This is part of a series of posts exploring each of the views presented in The Incarnation Four Views edited by Andrew Hollingsworth and R.T. Mullins. This post is the second exploring Conciliar Christianity.
In the last post we began to unpack what counts as orthodox with a particular focus on conciliar Christology. This inquiry was inspired by questions that were raised in the book The Incarnation Four Views. Pawl makes adherence to conciliar Christology a benchmark for what should be considered “traditional, orthodox Christology” and challenged those models that failed to align with them. 1
Do you want your novel Christology to prohibit the doctrine of God taught in the Council of Ephesus…? Wouldn’t it be better to have a model at least consistent with the faith of our forebears? I think so.2
But what does it mean for a Christological model to be consistent with the councils?
Fred Sanders observes that the study of conciliar Christology, which involves numerous developments over many centuries, has a tendency to go one of two different ways. There is a “multiplying [of] differences to divide unities” or there are attempts to construct “less convoluted metanarrative arcs” to suggest greater “coherence and unity.” 3
The challenge to anyone seeking to align what counts as orthodox with what was taught by the ecumenical councils is determining what counts as fidelity to these councils amid the rich history in which they occur.
Donald Fairbairn argues that Pawl has set a rather high bar in what constitutes the teaching of the councils, and thus what counts as orthodox. Quoting Pawl, he writes that conciliar Christology “includes their creeds, canons, expositions of faith, and anathemas,
as well as any documents accepted and endorsed in the previously listed sources.” 4 Fairbairn then reminds us that the goal of aligning with conciliar Christology “sits atop a mountain of historical and theological complexities.” 5 He suggests the need for “plausible summaries” to manage the vast amount of conciliar data. Theses summaries are often provided by scholars. But even then we are left with numerous summaries to consider as the historical events and theologies are variously understood and interpreted among scholars.6 How to define Christology based on what was accepted by the councils then is not merely asking which councils or which documents, but which interpretation of those documents and events that one should accept and work from.
What justifies treating one plausible summary of what the councils affirmed and rejected as the proper interpretation of conciliar teaching over others?
That is an important question if that decision is then to be treated as the baseline for orthodoxy? One approach to this question is to identify the boundaries the councils sought to establish, implicitly or explicitly, as they rejected various Christological theories and models. Focusing on the various anathemas, understood in their historical context, can help provide reasonable limits for any new Christological models that are proposed.
The Challenging Fifth Century
Cyril, writing to Nestorius, urged him to consider “what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man.” 7 The competing answers to that question drew in a vast array of characters, prompted the calling of synods and councils, and generated an exchange of numerous letters over the next two decades. The controversy would culminate in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, whose definition of Christ contributed to a division within Christianity that eventually gave rise to the distinct Oriental Orthodox tradition.
