Problems inherent in the traditional Doctrine of the Incarnation

Why Christological reformulation is an essential task: a case study in the construction of metaphysical conundrums

It may be thought by some that the mere idea of formulating a 'Christology for today' is at best misconceived or unnecessary, at worst blasphemous. After all, 'The Truth' (God's truth) was pronounced at Chalcedon, wasn't it? Jesus Christ was and is both God and Man, in a hypostatic union of two natures - what more is there to say? This rather complacent tendency (complacent in the sense that no attempt is made to question these past formulations as they are) may be illustrated by the October 2014 'Agreed Statement on Christology' made between the Anglican Communion and the Oriental Orthodox (one of the 'Non-Chalcedonian') Churches. Back in the mid-5 Century a schism arose between those Churches which supported Chalcedon's two-nature Christology and those who continued to embrace (because it seems to have been the prior 'default' position) a one-nature (either a more nuanced 'miaphysitism' or rather less so 'monophysitism': Gk: physis/phusis – 'nature') understanding of Christ.

In his brief introduction to this Agreement, Bishop Geoffrey Rowell (Anglican Co-Chairman) points to a range of "ecumenical encounters and dialogues of the last half-century or so ... [during which] there have been notable efforts to resolve this ancient division". This particular Agreement is the "latest" and has been built "on earlier theological agreements". In this latest Agreed Statement we read that despite the prior classic disagreement, these churches now,

"... following the teaching of our common father Saint Cyril of Alexandria ... can confess together that in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God, two different natures, distinguished in thought alone ... continue to exist without separation, without division, without change, and without confusion" (echoing many of the phrases of the Athanasian Creed).

Bishop Rowell (rightly, I am sure) celebrates this ecumenical agreement which appears to offer a compromise position or, rather, a position which enables two previous, apparently contradictory, views to be reconciled: although, as we shall see, when seeking to differentiate between mono- and mia-physitism the issue is not quite so straightforward. It is not the case (and according to the Agreement never, apart from the Eutychian heresy, had been the case) of believing that there was either one nature in Christ or two, but rather that there is "one incarnate nature of the Word of God" in which there are "two different natures, distinguished in thought alone [which] continue to exist without separation ...": in essence, and using Cyril's terminology, 'one out of two' (eis ek duo). If this is a correct analysis, then one might reasonably ask what the 5 Century 'schism' (which included the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox as well as the more extreme Monophysites) was all about. Furthermore, one still might even more reasonably ask: 'what, precisely, were they talking about?' Those who drew up this Agreement speak as though they have a precise and uncluttered understanding of both a divine nature and a human nature, and also of the (apparently distinct) "one incarnate nature of the Word", without ever considering the philosophical difficulties of positing the union of two very different (so one assumes from the other language used) and possibly entirely contradictory concepts.

Indeed, the fundamental problem is that the language and concepts of the 5 Century are treated as a priori 'givens', acceptance of which bypasses the need to question either the assertions themselves or the way in which they have been expressed. Whatever it may mean to say so (and meaning doesn't seem to have bothered the authors of this Agreement, just as it didn't over-bother their forebears: they all seem to believe that they are dealing with fully comprehensible concepts), Jesus Christ was ontologically one (homoousios) with God and a person who possessed two (or is it just the one, or some combination in which 'two' is actually one?) natures. The argument (if one may call it that) put forward in the Agreement, when based on this quite uncritical acceptance of the Councils ('because the Church Fathers said this, it must be correct'), might sound superficially logical, even though it draws unanimity out of a previous set of contrary positions (one nature or two or ...?) which were, in the 5 Century, taken so seriously as to create a formal schism between churches.

In the Agreement, the hypostatic union is recognised as a "mystery" (in which case, how can we speak of it at all?) in which

"... those among us who speak of two natures in Christ are justified in doing so since they do not thereby deny their inseparable indivisible union; similarly, those among us who speak of one incarnate nature of the Word are justified in doing so since they do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion".

To give proper credit in a situation where they appear to be cleverly reconciling two positions which had been previously thought irreconcilable (or were they: perhaps the 'Miaphysites' have been orthodox all along?), the writers point out that they

"... recognise the limit of all theological language and the philosophical terminology of which it makes and has made use ... [adding] We are unable to net and confine the mystery of God's utter self-giving in the incarnation of the divine Word in an ineffable, inexpressible and mysterious union of divinity and humanity, which we worship and adore".

Such theological modesty is to be commended: as we shall see, the 'apophatic horizons' of any doctrine should be respected.

Nevertheless, particularly in an age where theology forms part (or should form part) of critical scholarship: being prepared to follow the evidence wherever it leads and not being constrained by prior positions, there is something just a little disconcerting in reading that Jesus Christ is 'this-and-that', particularly when, because it is a divine mystery, we do not really know what 'this-and-that' actually means. Would it not have been better to enquire into what the classic doctrines were seeking to express in the language and concepts they used at the time (aims and intentions), and then consider whether other language and concepts (methodology) might be more meaningful today, rather than just parroting the past? After all, this Agreement was reached in 2014.

To briefly summarise a somewhat confusing 5 Century debate, confusing, not least to the modern mind, because the Greek words used: 'mia' and 'monos', appear to be synonymous, meaning 'one', 'single', 'only'; however, 'mia' can mean also mean...