pilgrim people

Who was Jesus for Kant? Well, in the first place, Kant saw no essential need of a redemptive-historical event in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Contrary to the Protestant Reformation’s doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of the finished work of Christ alone (Sola Gratia; Sola Fide; Solus Christus), Kant finds the notion of vicarious atonement and imputed merit unreasonable. There is nothing accomplished for people in the person and work of Christ other than perhaps a great moral example for our pure universal religion.

Yet even reduced to a universal example, Christ is not necessary, for we already possess whatever is needed to exercise pure religion. “We need, therefore, no empirical example to make the idea of a person morally well-pleasing to God our archetype; this idea as an archetype is already present in our reason.” (Pure Religion, 56) Fully understanding the distinction between archetypal theology (theologia archetypa) and ectypal theology (theologia ectypa), Kant nevertheless believes that archetypes are present in the moral consciousness. There is simply no need for the noumenal to become the phenomenal and satisfy the requirements of the Lawgiver; we only need to do what we already know is right.     

In fact, Kant suggests that even the notion of Christ as a moral example and embodiment of this archetype presents certain dangers if we continue to attach historical particulars to his person: 

Moreover, if anyone, in order to acknowledge, for his imitation, a particular individual as such an example of conformity to that idea, demands more than what he sees, more, that is, than a course of life entirely blameless and as meritorious as one could wish; and if he goes on to require, as credentials requisite to belief, that this individual should have preformed miracles or had them performed for him – he who demands this thereby confesses to his own moral unbelief, that is to his lack of faith in virtue. This lack which no belief that rests upon miracles (and is merely historical) can repair. For only a faith in the practical validity of that idea which lies in our reason has moral worth. (Pure Religion, 56) 

We ought not bother with irrelevant claims of the person and work of Christ; we must be freed from the historical particulars of ecclesiastical faith in order to practice a truly pure moral religion. Jesus Christ – whoever he was historically – did not possess anything that is not already possessed by all people. For this reason, we “have no cause for supposing him other than a man naturally begotten.” (Pure Religion, 57) 

While Kant does not absolutely deny the possibility of an historical Jesus who was “supernaturally begotten,” he emphatically asserts that such a doctrine is of no practical benefit since the “archetype which we find embodied in this manifestation must, after all, be sought in ourselves (even though we are but natural men).” 

Moreover, believing in the deity of Christ is hazardous; such a doctrine could, in fact, be problematic for our moral religion since the “elevation of such a holy person above all the frailties of human nature would rather, so far as we can see, hinder the adoption of the idea of such a person for our imitation.” If this person was in fact divine, how can he truly be an example to us, since he would have obvious advantages that natural men do not possess and would make the attaining of his standard impossible? This would be counter-productive to the advance of the highest good since one could easily become discouraged by the great distance between himself and the divine example. As Kant puts it, a man would object: “If I too had a perfectly holy will, all temptations to evil would of themselves be thwarted in me.”     

So, Kant adopts a very Pelagian view of Jesus Christ and his role in our salvation. For Kant, Christ is a person whose exemplary life offers – at best – a supreme example of the “good principle” to which we all, in the practice of pure religion, must strive. His death does not accomplish anything on our behalf. Faith in anything (or anyone!) other than the virtue and morality will only corrupt our motives for pure religion. Our “universal duty as men,” is not to trust in the merits of Christ and thereby receive his righteousness so that we might be right with God; rather, it is “to elevate ourselves to this ideal of moral perfection, that is, to this archetype of the moral disposition in all its purity – and for this the idea itself, which reason presents to us for our zealous emulation, can give us power.” 

Sound familiar? 

Thoughts? 

We will take a look at Kant’s Ecclesiology in the next post.