Christmas, Creeds, and Preaching
December 8, 2011
Yesterday, I raised the issue of preaching the Incarnation and underscored the fact that the mystery of the Incarnation really means that it must be proclaimed rather than defended or accommodated. Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God in the flesh. The infinite clothes himself in the finite; the sovereign of the universe takes the form of a servant; there is no truly analogous phenomenon anywhere else in history.
This is where reflection upon the church's creedal formulations can be helpful, given the fact that they summarise in brief compass biblical teaching. They also serve a particularly important function in establishing boundaries beyond which one cannot pass without compromising biblical orthodoxy.
The Chalcedonian Formula reads as follows:
THEREFORE, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
The Formula was rejected by the Monophysites who saw it as a betrayal of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria in a Nestorian direction; but actually it is a masterpiece of theological modesty, setting up boundaries for talking about Christ which must be respected. My guess is that most objections to it today are likely to be less theologically oriented and more straightforward: it is simply too metaphysical or abstract to be very helpful when we preach.
In fact, if we understand the formula as setting out boundaries, nothing could be further than the truth. The formula really marks out the area within which the preacher can operate with great freedom when he speaks of the incarnation. Hence all the use of negatives: the formula does not so much assert as say `Thou shalt not pass!' at certain points. It offers simple caveats: do not emphasise the diversity of the divine and human to the point where you lose sight of the one person, the fact that God really does join with humanity; do not emphasise the one person to the point where you lose sight of the distinct natures, the fact that Christ really is God and man and not some third substance which is neither. Within this frame, the preacher is free to go wherever the text leads him, to use whatever expressions are helpful to bring home the mystery, to inspire his hearers with great thoughts of God's grace and to refresh those who have lost sight of the fact that the gospel is an act of God himself.
The Creeds are there to help us. They represent the collective wisdom of the church, tried and tested over the generations. As we prepare to preach on the Incarnation this year, it would be foolish and indeed ungrateful of us not to use them to make our preaching better.
This is where reflection upon the church's creedal formulations can be helpful, given the fact that they summarise in brief compass biblical teaching. They also serve a particularly important function in establishing boundaries beyond which one cannot pass without compromising biblical orthodoxy.
The Chalcedonian Formula reads as follows:
THEREFORE, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
The Formula was rejected by the Monophysites who saw it as a betrayal of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria in a Nestorian direction; but actually it is a masterpiece of theological modesty, setting up boundaries for talking about Christ which must be respected. My guess is that most objections to it today are likely to be less theologically oriented and more straightforward: it is simply too metaphysical or abstract to be very helpful when we preach.
In fact, if we understand the formula as setting out boundaries, nothing could be further than the truth. The formula really marks out the area within which the preacher can operate with great freedom when he speaks of the incarnation. Hence all the use of negatives: the formula does not so much assert as say `Thou shalt not pass!' at certain points. It offers simple caveats: do not emphasise the diversity of the divine and human to the point where you lose sight of the one person, the fact that God really does join with humanity; do not emphasise the one person to the point where you lose sight of the distinct natures, the fact that Christ really is God and man and not some third substance which is neither. Within this frame, the preacher is free to go wherever the text leads him, to use whatever expressions are helpful to bring home the mystery, to inspire his hearers with great thoughts of God's grace and to refresh those who have lost sight of the fact that the gospel is an act of God himself.
The Creeds are there to help us. They represent the collective wisdom of the church, tried and tested over the generations. As we prepare to preach on the Incarnation this year, it would be foolish and indeed ungrateful of us not to use them to make our preaching better.
