From the outset Grenz’s theological/confessional grid is seen. The “community” pervades his presentation and controls his Christology. Grenz is sympathetic to liberal evangelical theology. His supportive penchants towards modernism’s ideologies can be seen throughout his presentation (I have only highlighted a few). For example, Grenz attempts to coalesce the Christ of faith to the Jesus of history in order to affirm the assertion that Jesus is Divine. He argues that Jesus’ claims alone are not sufficient to serve as “the definitive historical foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (256), nor is the resurrection as an “isolated event” capable of forming the foundation for our initial assertion (259). Agreed. He continues in his rhetoric to contend that in order to affirm the deity of Jesus one must take the claims of Jesus coupled with his resurrection as the “historical foundation” by which such an affirmation can be upheld. Where Grenz’s liberal sympathies appear is where Jamie already pointed out on (255). He disavows Biblical inerrancy and its ability to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by modern higher criticism. His logic breaks down when he emphasizes the naivety in accepting the NT historical claims (255), but then turns around to support the historicity of the resurrection by ironically citing, NT claims (257-259). Interestingly enough much of his support for the “dimensions of the history of Jesus [that] form the historical givens” (261) he finds in the NT.
Another example is his interesting 3+ page discussion of Jesus’ relationship to women. Such a topic is not common in evangelical S.T. Of course the egalitarian/complementarian debate continues to rage between the evangelical liberals and conservatives. I understand his premise that Jesus is the “universal human.” I simply find this insertion interesting.
Lastly, while the virgin birth may not be the “necessary foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (322) the incarnation (as set forth in the NT) is dependant upon the virgin birth. Though the VB may not “support the entire weight of our incarnational Christology” it does seem to be Christologically “indispensable” in regards to the union of the divine and human. Grenz's casual treatment of the VB is indicative of my initial statement.
