Hypostasis, PanChristicism, and FITT
Introduction: “PanChristicism”
In recent online theological discourse with friends, I’ve sensed a potential emerging movement that I’m going to characterize under the term “PanChristicism.” This term, shared with me by Benjamin Robert Goodman during social media exchanges (and originally derived from his online conversations with Jordan Daniel Wood), resonates with me. However, when I asked Jordan Daniel Wood about it, he said he was inspired by Maurice Blondel’s use of the term over 100 years earlier. So, I did some searching and found this wonderful quote by Adam C. English:
“The key insight of the doctrine of ‘pure action’ is that God never ceases to act on our behalf. God is forever reaching out for us, sustaining us, risking for our sakes and for our salvation (2 Cor 5:21). God actualizes God’s self in Christ the Mediator, who empties himself in creation and for creation as testified in Scripture. Jesus of Nazareth is the pan-Christ, savior of the world, the mediation of God’s actus purus. In the divine, salvific kenosis, God is ‘exposed’ to the world.” In The Possibility of Christian Philosophy: Maurice Blondel at the Intersection of Theology and Philosophy (Routledge Radical Orthodoxy) (p. 98). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Blondel definitely didn’t intend to connote a panentheistic-like Christology, and he located this terminology in a mixture between the mediation of Christian “Religion” and the Pure Action of God. Blondel is way too deep for me and my French sucks. To my eyes the French use of the word definitely doesn’t entail the cool looking pantheism structure it does in English, and translates in my head differently than “PanChristicim;” it is more like the scope of Christianity as action or power, pan-Christianity. (Take that with a grain of salt.) As Blondel writes in his more famous dissertation, “Action,” he says, “Action is the cement with which we are fashioned; we subsist only to the extent that we act.” No doubt Blondel had some powerful insights into the mediating power of Christ in the universality of Action. However, his inspiration for the term towards Wood, through Goodman, and now to me, signifies a mutation.
I use the term here out of this change to credit thinkers like Wood and Goodman, and not Blondel because if I had to guess, they want to revisit post-Chalcedonian Christology anew, and see if we can push Christology further. If I read them right, they want to radically personalize the mediation of the Hypostasis we learn about in the great Christological debates and ecumenical councils, and find exemplified as a system of thought in thinkers like Maximus the Confessor.
This push means this mutation is well suited to be met in the action of the thinkers like Goodman and Wood want the Christian world to engage in again. In this sense, the senses that come out are a Personalism of the Hypostasis, and a panentheism-like metaphysics of the action that Hypostasis is in his all-consuming immanence. So, with that said, I will claim this term, whether Blondel invented it or not, for the sake of this modern manifestation, and because this primary metaphysical sense of PanChristicism is our focus today.
The ideas we’ll explore here bear a resemblance to panentheistic thought, and my primary concern lies with the conception of the movement Wood and Goodman create (and others engaging in similar Christological discussion online and in print) in my mind. This paper will work out those ideas, and it’s helpful to have specific labels and terms, which this mutation helps give a primary word to those thoughts I’m having.
The adoption of the term “PanChristicism” underscores the intention behind these ideas, and more specifically the conception of them I have in my head if you will. If they indeed represent a movement, then participants in this movmen do in fact aim to redefine and transcend traditional hypostasis theory, aligning creation with the Incarnation in a manner reminiscent of panentheistic principles. Overall, I’m confident I’m sensing something here. And rather than get lost in the primary sources I think my presentation of PanChristicism as Wood has pioneered it, offers a multifaceted term for interpretation of a totalizing Christology that is also aiming to be a metaphysics some day via some reformulation of ideas around Hypostasis; and as such it’s a theorizing set that could challenge existing models, including my own Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT), which I have been refining over the years. I am writing this article to articulate my concerns and lay the groundwork for a critical examination of this emerging potential movement.
Section 1: Hypostasis
In the rich tapestry of Christian tradition, the term hypostasis has emerged as a complex and profound concept. Particularly within the context of the Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT), hypostasis plays a crucial role in understanding the nature of God and Christ. It refers to the distinct reality of each Person of the Trinity, maintaining unity within the Godhead, and emphasizes the profound union of Christ’s divine and human natures in one Person.
FITT Perspective on Hypostasis:
The FITT perspective on hypostasis transcends traditional boundaries, reflecting a complex understanding of the divine-human relationship. It’s a living theology that invites exploration of Christian belief, honoring human reason and divine revelation. The concept of composite hypostasis in Christology captures the mystery of Christ’s nature, central to Christian reflection, without confusion or division.
In Catholic theology, hypostasis refers to the individual reality or substance of each of the three Persons of the Trinity, while also denoting the union of Christ’s divine and human natures in one Person.
Spiritual and Theo-Poetic Sense:
Hypostasis also has a strong spiritual and theo-poetic sense that’s hard to communicate. It’s a concept that challenges, that calls for deep reflection. It’s a glimpse into the divine, a window into the soul of faith. A paradox? Perhaps. A contradiction? Never. It’s arguably the heartbeat of theology, and certainly a cornerstone of belief.
Additional Definitions Related to FITT’s View of Hypostasis:
The FITT theory has a formalized way of communicating the idea of Person, but when broken down, it’s quite in-depth and nuanced. Key concepts include:
– Persons (in Trinitarian FITT like theology): The three distinct realities—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the one God of Christian belief.
– Pure Agency (PA): Signifies the unconditioned action and relational capacity inherent in each Person of the Trinity.
– Openness (or Infinite Openness): Signifies the perfect balance between God’s transcendence and immanence, reflecting the dynamic and relational nature of God’s being.
The concept of hypostasis, as understood within the FITT framework, offers a rich and multifaceted understanding of the divine mystery. It serves as a cornerstone of Christian belief, reflecting the profound union of Christ’s divine and human natures and the distinct reality of each Person of the Trinity. By embracing the complexity and depth of this concept, the FITT perspective invites us to explore the divine-human relationship in a way that honors both reason and revelation, challenging us to delve into the very heart of our faith.
This section sets the stage for a deeper exploration of hypostasis, laying the groundwork for a critical examination of contemporary movements such as PanChristicism, which will be discussed in the following section.
Section 2: Contemporary Neo-Chalcedonianism – or PanChristicism Hypostasis Theory
In recent years, a new and controversial movement known as PanChristicism is emerging, emphasizing the profound interconnectedness between Christ and creation. This theological and metaphysical framework resonates with aspects of panentheism but is rooted in a unique perspective that transcends traditional boundaries.
Unified Being and Christo-logic:
PanChristicism posits a unified field of being where Christ’s presence is intertwined with all of creation. This interconnected reality transcends the distinctions between the divine and the human, suggesting a Christo-logic that unites all aspects of existence.
Divine Wisdom (Sophia) and PanChristic Interrelation:
The framework connects Christology to Divine Wisdom (Sophia), indicating a cosmic interrelation between Christ and creation.
Immanence and Personal Nature:
PanChristicism underscores Christ’s immanent and personal nature, emphasizing an intimate connection to every aspect of existence.
Hypostatic Unity and PanChristic Multiplicity:
The framework speaks to a multiplicity within unity, where Christ’s presence is both singular and manifold.
Divine Complexity and Interconnected PanChristicism:
PanChristicism recognizes the complex relationship between God and the world, reflecting an intricate interplay between divinity and creation.
Enhypostatization and PanChristic Divine Permeation:
The framework emphasizes that Christ’s presence permeates creation at every level, reflecting a divine permeation akin to panentheism.
PanChristicism offers a nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between Christ and the world. It presents a theological vision that highlights the deep relationship between Christology, hypostasis, and divine presence. As a theological concept and possible metaphysic, PanChristicism opens up new avenues for understanding the relationship between Christ and creation, offering a fresh perspective that resonates with certain aspects of a panentheistic-like worldview.
This innovative approach to composite hypostasis represents a significant departure from traditional Christology. However, it also reflects a cohesive and profound vision of the relationship between God, Christ, and creation, transcending traditional boundaries and reflecting a complex and integrated understanding of the divine-human relationship.
The exploration of PanChristicism in the context of hypostasis theory adds depth to the ongoing theological discourse, challenging conventional perspectives and inviting further reflection on the nature of the divine mystery.
Section 3: Comparison and Contrast: FITT and PanChristicism on Hypostasis
The exploration of hypostasis within the context of both the Full Interval Trinity Theory (FITT) and PanChristicism offers a rich and multifaceted understanding of the divine mystery. While both approaches contribute to the theological discourse, they present distinct perspectives that both align and diverge in various ways. This section aims to compare and contrast these two theological frameworks, highlighting their similarities and differences in relation to the concept of hypostasis.
Understanding of Hypostasis:
– FITT: In the FITT framework, hypostasis is understood as the distinct reality of each Person of the Trinity, emphasizing the unity within the Godhead. It also denotes the profound union of Christ’s divine and human natures in one Person, reflecting a complex understanding of the divine-human relationship.
– PanChristicism: PanChristicism emphasizes the profound interconnectedness between Christ and creation, reflecting a unique perspective that transcends traditional boundaries. It speaks to a multiplicity within unity, where Christ’s presence is both singular and manifold, and emphasizes a divine permeation akin to panentheism.
Theological Foundations:
– FITT: The FITT perspective is rooted in classical theism, harmonizing it with contemporary thought. It emphasizes the unconditioned action and relational capacity inherent in each Person of the Trinity, reflecting the dynamic and relational nature of God’s being.
– PanChristicism: PanChristicism offers a theological vision that highlights the deep relationship between Christology, hypostasis, and divine presence. It connects Christology to Divine Wisdom (Sophia), indicating a cosmic interrelation between Christ and creation.
Concept of Unity and Diversity:
– FITT: FITT maintains the distinct reality of each Person of the Trinity while affirming their unity as one God. It explores the complexity and simplicity, unity and diversity, and the temporal and the eternal within the divine nature.
– PanChristicism: PanChristicism posits a unified field of being where Christ’s presence is intertwined with all of creation. It acknowledges the diversity of manifestations within divine unity, reflecting the interconnectedness between Christ and creation.
Approach to Divine and Human Natures:
– FITT: FITT emphasizes the profound union of Christ’s divine and human natures in one Person, without confusion or division. It represents the incarnation of Christ as the complete actualization of divine potential within creation while maintaining divine perfection.
– PanChristicism: PanChristicism underscores Christ’s immanent and personal nature, emphasizing an intimate connection to every aspect of existence. It recognizes the complex relationship between God and the world, reflecting an intricate interplay between divinity and creation.
While both FITT and PanChristicism contribute valuable insights to the understanding of hypostasis, they present distinct perspectives that reflect different theological foundations and approaches. FITT’s emphasis on the distinct reality of each Person of the Trinity and the profound union of Christ’s divine and human natures aligns with traditional Christian belief. In contrast, PanChristicism offers a fresh perspective that emphasizes the interconnectedness between Christ and creation, resonating with certain aspects of a panentheistic-like worldview.
The comparison and contrast between these two frameworks deepen our understanding of the divine mystery, inviting further reflection and exploration. They challenge us to engage with the complexity and depth of the concept of hypostasis, enriching our theological discourse and inspiring a continued journey into the very heart of our faith.
I think this exhausts as well as I can serve as a bridge between the foundational concepts and the practical applications of these theories, and hopefully I’ve set the stage for people to be challenged to do a more comprehensive exploration of their implications in contemporary theology and spiritual practice.
Conclusion:
The exploration of hypostasis through the intricate lenses of FITT and PanChristicism has unveiled the profound complexity and richness of this essential theological concept. Both frameworks contribute valuable insights, yet they present distinct perspectives that reflect different theological foundations and approaches.
FITT’s approach resonates with the historical and ecumenical understanding of Christian doctrine, preserving the mystery and integrity of Christ’s divine and human natures. It reflects a living theology that invites deep reflection and engagement with the divine mystery, harmonizing classical theism with contemporary thought. Coupled with the Divine Action Theory and DCIT, FITT offers a comprehensive and nuanced framework that emphasizes the unconditioned action and relational capacity inherent in each Person of the Trinity. This alignment with traditional Christian belief and its ability to articulate the dynamic interplay among the divine Persons makes FITT a compelling choice.
PanChristicism, on the other hand, offers a novel and innovative perspective that challenges conventional boundaries. While its emphasis on the interconnectedness between Christ and creation resonates with certain aspects of a panentheistic-like worldview, questions arise about its alignment with traditional Christology. The focus on irreducible unity and panentheistic undertones may lead to an oversimplification that potentially conflicts with the nuanced understanding of the divine and human in Christ.
Despite these differences, the common emphasis on personalism within FITT and the existential dimensions of PanChristicism provides fertile ground for dialogue and understanding. The challenge lies in discerning the balance between innovation and orthodoxy, between expanding theological horizons and preserving the core tenets of faith.
In my view, the divergence may ultimately hinge on the pursuit of a dialectical harmony between Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis within the FITT framework, as opposed to PanChristicism, which carves out its own distinct path. While our identity theories may differ, we undoubtedly share an intuition for personalism, recognizing the importance of Persons in our understanding of the divine.
Let this reflection stand as an open invitation to ongoing dialogue and deepening faith. For those interested in delving further into these concepts, including the glossary of terms, Divine Action Theory, theological identity theory, and full interval trinity theory, please visit RobertDryer.com.
I welcome further conversation on this subject and maintain my belief that God is Immanentia Omnis. The exploration of these theological frameworks enriches our discourse and inspires a continued journey into the very heart of our faith.
Peace, in Christ. Or as Jordan Daniel Wood would say, in the whole composite Christ. Certainly, we all want that one way or the other.
Scripture for reflection:
1. John 1:1-14
2. Colossians 1:15-20
3. Philippians 2:5-11
4. Hebrews 1:3
5. Matthew 3:16-17
6. 2 Corinthians 13:14
7. 1 John 5:7-8
8. Matthew 28:19
9. John 10:30
10. John 14:9-10
11. John 15:26
12. John 16:13-15
13. 1 Corinthians 8:6
14. 2 Corinthians 3:17
15. Ephesians 4:4-6
16. 1 Peter 1:2
