Talk:Humiliation of Christ

Article creation

This is an article which I have made and although it has not been rated I am sure that it is at least start-class quality. I would appreciate it if anyone could add anything to it and I hope that this will be the first GA that I have started. Please leave any queries at my talk page. Thanks! JZCL (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

As an ordained Christian minister, I find the blanket statements in this article too absolute and conclusory (and to be clear, I do not subscribe, nor does my tradition, to the contents of this belief). It wouldn't be helpful to take up this space to explain my visceral objections to it. Rather, I write here merely to suggest that more qualifying language needs to be used about what specific Christian traditions adhere to this belief (Catholic? Orthodox? Some Protestant denominations? Which ones?) In short, this belief seems to be part of a specific plurality tradition which emphasizes the dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical, an emphasis which many Christians believe is greatly exaggerated in many parts, especially in its overrealiance on anachronistic reading of certain scriptural passages. Again, this isn't the forum to air those differences. I would just appreciate some expression that this is not a univerally shared belief. To be honest, I'm tempted to flag this article for NPOV. Engelhardt (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I really don't know what you think needs changing. The "State of humiliation" section states that it is from the Protestant tradition, and includes a specific criticism from within that tradition. The "Humility" section draws from the Franciscan tradition. I wouldn't know which bits come from a "plurality tradition". StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think exactly what you stated, StAnselm, would be helpful: to state what comes from what tradition. And I really didn't mean to come across as hard as I'm afraid I did -- if I came across too hard, I apologize. So let me be more specific in my suggestion. What I have a problem with is the language that states this an across-the-board Christian belief, and I would suggest the language be modified to be more specific regarding exactly who adheres to this belief. I am a Protestant Baptist, albeit not the dominant strain of Baptist (with a graduate degree from a good school) and I don't believe the contents of this article as stated. But when I read the article, there is no sense that any tradition within small "o" orthodox Christianity might not adhere to it. Engelhardt (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Naming of Article

I'll start a new line of commentary (seeing that the other is aging) but along the same lines. The prime trouble I see in the article derives from its use of the word "humiliation", which distorts the beliefs I have always held as a Christian, either now as an Orthodox, or before as an Episcopalian. That distortion makes it painful for me to read and difficult to discuss, and leaves me wondering what to suggest exactly as an "improvement", because "replacement" is the first thing that comes to mind. I speak frankly about my belief here, because I'm afraid that the wording may simply be the result of differences of view in belief - that the issue with "humiliation" is actually a belief issue reflected in the wording. If so, how exactly is the issue to be resolved here?

First, the view here is not Orthodox, and I doubt much that it is Catholic, and I am fairly sure that while it comes from within Protestantism, it is not held universally among the denominations; how widely it is, I do not know. So I agree with earlier commenters that (as things stand now) the article needs to avoid representing itself as Protestant, and needs to become more specific as to where these views are held. I cannot contribute that information.

Back to the beliefs angle; let's see if some different wording might be agreeable to all beliefs. Theology aside, the Orthodox just look at suffering (in relation to salvation) differently from the commonest views within western Christianity. That fits in here with the idea that the incarnation was included in Christ's "humiliation". The Orthodox describe the incarnation mostly by using the word "condescension". We Americans may have some negative associations with that word because it conjures up one person being condescending towards another by assuming an air of superiority. Not so good between people, but between God and humanity, it's an entirely different matter, for it fits there most appropriately (imo). The article uses the word "suffering" as a synonym for the crucifixion (and events leading to it). To me that just seems confusing. Orthodox and Episopalians use "suffering" in those contexts, but not exclusively there. Why not just say "crucifixion"? The article's "descent into hell" is also imprecise; "descent into Hades" might be better, because Christ was not condemned to perdition, but rather went to "the place of the dead" in order to free "those in the tombs". In Orthodox parlance, "Christ trampled down death [itself] by [His own] death, and on those in the tombs bestowed life".

Now, coming back around to "humiliation". The act of humiliating occurs generally when one person asserts or exerts power over another, implying (perhaps) even abuse, oppression, or intimidation to accomplish it. The receiver of such treatment is reduced from some state of higher status to a lower one, through ridicule, embarrassment, or exposure of something unseemly, and is thus said to be "humbled" (though I do not think that that meaning is related to Christian humility). The point here is that what the article seems to me to be saying is that the ancient Jews and Romans at Jerusalem actually had such power to humiliate Christ, and that not only could Christ actually be intimidated, but that He suffered real shame from something for which He was at fault. No doubt that was the way it appeared to some who witnessed those events. But the Orthodox view is that the appearance was quite illusory. Instead, God the Son withheld His Divine Might and submitted to the abuse heaped on Him, through His own submission to the Father's will. The Orthodox use the word "forbearance" for that, and the submission was an act of humility.

To go one step more, the Orthodox view is that in His condescension, His true humility always (as distinct from His "being humbled" once), and His forbearance, Christ was (is) anything BUT humiliated, but instead is glorified. In fact we say "gloriously glorified". That may seem redundant, but no. Christ was glorified first by the Father (and after, by us Christians), and the Father's glorification was in itself also glorious, erasing any question of Christ's being dominated by however many people, erasing the sense that anyone had any power over Him (He tells Pilate as much at His trial), to reveal Him in His Power and also in His Humility (including condescension and forbearance) through obedience to the Father's will, and in doing what only God could - to accomplish our salvation. Hence, glorified, gloriously.

Now here's the thing. I tend to think that the theology that led to this description in the article is actually trying to express something very like what I've been saying about the Orthodox view. In other words, the two views may not be as far apart as the words seem to indicate. And that can only mean that the choice of words is misleading. I can see what I would do to "fix the wording". But I can't speak for the theology of the article author, or of other Christians' views. So I seek some comments here about the words, to see if we can agree on some first, and avoid any kind of editing wars. Evenssteven (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My comments immediately above are only a day old, so more time should be allowed for comment on it. But after I wrote it I made an attempt in another direction that might resolve things. The method above is an attempt to resolve things on the basis that there are fundamenally mutual understandings shared by all parties, and to find language to describe those understandings that can also be shared. My later edit (and this attempt) is directed towards the possibility that there are actually different understandings involved, and that there is doctrine whose language is not so easily changed. My edit identified the column as presenting Reformed Calvinist doctrine, and StAnselm has (legitimately and in good faith) pointed out that it is Lutheran also. But I can't go along with the use of the overly-broad term Protestant that is in his change. It still covers too much ground, as I claim and the year-old comments above also indicate. Not all Protestants share this doctrine. So, I have edited again. I'm a bit less happy with the result because it tends to bog down the language of the article. But if (as it seems) there is doctrinal reason to take this approach, then the article must make clear and specific who it is that espouses the doctrine. I have no difficulty with having the article express that doctrine if only the origin of it is specifically enough identified so as not to include those who do not share it. But my concern is that if there are other denominations that require the word humiliation to express the doctrine, it may not be so easy to say exactly who the sharers are. Evenssteven (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that it's not generally a Protestant doctrine. After all, there is a difference between "Protestant theology" (what theologians say and/or what denominational creeds and confessions) and "what most Protestants believe". I accept that it is not an Orthodox or Catholic doctrine, but do you have an example of any Protestant denomination/movement that would reject it? StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true: I haven't demonstrated (proven) the point, yet anyway. On the other hand, you haven't demonstrated that the doctrine is generally Protestant either (yet). Sorry, but I just didn't see the need for either of us; I honestly wouldn't have thought it was even a question.

I haven't heard you say anything definite one way or the other about insistence on the word "humiliated". Does the doctrine require use of that word to make its point? Is it required in each and every context that the article (as it now stands) points to? I've had a growing feeling that it might, for the article is forcefully worded, but I still don't really know. Could you clarify that? I do think that the way the doctrine is stated in Reformed Calvinism is critical to knowing how wide its acceptance throughout Protestantism might be. We need to define just what it is that we're talking about.

On the other hand, if the word is not actually essential, then it would be easier to find middle ground on the wording of the article too, and we might just side-step the whole issue. Thanks. Evenssteven (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As a general matter, I don't think it's fair to put the burden on showing which denominations have "opted out" of a particular doctrine or for the assumption to be that something is "generally accepted" by Protestants except where proof is shown of someone not, especially one as arcane as this one. There is no Protestant corollary to the magisterium. Rather, it seems appropriate to cite particular (historical or current) theologians and state what their denominational context is, or cite which denomination's creedal statements adopt it. The reason this is important to me is that it has recently been too easy for critics of Christianity to seize on specific doctrines which are represented as the "undiluted" version of Christian belief and then use that version as a "straw man" for tearing Christianity down. Christian doctrine has evolved as a conversation with a range of perspectives and beliefs. It seems to me that articles on this site should strive to represent the conversation. As I said, there isn't a Protestant magisterium, and I don't think Wikipedia articles should become one or make it seem that there is one out there. As for the specific issue here, where it currently says "Calvinist/Lutheran" there's a pipelink to Protestant. I would vote for it just labelling it a "Calvinist" or "Reformed" doctrine, which is essentially the same thing since "Reformed" currently redirects to "Calvinism." Respectfully, Engelhardt (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree that use of the general label "Protestant" equates to "generally accepted by Protestants", and that the burden of proof for such a claim lies on the user of the label. And I agree that "there isn't a Protestant magisterium", which makes such proof hard to come by. I appreciate your input about "Calvinist/Lutheran". I never liked it much either (as being clumsy), but I consider "pipelink to Protestant" as a more cogent reason for rejecting it. I was 47 years an Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox, an active layman, not formally trained but very attentive to doctrinal matters, which have always mattered a lot to me. I would never at any time have missed such a doctrinal use of "humiliation", yet I never heard it preached, never saw it in print, either theological or historical (and I do read), and never heard it discussed among the priests and bishops with whom I often associated. Yet the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection are not exactly peripheral theological issues, and I heard and read much that was related to it. Any claim that this doctrine is a part of traditional Episcopal teaching must go well beyond the production of one or two reliable sources, because (to paraphrase StAnselm above) "what some Protestant theologians believe" is also insufficient to establish something as generally "Protestant". I know of some theologians who are Episcopalian who make statements that are contrary to generally accepted Episcopal belief. That road goes nowhere, but only can lead to disputation and POV, edit wars, etc. I would encourage continued feedback from more of the WP editors in order to avoid unproductive arguments. My thanks to all who venture here. Evenssteven (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In my haste to get directly to specific article issues, I think I overlooked a number of excellent additional points from Engelhardt. To name a few, when trying to establish denominational similarities or differences, both to "cite theologians" and to "state what their denominational context is", or to "cite [a] denomination's creedal statements". Based on what I wrote above, it might be necessary to show that an individual theologian is in step with his own denomination as well. Your point, Englehart, about "critics of Christianity" raising "straw men for tearing Christianity down" from internal disagreements within Christianity is most practical, for WP is a most public forum. Our work context is WP, but our true context is real life. You go on: "Christian doctrine has evolved as a conversation with a range of perspectives and beliefs" and "articles on this site should strive to represent the conversation". And, I would say, to represent the unity, where it is to be found. Thank you sir, so much. Evenssteven (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)