Friday, February 23, 2007

My teacher's not in!

I'm busy this week doing school stuffs. I just finished writing and already passed my ethno research. I'm now doing my guidance and counseling stuff and I hope to finish it this weekend. Thiough I don't know if that's possible because this week is our church's anniversary and I am in charge of the Praise and Worship team. Boy am i getting busy these days.

This hour is supposed to be my literature class but since the instructor is out, why waste time, why not update my blog and write on what's botheinr me today.

During my ethno research, I had a chat and long conversations with Pastor Nito Barlaan our guide and when I introduced to him that my partner is an Iglesya ni Cristo member he raised his eye brows.

(Iglesya ni Crsito is a local cult that believes that Christ is a man, their's is adaption christology. Their soteriology is exclusivist. They believed that Felix manalo, a Filipino pastor, is the last messenger of God and that their church is the revival of the biblical church. They believe that the church ceased to exist somewhere in history and was only revived or reestablished in 1914 through Felix Manalo.)

Okay, I'm not in anyway offended by my classmate's beliefs and I consider him an outstanding person and, may I say, better than some "orthodox" Christians that I knew.

What is interesting with the common Filipino is the way they refute the iglesya's christology and that is in insisting that Christ is God. This is heretical, permit me to use this archaic word, because the orthodox belief is that Christ is a God-man. The debate on homseous and homo blah, blah, blah, stuff and all that christological controversies settled, in one of those councils of bishops and what have you, (soory my books is not with me), that Christ is a Gosd-man with the argument that it is a hypostatic union of blah, blah, blah, (All these cocneptual stuff is killing me).

But is a scientific understanding of Christology important?

Look at the way common Christian Filipinos refute adaptionism and Arianism and that is by insisting that Christ is a God, period. They will tell that Christ is a God that became a man in the course of history and then that' s that. God-man is not a common held Christology of the common people.

This is strange because of the Filipino's religous leaders religious zeal in thwarting the "heretical" doctrine that Christ is a mere man, they have revived one of the classical heretical christology: Christ is God.

I'm no Christological expert and one of the thing that assures me and bothers me at the same time, is that most Christians contend theme selves in knowing that they knew christ and that they have a relationship with him. Does it matter that their christology is "heretical" or orthodox?

Christology is an academic development of theology and is not evil in itself. But. what is true christology?

Christology from above or christology from below, I think the correct christology is the christology from and of the heart.

When I die what will God ask me?
Is Christ a man or (a) God? Or God will simply look in my heart.

Just asking.

I think someone is right when he said that the only true Christology is in being Christlike.

No comments: