Christocentrism can happily co-exist with orthodox trinitarianism because (1) it is only through Christ that we know of the Trinity, and (2) the Trinity itself is Christ-centered. As we view the Trinity through Christ and Christ through the Trinity, we find orthodox trinitarianism and Christocentrism not only compatible but mutually reinforcing.
The article is extremely well researched and by-and-large contains little that is particularly objectionable. It's impossible to argue with Ortlund's observations that Christ is the revelatory gateway to the Godhead and, in the NT at least, the most "glorified" member of the Trinity. Christ is also the source of our salvation, the head of the Church, and the exemplary model for the believer's sanctification.
Despite the preceding, I remain a bit unsettled about the idea of elevating any one member of the Trinity over the others. Further, I wonder whether the specific choice of Christ as the center always says good things about the state of one's religious expression. After all, there have been many "Christ-centered" figures in the history of the Church, and they are not a monolithic lot.
The following is not so much a critique of Ortlund so much as it is a cautionary supplement that suggests reasons to pause before embracing all manifestations of Christocentrism as valid.
- Theologically, Christocentrism can sometimes (though certainly not always) point to an unhealthy emphasis of God as immanent over God as transcendent. Christ is the immanent member of the Trinity--the one who discloses God, mediates between God and man, and makes us partakers of the divine nature. But there is also a great and terrible and awful God, made known most vividly in the pre-Christian era, that must not be forgotten.
- Soteriologically, Christocentrism or Crucicentrism can sometimes (though certainly not always) point to an unhealthy emphasis of redemption as the centerpiece of God's plan for the universe. While redemption certainly plays a significant role in God's plan for the universe, it is not all that God is doing.
- Anthropologically, and related to the preceding, Christocentrism can sometimes (though certainly not always) point to a latent anthropocentrism. That is, it can at times focus on what God is doing for me and for my fellow man in all of his immanence and redemptive energy to the exclusion of what God is and does irrespective of his creatures.
- Hermeneutically, Christocentrism can sometimes (though certainly not always) point to a faulty hermeneutic. Frankly speaking, the Old Testament is not about Christ. It is about God's people being rightly related to their holy God. Certainly, we find anticipation in the Old Testament period about something greater, but it is a great anachronistic leap to move from this latent anticipation to the conclusion that the Old Testament is about Christ.
My point, I again stress, is not to denounce Ortlund's article as peculiarily flawed. He makes some sage observations that are worth our attention. I'd like to think that its function in this essay is more as a catalyst for additional thought than as a whipping boy for criticism. And certainly I have no interest in diminishing Christ in any way (me genoito!). But at the same time I think that there is room for some pause before embracing every Christocentric impulse that we encounter.
MAS
