Missional Theology & Chalcedon?

April 7, 2007 | Filed Under missional, theology |

chalcedon.jpg

In light of a post over at bob.blog where Hyatt discusses a misleading take by Phil Johnson on the theology of Dan Kimball, (you will just have to read the post to get all the ins and outs of Johnson’s inanity) I was prompted to revisit  “A Sense of Mission: Guidance From the Gospel of John” by Albert Curry Winn. The book which I believe is now out of print was published in 1981 when Winn was President of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. In a section titled “Developing a Missionary Christology” Winn offers a very interesting perspective on the outcome of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD and the problematic influence of its legacy in light of missional thinking. Winn writes (p. 38):

If theologians in our day, under the guidance of John the Theologian, should set out to rethink the Doctrine of Christ in a missionary way, where would it lead? It would lead, I think, to a reevaluation of the Formula of Chalcedon, which has provided the framework for Christological debate ever since the fifth century. It would not lead to a “lower” Christology than Chalcedon’s. Some may even call it “higher.” But it would be a Christology of verbs instead of a Christology of nouns.

After centuries of debate, which . . . was fought out on Johannine turf, the Council of Chalcedon formulated the results in the familiar terms: “two natures in one person.” The “natures” of Christ were things, nouns: his humanity and his Godhead, or deity. . . . He is “perfect” - complete - in his deity and in his humanity. These two things are not to be confused or altered, divided or separated, but held together and preserved in the unity of one Person.

It is my conviction that we should treat the Formula of Chalcedon with great respect and with considerable gratitude for its function as a bulwark against heresy across the centuries. But we must also be honest about the problems that are its legacy to the church.

One problem is that the two natures often assume greater reality than the one person; we are forever engaged in doublethink about Jesus. . . . One wants to ask: Where is the “one Person” spoken of? What happened to Jesus in all this? . . . In the ongoing saga of American fundamentalism, a key test question is: “Do you believe in the deity of Christ?” One of the “natures” is now the object of faith! From reading the Bible one would rather suppose that the “one Person,” Christ himself, is the object of faith. This displacement of faith can be understood when we see that it points to the most basic problem with the Chalcedonian Formula: the two natures are in competition with each other! At least in the mind of many Christians, the more humanity, the less deity; and the more deity, the less humanity.

A Christology based on John the Theologian, a verbal Christology built around Jesus’ sense-of-having-been-sent, might escape this dilemma. The humility and the majesty, the transparency and the glory, the humanity and the deity, if you will, are not here in competition. The more humble Jesus is, the more majestic he is; the more transparent, the more glorious; the more one he is with us, the more one he is with the Father. We are not invited to believe in two things, two natures, but in on Person, in the One whom God has sent. And in fulfilling his vocation as the Sent One, Jesus becomes even more humble, ever more majestic; ever more transparent, ever more glorious; ever more one of us, ever more one with the Father.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name

Email

Website

Comments