First, I really respect my history professor, and I’ve enjoyed hearing the critical secular perspective on the story of the early church. That said, when explaining the heresy of Arianism, something unfortunate happened.
“Arianism is the belief that Jesus had a human side. The Church did not like this because they say Jesus is God, so they established the Trinity.”
Oops. That would be the opposite heretical doctrine, Docetism, stating that Jesus’ humanity was an illusion and He was only divine.
My theology nerd senses were tingling, and I felt puzzled by the lack of puzzled faces from my Christian peers in the room. Isn’t this a major foundation orthodox Christian faith? However, I knew I needed to act carefully, lest I seem arrogant or cause discomfort for my teacher.
I waited until my teacher allowed room for questions, and then asked, “Isn’t there a little bit more to Arianism than that? I thought Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all agree that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.” Now, she responded in complete agreement, confirming that she already knew this information (though she miscommunicated it unknowingly), and it’s the idea that Jesus was only human and later became God that offended the Church.
Why didn’t she say that in the first place, then? What does this tell us about the effectiveness of doctrine?
She neglected to make the distinction because, understandably, theology can be a daunting and complex subject… and she readily confessed her confusion for why these teachings practically mattered, which must be the framework for how we learn and communicate doctrine.
Why does Jesus’ humanity and divinity matter, to the point of causing schisms? Many Christians will supply that Jesus can only be an unblemished sacrifice if He shares in our broken humanity while also being the sinless Son of God.
More than that, with His divine attributes temporarily set aside, our God viscerally experienced every facet of human frailty, allowing Him to relate with our failings and pioneer a righteous life for anyone likewise empowered by the Holy Spirit. Seriously, I know God can’t sin, but I do wonder if Jesus would theoretically have been forced to abort His incarnation (a stalemate between divine purity and mortal carnality) if the Holy Spirit was not supporting Him during the wilderness temptation.
And finally, on a much more simple note, obscuring Jesus’ nature as man or as God is a rejection of who He said He is. Surely, there is mercy for those who fall short of grasping these lofty matters of metaphysics. However, for those who read the God-man’s testimony and purposefully obscure mystery in favor of a binary box, this act undermines the faith’s foundation and sets up a different Jesus.
I didn’t have time to explain any of this in my class, of course. This is what I pondered following the exchange, and the kind of discussion - bringing doctrine to life and framing it within the Biblical narrative of our world - I pray continues as Christians find opportunity to give answer for our hope. (Edited addition: she had an extra credit question on our exam, which made the same mistake of calling Arianism the belief Jesus was man and God. Maybe she'll notice that I bubbled the "wrong" answer and recall my question... or else I will just count suffering with stubborn theology nerds more precious than the treasures of academia.)
No comments:
Post a Comment