WHAT IS TO ACCEPT THE DEITY OF CHRIST?

In early 1945, Huberto Rohden received a scholarship from the Theological Seminary at Princeton University; at that time, he had the conviviality with Albert Einstein, where he wrote one of his best-selling books, Einstein, The Enigma of the Universe. After this period, on September 25, 1946, at 8:30 am, he received from the hands of Dr Paul Frederick Douglass, President of the American University in Washington D.C., the invitation to lead the chairs of Universal Philosophy and Comparative Religions, a position he held for five years.

Rohden wrote the text below during this period.

“I have just heard, on a broadcasting station in Washington, a dialogue between a Roman theologian and a judge about the divinity of Christ. The theologian affirmed that the greatest disgrace was the denial of this divinity by thousands of Christians in the present century.

The judge replied that he considered it a calamity to make salvation or condemnation depend on the acceptance or rejection of such dogma. What does it mean, accepting or not accepting the deity of Christ? Is it not an act of intelligence and will? And doesn't this act depend on the greater or lesser clarity with which one perceives the reasons for or against this dogma? And does this greater or lesser clarity depend on ecclesiastical instruction and a certain degree of interest in this or that theological system? And what does this have to do with God, salvation or damnation?

Am I more Christlike and God’s friend after saying “yes,” and less spiritual after saying “no” to a question about the deity of Christ? In reality, my “yes” or “no” has nothing to do with my true Christianity, if by Christianity means the union with the spirit of God, and not with this or that religious group to which I belong by birth or from external circumstances.

What decides whether I am Christlike or not is my life, the deep and permanent attitude of my inner being and my external acting in perfect harmony with the spirit of Christ. This spirit, however, has nothing to do with the form of this or that creed but is summed up in the two great commandments of the love of God and neighbour, on which “all the law and the prophets” depend. The “yes” or “no”, verbal or mental, in no way changes my attitude of being and acting. It is deeply deplorable that a large part of Western ecclesiastical Christianity gives greater importance to this profession of theological faith imposed by its group than to the reality of the life emanating from the spirit of Christ.

And, to save this ecclesiastical creed, its adherents have committed, and continue to commit the most significant attacks on the spirit of Christ, eliminating infidels and heretics, excommunicating dissidents, inculcating in the faithful contempt for those who do not profess the same creed - they kill the spirit of Christ to save a pseudo-Christian theology!

While I cannot say, with absolute truth, “It is no longer I who live - Christ lives in me”, as Paul of Tarsus did, I have not accepted the spirit of Christ, even though I profess the most orthodox of formulas regarding his divinity. Mahatma Gandhi never accepted any ecclesiastical creed; Albert Schweitzer is known as a heretic by the Christian churches. However, we will hardly find two men who live the spirit of Christ with greater purity and fidelity, the deep love of God and vast charity to men.

The Christian world needs to become Christlike, actually living his spirit, instead of just theoretically professing this or that dogma about his divinity.”