Journal: Southeastern Theological Review
Volume: STR 11:2 (Fall 2020)
Article: Christology In Chalcedon: Creed And Contextualization
Author: Malcolm B. Yarnell III

STR 11:2 (Fall 2020) p. 5

Christology In Chalcedon: Creed And Contextualization

Malcolm B. Yarnell III

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

In this essay, the author rehearses the contextual theology of the Council of Chalcedon in order to derive lessons for contemporary Christianity. After defining theology and history as inextricable, the troubled search for dogmatic unity regarding the identity of Jesus Christ among the pro-Nicene fathers is traced through the two councils of Ephesus (431 and 449) and through Chalcedon (451). A theological analysis of the Formula of Chalcedon compares favorably with its varied reception by diverse Christian churches. Next, the longstanding divisions in piety and theology that arose with Roman imperial coercion are evaluated. The author derives seven lessons from a comparison between the Constantinian traditions and the canonical teachings of Jesus Christ.

Key Words: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinian, Contextualization, Council of Chalcedon, Council of Ephesus, Duophysitism, Jesus Christ, Miaphysitism, Tolerance

As part of this conference on “Christology in America,” with its concern to address orthodox Christology while considering marginalized voices, I have been asked to focus upon contextualized Christology in Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon is perhaps the best ecumenical council to reference when addressing contextualization and Christological creed in our own context. As we shall see, Chalcedon’s theology was deeply integrated with its historical context, shaping cultures and being shaped by them. We must first examine the theology and the context of the Council of Chalcedon in some detail before attempting to draw any lessons that may be helpful for the contemporary context.

Theology and context are inseparable. Theology (no matter how redeemed and perfect it wishes it were) and context (the history in which theology is performed by embodied souls located in a fallen world) are inseparable. On the one hand, theologically, Chalcedon represents the conciliar pinnacle of the dogmatic conversation which began with Arius’s challenge to Christ within the Godhead.1 The Trinitarian questions raised

STR 11:2 (Fall 2020) p. 6

by Arianism found an immediate credal solution in the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325), which creed required further clarification, also with regard to the Holy Spirit, at the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381). The third ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) did not revise the creed per se but deposed Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, for denying the application of the term Theotokos to Mary. Questions regarding the human...