Program / Course 9: Christology and Pneumatology / Lesson 4.4
What you will learn
- Name five modern challenges to the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ.
- State each challenge in a form its holders would accept.
- Describe the best replies defenders of Chalcedon have given.
- Distinguish challenges to the vocabulary from challenges to the substance of the doctrine.
The big idea
Since the Enlightenment, Chalcedon has been challenged on several grounds. Some argue that its Greek categories of nature and substance are foreign to the Gospels. Some argue that the historical Jesus cannot be reached through the doctrine, or that the doctrine is logically incoherent. Others argue that it supports unjust views of gender or that it claims too much for one religion. Defenders reply that the Definition is a boundary and not a theory, that the ideas are rooted in the New Testament, and that the doctrine has been restated in many modern ways. Some critics ask for new language, and others ask for new substance. The difference matters.
Key terms
- Hellenization thesis
- The claim, associated with the historian Adolf von Harnack, that early Christian doctrine was corrupted or distorted by Greek philosophy.
- Christology from below
- An approach that begins with the human Jesus of history and asks how he can be understood as divine. Often contrasted with Christology from above.
- Christology from above
- An approach that begins with the eternal Son who becomes human. The pattern of John 1 and of Chalcedon.
- Historical Jesus
- The Jesus reconstructed by historical methods from sources, which may differ in emphasis from the Jesus of the creeds.
- Religious pluralism
- The view that many religions are valid paths to God, so that no single one, including Christianity, has a unique claim.
- Two-minds view
- A proposal by some Christian philosophers that Christ has a divine mind and a human mind, with the human mind within and less than the divine.
- Liberation Christology
- Christology that begins from the experience of the poor and oppressed and reads Jesus as a figure of liberation.
Background
For well over a thousand years, Christians in the West and East assumed the Chalcedonian pattern. The Reformation churches reaffirmed it. The Enlightenment changed the questions: if all claims must pass the test of reason and historical study, how can the traditional statement be defended? The question has been asked in different ways by liberal Protestants, by Catholic and Orthodox thinkers and by people outside the churches.
The challenges below are presented in the form their proponents would recognize, followed by replies. A student should read both sides and then judge, taking care to separate a critique of words (the language is dated) from a critique of the claim (the doctrine is false).
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Greek categories
Harnack and others argued that the Gospel was simple and ethical and that the Fathers translated it into Greek metaphysics, producing a doctrine that Jesus and his first followers would not have recognized. Terms like nature, substance and hypostasis, they said, belong to philosophy and not to Scripture.
Defenders reply that the New Testament already makes claims about Jesus’s relation to God that need some language, and the councils used the available vocabulary, often changing its meaning. Many historians today think the picture of a pure Gospel later corrupted is too simple, because first-century Judaism was itself influenced by Greek thought. Others still hold a moderate version of the thesis.
Step 2: The historical Jesus
Historical study since the eighteenth century has sought a Jesus behind the Gospels. Some scholars argue that he saw himself as a prophet or teacher and that the claim to divinity grew later. They say that Chalcedon sits on a developed layer of belief. Some recommend a Christology from below that begins with the man and asks what the claim of divinity means.
Defenders respond that the Gospels are the only primary sources, that they already express a high view, and that the historical method has limits when applied to claims about the transcendent. Wolfhart Pannenberg and N. T. Wright, among others, argue that the resurrection supports the claim. Others disagree, and the discussion continues. Karl Barth rejected the project of building Christology from below.
Step 3: Coherence
Philosophers have asked whether the doctrine is coherent. If to be God involves being unchangeable and unlimited, and to be man involves change and limits, one person cannot be both. John Hick argued in the 1970s that the idea of God incarnate is not literally true but mythic, a way of expressing devotion to Jesus.
Defenders offer several replies. One, following Aquinas, holds that properties belong to natures and the person has them under different descriptions. Another, the two-minds view of Thomas Morris and others, holds that Christ has two ranges of consciousness. A third, from Rahner and others, holds that Chalcedon is a boundary, a beginning for reflection and not an end. Critics of each reply say it does not escape the difficulty.
Step 4: Ethics, gender and pluralism
Feminist theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether asked whether the male Christ can save women, and whether claims of uniqueness serve to justify male authority. Liberation theologians such as Jon Sobrino asked that Christology begin with the poor and with the concrete Jesus. Pluralist thinkers like Hick asked whether exclusive claims about Christ can be justified in a world of many faiths.
Defenders reply that the tradition has held that it is Christ’s humanity, not his maleness, that is saved and shared, and that Chalcedon’s statement that he is one with all humanity supports this. Many liberation writers see the doctrine as supporting their cause, since God took the form of a servant. On pluralism, defenders hold that the claim of Christ’s divinity is itself part of what Christians are called to confess, though they differ widely on what follows for other religions.
Step 5: Vocabulary versus substance
Some critics ask for new language but accept the substance. Karl Rahner, a Catholic, wrote that Chalcedon is a beginning and not an end, and that modern thought needs fresh terms. Orthodox thinkers such as Vladimir Lossky have defended the Greek vocabulary. Protestants like Barth and Thomas Torrance have restated Chalcedon in terms of revelation and reconciliation.
Others ask for new substance. Hick and some Unitarian writers deny that Jesus is God incarnate in the Chalcedonian sense. Some in the middle, such as certain kenotic and process theologians, seek to restate the doctrine in ways that adjust its picture of God. Knowing which kind of critic one is reading is a first step in a fair evaluation.
- Which challenge to Chalcedon seems to you most serious, and why?
- What is the difference between asking for new words and asking for new doctrine?
- How strong is the Hellenization thesis, given that first-century Judaism was influenced by Greek thought?
- Is a boundary doctrine a satisfying answer to the charge of incoherence?
- Why might the humanity of Christ and not his maleness be the key point in the reply to Ruether?
- How should a Christian reply to the claim that all religions are equally valid?
Examples
The Myth of God Incarnate
In 1977 a group of British theologians published a volume of essays with this title, arguing that incarnation is a metaphor and not a literal doctrine. It provoked a series of replies and remains a reference point in the debate. Replies were published soon after.
Rahner on Chalcedon
Karl Rahner wrote an essay in 1951 titled Chalcedon: End or Beginning? It argued that the Definition is a boundary marker to be explored further and not the final word. It has been much discussed since.
A constructed seminar
One student presents a critic’s view that Chalcedon is philosophical gibberish. Another is asked to restate it in plain English: Jesus is fully God and fully man and one person. The class notices the critic’s objection survives the restatement, but it is easier to evaluate. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic theologians generally defend Chalcedon as binding and seek to restate it for the present. Theologians such as Rahner, Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger have argued, each in his own way, that the doctrine is rooted in the New Testament and requires fresh expression, not replacement.
Orthodox
Orthodox theologians usually reject the Hellenization thesis and argue that the Fathers transformed Greek terms in the light of revelation. They emphasize that Chalcedon is to be received within the whole tradition of the councils and worship.
Protestant, conservative
Conservative and evangelical Protestants defend Chalcedon as faithful to Scripture, and many engage critics through biblical studies and philosophy. Some wish for more biblical vocabulary but hold the doctrine firmly.
Protestant, liberal
Liberal Protestant theologians since Schleiermacher have often sought to reinterpret Christology around Jesus’s experience of God or moral example. Some retain Chalcedon as a symbol, and some depart from it. They stress the historical and ethical Jesus.
Secular, Jewish and Muslim critics
Jewish and Muslim thinkers hold that God cannot be incarnate and regard the doctrine as a departure from strict monotheism. Secular scholars treat it as a historical development to be explained. They are an important audience for any restatement.
Why it matters
A student who has only heard the doctrine defended is in a weak position. Modern challenges show where the doctrine is under pressure and where defenders have made adjustments. They also help a student decide what can be said in simpler words without losing the claim.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Modern critics simply reject the tradition without engaging it.
Correction: Many are serious scholars, and some are believers who want the doctrine to be better expressed. Others reject it for stated reasons. A fair reader answers the reasons.
Misunderstanding: Defenders of Chalcedon think the Definition explains everything.
Correction: Most say the opposite. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant defenders alike call it a boundary around a mystery. Their claim is that the boundary is right, not that the mystery is solved.
Misunderstanding: A restatement in modern terms is a denial.
Correction: Restating a doctrine can be faithful or unfaithful. The test is whether the restatement keeps the full divinity, full humanity and unity of the person. This must be examined case by case.
Knowledge check
State the Hellenization thesis and one reply.
The thesis, associated with Harnack, says that the Gospel was distorted by Greek philosophy as the Fathers developed doctrine. A reply is that the New Testament already makes high claims about Jesus that needed language, that Judaism itself was influenced by Greek thought, and that the Fathers changed the meaning of the terms they borrowed.
What is the coherence objection and how have defenders replied?
The objection says that divine and human properties contradict, so one person cannot have both. Defenders reply that properties belong to natures, that the person has them in different respects, or that Christ has two ranges of consciousness. Others call the Definition a boundary and not a theory. Critics think none of these fully remove the difficulty.
How do defenders respond to the feminist objection about Christ’s maleness?
They argue that the tradition holds that what the Son took was human nature, and that it is his humanity, not his maleness, that is saved and shared. Chalcedon says he is one in being with all human beings. Critics ask whether the tradition has always lived by this, and the discussion continues.
What is the difference between a challenge to vocabulary and one to substance?
A challenge to vocabulary says the terms are dated but may hold that the claim is true. A challenge to substance says the claim itself, such as God incarnate, is false or mythic. Rahner is an example of the first, and Hick of the second. Knowing which is in view is the first step in a fair reply.
Think it through
- What would a modern restatement need to preserve, in your view?
- Which critic do you find most persuasive and what would change your mind?
- Is it easier to defend a doctrine as a boundary than as a theory? What is gained and lost?
- How should the voices of Jewish and Muslim critics be heard in a study of Christology?
Independent assignment
Objection and reply
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Choose two of the challenges in this lesson. For each, state the objection in the form its holders would accept, give the best reply of a defender of Chalcedon, and then give a short judgment on how well the reply works. Keep the tone fair to both. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction Read selectively on modern Christology.
- Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) Read selectively on how doctrine has developed and been questioned.
- Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church An Orthodox defense of the Greek patristic vocabulary.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics A philosophical defense of the coherence of the incarnation.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religious Diversity (Pluralism) A scholarly overview of religious pluralism and its challenge.
- Colossians 2:8 A warning about philosophy, often cited in the Hellenization debate.
- John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life, a text in the debate on pluralism.