Christology

So why does Christology matter?

That was the question that perhaps struck me the most from our meeting of Nov. 3. As someone who is in the process of trying to make a living of Christology, I guess I just took it for granted that it does matter. I hope to answer this question by the end, but I'm going to start with a quick summary of the Christological content of the first four councils.

Niceae: 325, defined Christ as homoousia with the Father, affirming the Son's full divinity.
Constantinople: 381, rejected Apollinaris who denied that Christ had a human mind.
Ephesus: 431, rejected Nestorius, who said there were two persons, a human person and a divine person, in Jesus Christ
Chalcedon: 451, rejected the monophysites who said there was only one nature in Jesus Christ.

The early Church was almost obsessed with getting its understanding of Jesus Christ down correctly. They had many reasons for doing so, not the least of which had to do with the legalization of Christianity under the reign of Constantine. But it had its motivation from within Christianity's theology and practical life, as well. Without a proper understanding of Christ, the nature and legitimacy of Christian worship easily becomes incoherent. If Christ is not truly God (as the Arians claimed) then Christians cannot justify their worship of a mere creature. If Christ is not fully man (as Apollinarius held) then Christians do not have a redeemer who is able "to sympathize with our weaknesses" (Hebrews 4:15), since he did not understand them completely. If Christ was not a single person (as Nestorius said), the unity of Christ is called into question, and so is his body, the Church. If Christ does not have two complete natures (as the monophysites claimed), then Christ is neither fully human nor fully divine, but some conglomeration and confusion of the two. Thus, the full Chalcedonian definition contains elements of all these coucils:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Christology matters to me because it is here more than anywhere else in theology that we come to understand Christ and hopefully thereby to know him. We are confronted with one of, if not the central, mystery of the Christian faith: the mystery of God incarnate, quite literally made flesh, made meat. Though the terminology may be cumbersome at times, the councils of the early centuries struggled to bring to light the fact that Christ is in fact like us in all things, yet without sin. He is human, without ceasing to be God. Christology is the working out and explication of the very condescension of God and the very salvation of humanity. The maintenance of this stance has required protracted and (perhaps) obscure philosophizing, but the results are definitive and require our assent. Though the councils do not exhaust the mystery, we must take our stance with them over against those who would pervert Christian doctrine (whoever they might be). We stand with the council fathers over against Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, and the monophysites (modern ecumenical dialogue aside) because we believe that these heresiarchs somehow managed to compromise the mystery of Christ in such a way that fundamentally calls into question what the faithful believe Christ to have done and accomplished. And this is something that I think all Christians should care about because it impacts directly on what Christ is said to do and have done for each of us.

But why does Christology matter to you? Does any of this strike you existentially, so to speak? I am convinced that Christology matters, but perhaps I will have to do some more explanation to make it matter to everyone in the group... not that you all have to love it as much as I do.