A quick break for station Identification

I am taking a break from the Christology today. I want to talk about something I about which I am a little more passionate. I watched a man die today; not metaphorically or spiritually. I was physically in the room as a man breathed out his last few breaths. I stood there and hugged the family. I prayed with them as they asked us to “pray for peace please.”

At that moment, I gained a whole lot of perspective on ministry and on life. I do not think they cared about my theology; they did not care if I was a good preacher, or if I understood the theandric union. All they really wanted I think was a warm body that loved them to hug.

Sometimes I get caught up in a lot of junk that really is not important. Most recently, I have been fighting online about tithing, and Civil Religion, and the environment, and I have been real caught up in it. Very passionately staking my claim and logically making my case. I was fighting about stuff that is useless when there are souls hanging in the balance!

I recognize that everything effects and plays a part in your theology and ministry, but man …I am on the front lines right now and I don’t have time for the ivory tower. I was talking to a friend of mine and he said “If it is impeding people from getting into the kingdom then it needs to be dealt with, and if you have a new way to help people see Christ in a better light then fine, but quit complaining, people here enough of that.”

Moreover, he was right.

A while back, my dad was talking to a man and the man was dying. He told my dad “I don’t want to leave my wife but if I can see my son in heaven right when I die I think I can manage.” Then was not the time to discuss soul sleep and bodily resurrection with this guy. I don’t’ know exactly what dad said but I think it was something like “Being absent of the body is being present with the father, I think Jesus will take your hand and lead you to heaven.”

I want to comfort people and show love. I want to love and love to its fullest. I want to preach a complete Gospel of a resurrected Jesus who ransomed me, brought me to the father, and gave me the Holy Spirit. I want to show people that “JESUS LOVES ME THIS I KNOW!!”

And for them to know that is enough to start it out!!

Soft Christologies

Adoptionism was an early heresy that has consistently shown up throughout the history of the church. It states that Jesus was only a man and he was later “adopted” by God. This view permeates modern Christianity, specifically in *yes I’m going to use the word* liberal and mainline churches.

“The position gives the human Jesus an independent status. He would simply have lived on as Jesus of Nazareth if the special adoption by God had not occurred. This was more a matter of God’s entering an existent human being than of a true incarnation. Sometimes this event is regarded as unique to the life of Jesus’ sometimes it is compared to the adoption of other human beings as children of God.” [1] (Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, 728)

(although not explicitly I feel that this is the view of “The Last Temptation of Christ.”)

Adoptionism is what Gerald O’Collins would call a soft Christology. Those believe in the full humanity of Christ but seem to compromise the divinity. They are also, those that show Jesus as a mirror, or a representative of God, as opposed to actually being God. (once again popular among the American church)

Ebionism is a view of Jesus that says he is totally and uncompromisingly human. Trough a rejection or at least a denial of Paul’s letters they decided that Christ was not God or truly anything supernatural, but merely a normal human having good commune with God.
“Jesus as, according to the Ebionites, and ordinary man possessed of unusual but not superhuman or supernatural gifts or righteousness and wisdom. He was the predestined Messiah, although in a rather natural human sense. The baptism was the significant event in Jesus’ life, for it was then that the Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove. . . Thus Jesus was primarily a man, albeit a man in whom, at least for a time, the power of God was present and active to an unusual degree” (Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson, 694)

Here you see the underlying adoptioninist view, as well as the overall “soft Christology” that is voiced. This is the most humanistic one in my opinion. We all can pull this off, and in reality we don’t need Jesus, he was just there to help us figure out what we can become.

As easy as it is to rip on evangelicals falling on the opposite side log I have to say this is the largest problem in the church today. It is far too common to see a mainline church love the concept of Jesus and his teachings, but they want the “Sermon on the Mount” without the Christmas or Easter story to back it up. Although I will discuss the “other side” of this problem I will always say I would rather someone error towards the divinity than away from it.

The Mystery of the Union

“’We confess that He is very God and Very Man; Very God by His power to conquer death and Very man that He might die for us’ (Belgic Confession 1562). ‘He continueth to be God and man, in two distinct nature and one person forever’ (Westminster Shorter Catechism, 1647). To deny either the undiminished deity or the perfect humanity of Christ is to put oneself outside the pale of orthodoxy . . . The Hypostatic union is the theological description of this a refers to the two hypostases, or natures, forming the one person in Christ.”( Evangelical Theology: A Survey and Review, Robert P. Lightner, 80)

The Dictionary defines paradox as “A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.” The Bible is filled with them. To be first we must be last, to live we must die, those who serve will be exalted. Perhaps, though, none are quite as complex as the statement that Jesus is one man, fully human, yet fully divine, taking part in the triune God.

However, we must also realize that we are dealing with an ultimate mystery, which can be considered but never truly grasped, which can be contemplated, but never adequately explained. As much as we would like to try, we have to recognize that our words and minds are not sufficient to completely fulfill the task that has been set before us. However, this cannot stop us in trying to clarify what we mean when we describe Jesus as having a “God-manhood.”

To say it is easy to explain one side or the other of Jesus is an overstatement. Yet, as most heresies will show us, our rational will point us towards one or the other.

“Whenever the attempt is made to bring Christology to a logical conclusion, and formulate it, the difficulty of avoiding Ebionism or Docetism, Nestorianism or Monophysitism, which stand on either side . . . will present itself.”(Christian Theology, H. Orton Wiley, page 171)

We cannot completely comprehend how a man can be fully God and fully man. Yet, that is the paradox that the Bible points us to, and that the tradition of the church has affirmed. Nevertheless, it is easy to power out of one ditch only to stumble blindly into another. Specifically, in the current evangelical church, we have over emphasized the deity of Christ and we have regulated his humanity to the sidelines. However, if that is the case within conservative denominations, the majority of the mainline ones have made his divinity look like an underachieving bench warmer.

“ . . . The most fundamental issue, the most basic problem is the distinction that is made between the Father and the Son. All Trinitarian theology ultimately hinges on this distinction, and this distinction, as we are all well aware, has been variously interpreted in the history of Christian thought . . . Why should we posit two terms, Father and Son, in the Godhead? How could the Father and the Son be God and yet be One God? In what way do they differ?”( Aspects of the Theology of Karl Barth, William P. Anderson, page 33)

Where Barth struggles with this distinction between the Father and the Son, I pose the same to be discussed between the divinity and humanity of Christ, is most difficult in Trinitarian theology. I would speculate that these very same questions affect one’s Christology. How can Jesus be fully man and fully God? Why do we posit two terms, humanity and divinity? How can the humanity and divinity be Christ and yet Christ be one person? In what ways do these differ?


This part came quicker than the next few will I think. But it gives a start to what questions I want to answer and a peek into why I think it's more difficult than some of us make it out to be

Theandric Union

As J. Kenneth Grider would state oh so eloquently,

“Off with our shoes, please, for (this) is holy ground. Away with finely figured syllogism and ordinary arithmetic: here, logic and mathematics do not suffice. The need is rather for a listening ear, an obedient heart, rapt adoration, a careful engagement with the Holy Scriptures.”(Basic Christian Doctrines, Carl F. H. Henry, “The Holy Trinity,” J. Kenneth Grider, page 35)

Although Grider was speaking specifically about the trinity, I feel as if it resonates with any discussion of the absurd and divine. It is here that we lay our religion and even our salvation. For if Christ was not God then there is neither absolvent of sin nor victory over death. Yet, if Christ was not human, there is no victory over sin and no true revelation of what humanity is supposed to look like.

The very foundation of our faith lies in the person of Jesus Christ. How one views Christ and his attributes will determine where the rest of one’s theology flows.

“Christianity is Christ! He is the center and circumference of the historic Christian faith. . . Jesus Christ and his work on the cross are absolutely central and essential to Christianity.” (Evangelical Theology: A Survey and Review, Robert P. Lightner, Page 65)

It may sound a bit cliché but one’s view of Christ is the neck that turns the head of one’s theology, Christ is the lighthouse to which our theological ship must be reconciled with.


That is the start of this new series I'm going to try. The theandric Union of Christ. I'm going to divide this into a few sections.
I) The Mystery
II) The Heresies
III) Orthodoxy (three views)
IV) The Creeds
V) Conclusions

Any thoughts you may have are appreciated