ God) and anthropology (doctrine of man)rather than upon Mormon Christology (doctrineof Christ). The reason for this may lie in thecomparatively little attention scholars both insideand outside the LDS church have given to theMormon belief in Christ, his person and work. Infact, the term Christology itself is a foreign one tomost members. In spite of this, Mormons insistthat theirs is neither the church of Mormon norof Joseph Smith but is in reality as well as in namethe church of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps an important reason for the neglect ofChristology among Mormons, apart from thegeneral absence of theological endeavors amongthe Saints, is that the early Mormon scripturesgive the overwhelming impression of traditionalChristian orthodoxy. The Book of Mormon inten-tionally reads like a commentary on the NewTestament, and the Doctrine and Covenants pos-its explicit revelations by the exalted and glori-fied Lord Jesus, who appears indistinguishablefrom the Father. Indeed, Mosiah 15:1-5 hasseemed quite compatible with the orthodox doc-trine of the Trinity: "God himself shall comedown among the children, and shall redeem hispeople .... because he dwelleth in the flesh heshall be called the Son of God ... being theFather and the Son .... they are one God, yea,the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.’:Similarly, the title page of the Book of Mormoncalls Jesus "the ETERNAL GOD." (Cf. 2 Ne. 26:12;Ether 3:13, 4:12, Morm. 9:12.)

However, to take th’ese canonical writings asthe last word would be to betray the Mormonprinciple of continuing, progressive revelation. Itwas only later, from about 1832, that JosephSmith moved Mormonism beyond the somewhatloose doctrinal boundaries of mainstream

American Christianity. This development, whichhas been extensively studied of late, included notonly theology proper, but also such distinctiveand esoteric doctrines as the three degrees ofglory, preexistence, celestial marriage (polyg-amy), the endowment, and work for the dead.This shift away from orthodox Christian the-ology has significant implications for the Mormondoctrine of Christ, which as yet have gonelargely unrecognized. A review of the historicaldevelopment of Christology illuminates the ex-tent to which we have been unknowingly influ-enced by traditional and often questionable as-sumptions. Such an awareness should help usmove to a more coherent Christology: an under-standing of who Jesus is, what he did for us, ourrelationship to him, and the place of this Chris-tology in the overall Mormon belief system.Furthermore, our distinctive Mormon Christol-ogy, although heretical by orthodox Christianstandards, accords remarkably well with many ofthe results of modern biblical and historicalscholarship.

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGYThe origins of Christology are lost in the New

Testament prehistory and thus the subject ofconsiderable debate among theologians and his-torians. However, the meaning of Jesus is impor-tant, if not always central, to almost every bookin the New Testament. This does not mean thatthe early Church’s concerns were the same asours. As Oscar Cullman points out in his study ofNew Testament Christological titles, the authorsare primarily concerned with the functionalmeaning of Christological descriptions such as"Lord," "Son of Man," and "Son of God," ratherthan his ultimate metaphysical identity, or ontol-ogy, which came to occupy later theologians(Christology of the New Testament, trans. Shirley C.Guthrie and Charles A. N. Hall, pp. 3f).

Perhaps the most debated question in modernNew Testament scholarship concerns the ques-tion of the so-called "historical Jesus": what did

APRIL 1985/SUNSTONE 19

In spiteof our radicaltheology, we

have often beeninfluenced byquestionableassumptions.

Jesus actually do and say during his lifetime, andhow did he understand his own person and min-istry? The earliest New Testament writings, theepistles of Paul, date from nearly twenty yearsafter Christ’s death, a~nd their author neverknew Jesus during his mortal life. The Gospelswere written decades later, probably betweenabout 70-90 C.E., and there is serious doubt thatany of the evangelists (the authors of the canoni-cal Gospels) knew Jesus directly either. Theyreproduced Jesus’ words as passed down throughoral tradition and probably collections of sayingssuch as those found in the recently discoveredGospel of Thomas.

Furthermore, the Gospels are not, in fact,biographies in the modern sense, but proclama-tions, reflecting the early Church’s preaching.Norman Perrin represents a broad scholarly con-sensus when he writes:

The gospel form was created t.o serve the purpose of the earlyChurch, but historical reminiscence was not one of thesepurposes. So for example, when we read an account of Jesusgiving instructionto his disciples, we are not hearing thevoice of the earthly Jesus addressing Galilean disciples in aPalestinian situation but that of the risen Lord addressingChristian missionaries in a Hellenistic world. (Rediscover-ing the Teachings of Jesus,. pp. 15f.)

While this view may support the Mormon con-tention of the need for’ continuing revelation, it isfrustrating for those who would like a more doc-umentary version of the life of Jesus.

This does not mean tlhat the Gospels are use-less in recovering the authentic teaching of theearthly Jesus, however. Earlier in this century,biblical scholarship developed "form criticism," acritical methodology that analyzes the individualunits--stories and sayings~of the synopticGospels in order to determine how these mayhave been shaped by the. Christian community inoral transmission up to the time they were writ-ten down. The objective of form criticism was toreconstruct more closely the original teachingsof Jesus. Although the results of form criticismproved to be somewhat meager, they did con-tribute to the consensus that Jesus did not estab-lish a cultus centered on himself. For instance,Jesus took pains to point out that it was the faithof the one who asked that effected the healing,rather than his own miraculous powers (e.g.,Mark 1_0:54; Matt. 9:22, 29; Luke 17:19). Herejected the description of himself as "good,"insisting "there is ~one good but one, God"(Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). "Jesus’ legacy to man-kind," writes Don Cupitt, "is rather an urgentappeal to each of us to acknowledge above all elsethe reality of God" and his rule (in Christ, Faith, andHistory, pp. 142f.). In Jesus’ own words, "Repent,for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.5:17). Furthermore, Jesus’ cry on the cross, "MyGod, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"(Mark 15:34 quoting Ps. 22:1), combined with hisagonized prayer for a reprieve in Gethsemane

and the disciples’ early despondency followinghis death, indicate that he himself did not under-stand his death as a vicarious atoning sacrifice.

Christianity did not begin proclaiming the pas-sion of Jesus, his suffering and death, but hisresurrection, impelled by the endowment of theSpirit at Pentecost. The conviction that "he isrisen!" precipitated a momentous change in theperspective of his followers. Whereas Jesuspreached the kingdom, the Church preachedJesus; the proclaimer became the proclaimed.Reports of the early post-resurrection preachingin Acts point to a community experiencing re-demption and reconciliation and attempting toconvey and rationalize what they had experienced.Jesus, according to Peter’s sermon, is "a manapproved by God" to inaugurate the outpouringof the Spirit in the last days (Acts 2:22). God, byraising him up from the dead, has vindicated himand "adopted" him as his own Son (Acts 2:22-36;cf. 3:13-26; Rom. 1:3-4).

There is no mention of divine stature o:rredemption of others in these accounts. Indeed,the leading disciples continued to worship in thetemple, the locus of atonement for sins in Judaism.The early Palestinian Church’s Christology sawJesus as the eschatological Mosaic prophet-ser-vant (promised in Deut. 18::15-19) who had ful-filled the vocation of errant Israel: "What Israelwas meant to be in relation to God, Israel hadfailed to be; but Jesus had succeeded. Faithful atevery point in the wilderness temptation; utterlyone with the Father’s will, as his own Son, hi~first born; obedient even to the length of death."(C. F. D. Moule, The Origin o]Christology, pp. 151f.)In fact, the early Church was more concernedwith what Jesus was to become than what he hadbeen. He was soon to return as the triumphantSon of Man, the supreme representative of thenation portrayed in Daniel 7, who was to judgethe nations and inaugurate the rule of God or atleast "restore again the kingdom to Israel." (Acts1:6-7).

However, as the movement spread outsidePalestine into the larger Hellenistic culture andthe return of Christ was increasingly delayed,important shifts in Christo][ogy occurred. This isespecially evident in Paul, the missionary to theGentiles, whose Christology is among the most"advanced" or developed in the New Testamentdespite the comparatively .early dates of his let-ters. Whereas Jesus tends to be described byother New Testament writers as an exalted indi-vidual, somewhat in angelic terms, Paul describeshim in "personal but supra-individual" terms,something of a corporate personality (Moule, TheOrigin of Christology, p. 107). Christians live "inChrist" (e.g., Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:17), who is thenew Adam, the prototype of a new creation (.1Cot. 15:22, 45-49; Gal. 6:1.5).

In spite of this apparent development, it is hardto construct a consistent picture of Christ evenfrom the undoubtedly authentic epistles of Pa~:ll,

20 SUNSTONE/APRIL 1985

and attempts to trace a development in his Chris-tological thought do not easily follow a simplechronology. References to protology, or pre-existent glory (as in 1 Cor. 8:6 and 10:4), arefollowed by the two-level sonship description inRomans 1:3-4: Jesus was descended from Davidaccording to the flesh but declared Son of God inpower according to the Spirit. There is a famouspassage in Philippians which seems to presume ahighly developed protology: Jesus, "though hewas in the form of God ... emptied himself,taking the form of a servant, being born in thelikeness of men." But this is combined with anexaltation statement implying that Jesus "earned"his place alongside God by his humble obedienceand submission unto death. "Therefore God hashighly exalted him and bestowed on him thename which is above every name" (2:6-9; RSV).

It was also Paul who most developed the inter-pretation of Jesus’ death as an expiatory, atoningsacrifice to redeem others (Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 5:7,2 Cor. 5:21). This was apparently done as a mis-sionary tool since the concept made perfect senseto Hellenist Romans accustomed to propitiatingthe offended god. Paul’s great genius as a prose-lytizer lay in his adapting his message to hisaudience (1 Cot. 9:19-22; 10:33).

The synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew, andLuke, although they postdate Paul, seem to takea step or two backward with respect to theirChristology. In part this is due to the fact thatPaul had written almost exclusively of the risenLord who was already exalted in heaven whereasthe evangelists described his mortal ministry,albeit with sharpened hindsight. But the synop-tics also tended to be more oriented to JewishChristianity in contrast to Paul’s gentile audience.Mark’s message that Jesus is the "Son of God"was not intended as a claim to transcendentalstatus, since he used the term as a synonym forMessiah (Christ, the Anointed One) as Mark14:61-62 clearly shows. Matthew and Luke ex-panded upon this Christology with their birthnarratives, which stretched the boundaries ofJesus’ election to Sonship by beginning at theconception rather than at the baptism (as doesMark), or at the resurrection and ascension (aswith the early preaching in Acts).

John’s Gospel not only makes a giant Christo-logical leap beyond the synoptics, but even goesfurther than Paul. Except for the passion narra-tive, John shares little material with the otherGospels, and his Christology is radically differ-ent. Whether or not he knew of the birth stories,he tops them with a highly developed protology.By appropriating Jewish Wisdom speculation,John proclaims Jesus as the fleshly incarnation ofthe preexistent Logos, the Word or rational expres-sion of the Father (John 1:1-14; cf. Heb. 1:1-3).He was sent from God and manifests his gloryamong men during his life--"he who has seen mehas seen the Father" (John 14:9, 1:14). His cruci-fixion was in actuality an exaltation; he was

"lifted up" to glory on the cross (3:14; 8:28;12:32). From the scholarly point of view, John isthe least valuable of the Gospels for informationabout the historical Jesus, since it consistentlyprojects the attributes and words of the glorified,resurrected Lord back onto his mortal ministry.One prominent New Testament scholar, ErnstKaesemann, has made a strong case for John’s"Gospel as a docetic document, meaning thatJesus only seemed to be mortal and suffer on thecross; in reality, as those with spiritual percep-tion could see, he was untouched by fleshly lim-itations (The Testament of Jesus, chap. 2).

Later New Testament writings continue todevelop Christological themes in different ways.James, with a strong bias toward Jewish piety,virtually ignores Christol0gy. Hebrews empha-sizes the obsolescence of the Old Testament re-quirements as fulfilled by Jesus, the once-and-for-all high priest and sacrifice.

Carefully analyzed, what the New Testamentattests to above all is the variety of Christologiesin the early Church. Some saw him as the escha-tological prophet, others as the divine wonderworker, others as the embodiment of Wisdom,and still others as the sacrificial Lamb of God.The multiplicity of ways of describing Christ’sredemptive work and the many titles given tohim indicate that in the primitive Church therewas no one standard, given, or normative Chris-tology as a starting point, but rather a number ofcompeting Christologies. Although Christiansever since have attempted to harmonize thesedisparate conceptions of Christ, a long history ofdoctrinal controversy over the person and workof Christ has ensued.THE PATRISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGY

Probably the most crucial step in the develop-ment of Christology was the transfer of the gos-pel through missionary work from Palestinian-Jewish culture to the gentile world of HellenisticRome, instigated by Paul. The focus was changedfrom the function of the Messiah to the nature ofSonship, which reflected the concerns of Greekphilosophy rather than biblical piety. Althoughthe history of this development cannot be detailedhere, it is important to understand the crucialsteps taken in the definition of Christian ortho-doxy during the first centuries of Christianity.That legacy is still with us, both culturally andreligiously, and the genesis of Mormonism didnot take place in a vacuum, as our eclectic doc-trine attests.

The central point here, however, is that thefull consideration of Christology followed andindeed grew out of discussions surrounding theTrinity. Until the fourth century the relation ofChrist the Son to God the Father was the pri-mary controversy. The dilemma was that Godhad been defined in Greek philosophical terms asan infinite and eternal being, nonmaterial andincapable of division, change, or passions. In con-

Whereas Jesuspreached thekingdom, theChurch preachedJesus; the pro-claimer becamethe proclaimed.

APRIL 1985/SUNSTONE 21

Thetrinitarian’solution"

in fact raisedmore questions

than itanswered.

trast, anything created, including every humanbeing, was material, limited, changeable, andtherefore subject to corruption. But where doesChrist fit in? Christians had come to worshiphim as God, and this left them on the horns of atheological dilemma. Either they were abandon-ing monotheism in speaking of two Gods, or theywere saying that the infinite and. unchangeablewas born, suffered, and died. Neither extremewas logically defensible, and both were stronglyrejected as heresy. The most common way out,up to the Council of Nicaea in 325, was someform of subordinationism: Jesus was God, butonly secondarily and derivatively. Although thisaccorded well with the biblical data and couldeven be fit into a Neoplatonic hierarchy-of-beingscheme, as its implications were worked out itwas rejected for soteriological reasons.

Soteriology is the doctrine of: salvation. TheChristian tradition had strongly affirmed thatsalvation meant deification: Christ was mademan that we might be made god. The leadingexponent of deification in the four’th century wasAthanasius, the bishop of Alexandria and cham-pion of Nicene orthodoxy. He insisted that inorder for humans to be exalted to the status ofdivinity, to be truly saved, a fully divine Saviorwas needed. Christ the Son must be God eter-nally, by nature, not by adoption or merit, inorder to deify us. Thus the "creed" adopted bythe Council of Nicaea affirmed that the Son was"homoousious," meaning of one substance or ofidentical nature, with the Father.. Christ was nota creature, someone who came into being at apoint in time, but "very God from very God."

Athanasius devoted his stormy ecclesiasticalcareer to the defense of this formula, which pre-vailed only after the political might of the empirewas fully committed to its enforcement. In 381the Council of Constantinople officially addedthe Holy Spirit to the Trinity: There was oneeternal God in three persons. How this could beremained a mystery despite the attempts of theChurch’s best minds to explain it.

But the trinitarian "solution"’ in fact raisedmore questions than it answered, particularlyconcerning Christology. If Jesus was fully God,infinite, and impassible, what could it mean thathe had taken on flesh and suffered? Was he reallyeven a human being? A:s one partisan in the dis-pute put it, "God is not in a cradle two or threemonths old." In fact, "the Nicene faith made theChristological problem insoluble." Alexandriantheology had made Christ too divine, "at the costof denying the full reality of [the] incarnation."(G. W. H. Lampe in/~ History of Christian Doctrine,pp. 134, 121.) The description of the union ofGod and man in Christ by the successors toAthanasius implied that the humanity was swal-lowed up in his divinity, so that in effect Jesushad to fake limitations by pulling punches inorder to experience a kind of pseudomortality.Gregory of Nyssa described the atonement of

Christ as accomplished by an illusion whichtricked Satan: the mortal flesh was the baitwhich deceived him into thinking he was killingjust another person tainted with sin. Underneaththat fleshly cloak, though, w.as, in fact the spot-less and powerful Logos which snared the deviland stripped him of his power. (This has beendubbed the "fishhook theory of redemption.")(Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, chap. 24.) Inopposition to the Alexandrian view of the essen-tial union of the divine and human in Christ, thetheologians at Antioch maintained astrict sepa-ration of the Logos from the human nature ofJesus in order to stress the full humanity of theSavior and his kinship with us on the one handand to safeguard the ultimate transcendence ofthe divine being on the other.

In the course of the debate,~various solutionswere suggested and rejected as heretical. Apolli-naris, carrying Athanasius’ Christology to itslogical conclusion, put the Logos in total controlreplacing the human soul in Jesus. Not onlywould this have precluded free will in the Savior,but as Gregory of Nazianzus insisted, "what hasnot been assumed remains unhealed." For deifi-cation to be complete, the entire human being--body, mind, soul, and spirit--had to be joined todeity. For Cyril of Alexandria, there was only oneincarnate nature in the union of the Logos andJesus, so that the deity was tlhe subject of the fullhuman experience. In answer to Nestorius’ ob-jections that the two natures must remain sepa-rate, since it was blasphemy to suppose that oneof the Trinity could undergo change and suffer-ing, Cyril replied that "Christ suffered impassi-bly." (Cited in Lampe in A History of ChristianDoctrine, p. 126.)

As with the earlier dispute about Christ’s rela-.tion to God, a settlement concerning his relation.to humanity was again reached when the emperorMarcion intervened to call another "ecumenical’"council at Chalcedon, near Constantinople, il~451. The Christological formula adopted there,.vague enough to be inconclusive and give both.sides some comfort, became the second anchor ofclassic orthodoxy. It defined Christ as one Son,perfect in deity and humanity, truly God and.truly man, of one substance (homoousious) with.both God and man. The two natures were corn-.bined wtihout confusion into one "person" (Greek:prosopon), which neatly reversed the trinitariar~formula of one nature in three prosopa. Thusorthodox Christology insists that Christ is fullyGod: infinite, eternal, and indistinguishable ir~essence from the Father and that in Jesus Godhas, through the Incarnation, united himself:with a particular man who thus became therepresentative and prototype of a renewed andperfected humanity.THE NEED TO UPDATE

Although Chalcedon may have been the bestpossible accommodation for its time and culture,it did not really solve the conceptual problem~

22 SUNSTONE / APRIL 1985

that occupied theologians for so long. Don Cupittpoints out several remaining problems in his.essay, "The Christ of Christendom": First, theunion of humanity and divinity at Jesus’ concep-tion make his earthly struggles and sufferingsomewhat irrelevant, since docetism, the viewthat Jesus only seemed vulnerable to human frail-ties, cannot be entirely avoided. Second, free willis meaningless for Jesus. The divine will, which isincapable of sin, virtually smothers the human~vill. Third, the worship of Christ may be divorcedfrom worship of God the Father, instead of theworship of God through Christ. Too, if Mary isliterally the "Mother of God," Mariolotry canhardly be resisted. And finally, a pagan notion ofan anthropomorphic deity is inevitable in popu-lar religion. (In The Myth of God Incarnate, pp. 142f.)Such objections have led in many corners to callfor reevaluation of Christology among moderntheologians. Indeed, noting these problems, J. A.T. Robinson had described the impression ofJesus given by the Chalcedonian definition assome kind of hybrid, like a centaur, "an unnatu-ral conjunction of two strange species" (in Christ,Faith, and History, p. 39).

The move to update Christology, however,stems from the critical concern for coming toterms with the historical Jesus as well as therecognition of the paradoxes in orthodox theol-ogy. "If that tradition," writes Cupitt of Jesus’own teachings, "were to be taken seriously,Chalcedon and later dogmatic systems derivedfrom it would have to be abandoned in favor of afresh start" (The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 141).Although theologians generally retain their ortho-dox assumptions about the nature of God, hon-esty about the human and cultural limitations ofJesus exhibited in the historical record precludesthe view that he was God walking around inhuman disguise or the Son of God in an ontologi-cal sense, that is, in the way defined by the doc-trine of the Trinity. As John Hick asserts, ourincreasing knowledge of Christian origins "in-volves a recognition that Jesus was (as he is pres-ented in Acts 2:21) ’a man approved by God’ for aspecial role within the divine purpose, and thatthe later conceptions of him as God incarnate,the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living ahuman life, is a mythological or poetic way ofexpressing his significance for us" (The Myth ofGod Incarnate, p. ix). But does such a view throwout the baby with the bath?

MORMONISM AND CHRISTOLOGY

When viewed against this background, it be-comes apparent that Mormonism has an impor-tant contribution to make in the area of Chris-tology though we are scarcely even aware of it.The radical departure of Joseph Smith fromChristian orthodoxy with respect to the naturesof both God and humanity virtually eradicatesthe Christological dilemmas. By asserting thathumankind itself is ultimately the same species

as God--eternal, uncreated and unlimited incapacity--there is no longer any need to bridgethe ontological gulf between them. It is noparadox for Mormonism to say that Jesus wasboth fully human and divine since divinity meansperfected, fully mature humanity.

Furthermore, the specifics of the "Christ myth"which bother so many contemporary theolo-gians are generally not serious problems forMormon theology. M6.,~onism takes the notionof the preexistence of Jesus, which scholars tendto ascribe to influence from non-Hebrewsources, one giant step further: not only Jesusbut all humanity is eternally existent. Withintraditional orthodoxy, the Virgin Birth appearsto require an act of magical epiphany. Mormonscan speak of Christ’s conception as a naturalevent and as a virgin birth only by mortal stan-dards. Embarrassing texts that indicate thatJesus increased in knowledge, "learned" obe-dience, did not know when the Second Comingwould be, and was capable of temptation, anger,weeping, ~ear, suffering, death, and even aban-donment by God pose no dilemma for Mormonism.Jesus was a man, the pioneer and prototype ofour salvation and exaltation. "He received not ofthe fulness at first, but continued from grace tograce, until he received a fulness" (D&C 93:13).There is no danger here of docetism, of onlygoing through the motions of mortality forappearance’s sake. Jesus’ experiences were asreal, even more intense than our own. Because itfirmly subordinates the Son to the Father,Mormonism, although theoretically polytheistic,may be described as a practical or functionalmonotheism.

Although Mormons, in defense of their rightto be called Christian, often like to insist on theirChristological orthodoxy, there are nonethelesscertain very important heresies from traditionalChristianity evident among Latter-day Saintbelief and practice directly related to our distinctview of Christ. These are not limited to the the-ology of separate and material members of theGodhead and the understanding of full salvationas deification. Equally significant is the radicalrejection of free grace (or at least its restriction tothe resurrection of all mankind) and the focus onindividual merit. Although Mormons certainlyhave no corner on preaching free will and indi-vidual responsibility, few other Christians arequite so insistent on this point, and perhaps evenfewer can reconcile it with their overall theologi-cal system. It is interesting to note that the leastChristocentric book in the New Testament,James, is a favorite with Mormons because of itsemphasis on practical morality and good works.Luther, in contrast, would just as soon haveexcluded it altogether from the canon. Evangeli-cal Christians have been criticized from variousquarters for having only one answer, JesusChrist, no matter what the question. But this isquite consistent with their trinitarian theological

It is no paradoxto say Jesus wasboth fully hunlanand divine sincedivinity meansfully maturehumanity.

APRIL 1985/SUNSTONE 23

The specificsof the "Christ

nyth" are gener-ally not prob-

lems forMormon

theology.

assumptions. If Christ is God, and God is theomnipotent infinite Being of their creeds, whatneed is there for further discussion? By way ofcontrast, it is impossible to understand theMormon rejection of original sin and the almostexistential insistence on free will apart fromMormonism’s unique Christology. Furthermore,in contrast to the Catholic mass or Protestantcelebration of the Lord’s Supper, the Mormon"sacrament," although repeated weekly, is not somuch a commemoration of Christ’s death as it isa renewal of baptismal covenants. The emphasison ethical striving is entirely consistent with thesubordination of Christology to anthropology,the doctrine of man: for Mormons, the crucialquestion is not ontology,, the nature of being, butdiscipleship. Mormons are striving not to tran-scend their creaturehood, but to perfect theirhumanity.

REMAINING QUESTIONSSeveral crucial questions relating to Mormon

Christology, however, remain unresolved. Twoof these bear mention. The first concerns howwe relate to the Savior in worship, prayer, andcommunication. Despite the advantage of ourtheology in developing a close relationship withGod as a literal and even tangible father, we tendto maintain a certain distance from him as thebeing we worship. We are of the same race, butGod is usually thought of as having attained astate of progression immeasurably beyond ours.Our mediator with the Father is Jesus Christ,who in our historical memory and on our ownplanet passed through this step of mortality andtesting. But exactly what does this mean? Aclearer Christology could help dispel some of theconfusion that seems to plague our pulpits andclassrooms on this issue. In a recent widely pro-mulgated BYU devotional address, Elder BruceR. McConkie warned against the gospel fad ofstriving to develop a personal relationship withChrist. "We worship the Father and him only andno one else," he insisted. "We do not worship theSon and we do not worship the Holy Ghost."This admonition is consistent with the Mormonview of Christ as subordinate to God in a hierar-chical"presidency." It would be more appropriateto relate to Jesus as the older brother we proclaimhim to be: a sympathetic, experienced mentor,tolerant of our growing pains because he hasbeen there and knows that with careful, lovingguidance we will outgrow this stage too. But inthe same speech Elder McConkie seems to lapseinto the neoorthodoxy which has become in-creasingly prevalent among Mormon leaders andeducators in recent years:

Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons--God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer;and God the third, the Testator. These three are one--oneGod if you will--in p~rpo:;es, in powers, and in perfections.. . . Those who truly love the Lord and who worship theFather in the name of the Sc, n by the power of the Spirit,

according ~o the approved patterns., maintain a reverentialbarrier between themselves and all members of the Godhead.(Brigham Young University 198 ~!-82 Fireside and Devo-tional Speeches, pp. 98, 103.)

Is this just semantic confusion, or is it that theright hand really doesn’t know what the left isdoing?

A second unresolved issue is related and isbound to touch sensitive nerves. As yet there isno definitive doctrine of the Atonement in Mor-monism, although there has been no shortage ofattempts to expound on it. Very few of these,however, have managed to do so in a mannerwhich would demonstrate an awareness of thedistinct tenets of Mormonism; they are for themost part derivative from traditional Christianity.

Nevertheless, there are scriptural clues point-ing the way to a distinctive understanding of theAtonement which will do justice to MormonChristology. When the Book of Mormon prophetEnos prays for the redemption of others, he istold that they must earn it on their own :merits(Enos 9-1.0). This does not accord well with theview that Christ’s atoning sacrifice somehowtransfers his merit to us. The Book of Mormonalso contains a different perspective on the pur-pose and mission of Christ’s mortal experience:he had to go through what: we do in order to"know how to succor his people according totheir infirmities" (Alma 7:1-.t-12). That is, Jesusalso needed to come to earth to develop theattributes of godliness, which must be gainedfirsthand. This points to Jesus as the prototype ofempathetic love who can teach and inspire us toemulation of his self-sacrifice for our brothersand sisters.

Jesus is like us in every point. He suffers whatwe suffer; he understands what we are goingthrough. Emphasis on the love manifested inJesus’ suffering and death for us provides a pointof contact between Protestant grace and MormonChristology, which paradoxically involves theirdisparate views on the nature of man. ClassicalProtestant-Augustinian anLhropology sees manas a creature of a lower order of being who ispowerless to escape from his sinful condition. Inthis view, we require an act of unmerited love onGod’s initiative to redeem us and lift us up to astate of grace, worthy to be adopted as childrenof God. Mormons, on the other hand, begin withthe assumption that we are children of God bynature. The knowledge that we are loved for our’own intrinsic being, demonstrated above all bythe mission and atonement of Christ, the su-.preme manifestation of God’s grace, gives us thesense of self-worth needed to enable us to love irtturn and empowers us to grow up to the measureof the stature of Christ.

Thus, for Mormons vicarious suffering forsins does not so much "pay" for our misdeed,’;(mercy, after all, cannot rob justice), as it doe:;lead the real sinner to humility and reformation.

24 SUNSTONE /APRIL 1985

When the Lamanites were brought face to facewith the suffering and death they were inflictingon the innocent people of Anti-Nephi-Lehithrough the latter’s refusal to justify them byfighting back, many of them were brought totheir senses, repented, and joined the pacifists(Alma 24). Likewise, when we confront Christinnocently suffering for our wickedness, ourhearts are softened and we resolve to change ourways. And isn’t reformation what redemption isall about? The Mormon God is not the sternjudge demanding payment for each meticulouslyrecorded evil deed, but the loving if often heart-broken Father who only wants us to recognizeour potential and to learn and grow from ourmistakes. We cannot become like God by lettingsomeone else take responsibility for our actions,only by developing the qualities of godliness inourselves. President Kimball’s emphasis on theneed for individual suffering in penance soundsat odds with the traditional view of the Atone-ment, but is quite consistent with Mormonism’sdistinctive soteriology. Personal actions havepersonal consequences. Christ’s role is not to letus off the hook, but to show us that it is possibleto achieve holiness, to become perfect as God isperfect, to demonstrate how to do it, and to moti-vate us to follow his example. One of our fellowmen has overcome every obstacle, including guiltand estrangement, and realized the full potentialof our divine humanity. Knowing this truthmakes us free to do likewise.

Admittedly, this approach to Christology isnot new in Christian thought, nor does such aredefinition and liberalization of the doctrineprovide all the answers. It will be a disappoint-ment to the scholastics among us who seek somegreat cosmic necessity for a vicarious expiatorysacrifice for sin. But I believe there are morepressing concerns. For instance, theologians inour own day generally reject such "myths" ashell, the devil, verbal inspiration, Virgin Birth,physical resurrection, and even divine provi-dence. Theology today, writes Juergen Moltmann,has toned down soteriology; it "loses its cosmo-logical breadth and ontological depth and issought in the context of man’s existential prob-lem" (The Crucified God, p. 93). Is Mormonismvulnerable to such sophisticated delusion? Ordoes our naturalism, as described by McMurrin,make us immune from a modernism whichseems little removed from atheism? (The Philo-sophical Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 18.) Ifour resistance to contemporary skepticism is tobe based on a literalistic and unitary reading ofthe scriptures as advocated by the so-calledMormon neoorthodox camp, then we will haveto abandon our belief in continuing, progressiverevelation and renounce our allowance for humanerror in holy writ--the very concepts whichshould help to insulate us from the ravages ofhigher criticism.

Another area open to critical examination is

our emphasis on Christ as Jehovah, the God ofthe Old Testament. How, for instance, does thisrelate to our normal requirement to possess aresurrected physical body in order to be exaltedto godhood? Another question: what would thissubjective understanding of the Atonement meanabout our literal, historical view of Adam and theFall?

Of course, the foregoing questions by nomeans exhaust the list of issues which could beraised. My suggestions are certainly preliminaryand need to be pursued in more detail and elabo-rated with great precision to determine theirultimate validity. But if we are to take Mormondoctrine seriously, it is important that we cometo an understanding of Christ consistent withour distinct theology.

Should such a Christology push us to a stagebeyond historical Christianity and justify our crit-ics who charge us with heresy, so be it. Jan Shippshas argued that Mormonism is not so much arestoration of primitive Christianity as it is a newreligious tradition standing in relation to Chris-tianity as the early Christians did to Judaism (JanShipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tra-dition).The dispensation of the fulness of timesgoes beyond its predecessors, even though itarises out of that stream of tradition. BrighamYoung reported that when still in Kirtland, theProphet Joseph had told him, "If I was to reveal tothis people what the Lord revealed to me, there isnot a man or woman who would stay with me"(Journal of Discourses, 9:294). In fact when hestarted to teach those revolutionary concepts,many of his friends turned on him and fannedthe flames which destroyed him. The history ofMormon doctrine since Joseph’s death betrayscontinued ambivalence to the radical direction hewas taking. But if today even mainstream Chris-tian theologians now question the value of ortho-dox Christological constructs, why shouldMormons keep competing with their evangelicaldetractors in Christological superlatives just toconvince others that we really are Christocentric?It would surely be more effective simply to deco-rate our necks and our steeples with crosses.

It may very well be that it is the orthodox andfundamentalist Christians who have abandonedthe Christ of history in order to worship animage of God distorted by the Greek culture theythought they had converted. Shall we likewiseopt for a theological accommodation to contem-porary religious culture which will only demon-strate that we are carefully of the world andsusceptible to the theories of men? To be disci-ples of the man Jesus who really was and tobecome joint-heirs with the Christ who is, wemust have the courage and vision to face up toand build upon the greater light and knowledgegiven us in the latter days.

KEITH E. NORMAN holds a Ph.D. in early Christian studiesfrom Duke University.

Asyet thereis no definitivedoctrine ofthe Atonementin Mormon-ism.

APRIL 1985 / SUNSTONE 25