The edition of On the Unity of Christ by Cyril of Alexandria which I read has a useful historical background introduction at the beginning of the book. This introduction covers both the life of Cyril as well as giving an overview of his theology. This kind of introduction, which the other books did not have, was a very helpful contribution for me. The only critique I had of the introduction was the strong pro-Cyril attitude. The author is out to rescue the name of Cyril, and so he makes Nestorius the “bad guy” of the story. Unfortunately, there is no discussion at all in regards to the issue of what Nestorius himself actually believed based on the material he wrote near the end of his life, which sounds very little like the Nestorius that Cyril argues against. While it very well may be that Nestorius has changed his mind, it would only be fair at least to include information about these writings and the current historical debate on the exact content of Nestorius’ belief in the introduction. 

The style of the book itself is refreshingly set up as a dialogue between two conversation partners, although since they are never identified it is apparently purely a rhetorical effect. Cyril, as the title indicates, argues for the unity of Christ, as opposed to a conjunction of the two natures as Nestorius argued. Since this work is probably a later work, it is apparently written not against Nestorius himself but against continuing Antiochene influence in the church. Cyril’s argument is fairly clear throughout the work and easy to follow, especially since he repeats himself on occasion. He not only argues against Nestorius and Apollonarius, but he also argues against the later error of Eutychus by saying that the two natures are neither confused or mingled (terminology that appears in the Creed of Chalcedon itself). Cyril’s methodology includes every Scriptural and logical argument he can think of, which are then put into an order which I was not able to discern upon a first reading.

The work by Athanasius begins with an introduction by C.S. Lewis, a note from the translator and a survey of the life of Athanasius. Athanasius wrote On the Incarnation when he was still young and before the Arian controversy had broken out, but the book fits the theology of the rest of his life quite well. The book is in the form of a letter to a certain Macarius in which Athanasius undertakes to explain the Christian faith and the Incarnation in particular. Methodologically he uses the entire metanarrative of history to show how the incarnation is needed. He begins with creation and the fall, demonstrates how the incarnation was needed to fix the divine dilemma, discusses the death and resurrection of Jesus and ends with refutations specifically of the Jews and the Gentiles. I enjoyed reading how Athanasius fit the incarnation into the whole Bible, including the Old Testament: it was not simply a truncated view of the New Testament. The book ends with an appendix which is a letter Athanasius wrote Marcellinus about the interpretation of the Psalms. In this letter he tells his reader the kind of time of life to read virtually every Psalm, based on what is found in the Psalm. While modern readers will debate about whether he was exactly right with each psalm, I think that he has understood the psalms much better than most moderns: the psalms are not to be read simply for intellectual knowledge.

            This past semester I did some reading in historical theology in the ancient church. I've put together some reviews of those primary and secondary sources I read, many of which were interesting. Happy reading! The first is a general overiew of the period.

A friend of mine asked me recently what I thought about the term evangelical. Is it still a useful term for us today? Does the older generation have a different idea of evangelicl than younger generations? Does evangelical create barriors when we talk to people? Here are a few thoughts.

There has been a fair amount of work recently on defining evangelicals. David Bebbington has done the most accepted work with a four fold definition. An evangelical is distinguished by one who emphasizes conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism: focuses on conversions, good works in the world, the Bible, and salvation through the work on the cross. This is an excellent start, but it does seem to be lacking. Timothy Larsen has presented his own definition which helps situation evangelicals in history. An evangelical is

1. an orthodox Protestant

2. who stands in the tradition of the global Christian networks arising from the eighteenth-century revival movements associated with John Wesley and George Whitefield;

3. who has a preeminent place for the Bible in her or his Christian life as the divinely inspired, final authority in matters of faith and practice;

4. who stresses reconcilation with God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross; 

5. and who stresses the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual to bring about conversion and an ongoing life of fellowship with God and service to God and others, including the duty of all believers to participate in the task of proclaiming the gospel to all people. (Timothy Larsen, "Defining and Locating Evangelicalism" in The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology)

The latest issue of Books and Culture has a review of a book which seeks to do some revisionary work on early evangelicals which looks rather interesting. Another definition of evangelicals comes from ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) which places their focus almost entirely on inerrancy, although that is beginning to change. But there is also a big-tent evangelicalism as represented by IBR (Institute for Biblical Research), which does not necessarily hold to inerrancy. To make life even more complex, evangelical in German just means Protestant. And finally, there is popular level perceptions of evangelicals, whether it be those people who are homophobic or Republicans or people who just love Jesus.  

 What do we do with the term evangelical? Personally, I do not mind the term. I call myself an evangelical, and I am happy in the evangelical world. I think that the term is helpful in identifying who I am and what others who hold to the term stand for. There are certainly fuzzy areas in using the term, but I think overall it is still helpful and one that we should be able to use for many years in the future. But then, it isn't a term that is essential either. I don't think we have to call ourself evangelicals. If someone doesn't like the word, then we don't use the word. I think that the problem is either with stances taken by evangelicals or bad attitudes taken by those called evangelics. If the problem is the former, then using a different word isn't going to make much difference. If the latter, then using a different word might help a little bit, but I'm not sure it would really take away the problem: they would figure out quickly that we are very similar to evangelicals even though we don't use the word. No matter how we define ourselves, we will have problems like these, whether we use evangelical or Christian or believer or even spiritual.

But then, I am rather stuck in an evangelical world and don't get out much. Do those of you who spend more time with non-evangelicals have any thoughts? 

Since I recently wrote a post complaining about Christmas carols, I thought I would talk about Christmas carols that struck me in a positive manner today.

 Joy to the World

 No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

I was intruiged with this verse today because of the link with the the OT and the curse in Genesis 3. Jesus came as part of the meta-narrative, the large story of the Bible, and this verse of Joy to the World shows how Jesus came not just for the sake of humans, but to make all things right. It is not just for personal salvation (although that clearly is a large part of it) but also for the sake of all creation and all the world.

 O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

O come, O come, Emmanuel,

And ransom captive Israel,

That mourns in lonely exile here

Until the Son of God appear.

Refrain:

Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel

shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free

Thine own from Satan's tyranny;

From depths of hell Thy people save,

And give them victory over the grave.

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer

Our spirits by Thine advent here;

And drive away the shades of night

And pierce the clouds and bring us light!

O come, Thou Key of David, come,

And open wide our heavenly home;

Make safe the way that leads on high,

And close the path to misery.

O come, O come, Thou Lord of might,

Who to Thy tribes on Sinai's height

In ancient times once gave the law

In cloud, and majesty, and awe.

 I was struck by the OT connections in this hymn: Jesus did not just fulfill individual prophecies, but he came as the one hoped for by Israel. If we do not have the OT, we miss a large part of the story.

Soapbox alert! One of my personal problems is with Christmas carols that end up being heretical. I still sing them, but I mutter to myself. I suppose we can say that they are just poetry and so have poetic license, but this seems to be stretching it. Here are two examples.

 Hark the Herald Angels Sing

"Veiled in the flesh the Godhead see"

The problem with this is simply that Jesus was not "God in a bod" or "God in a spacesuit". Jesus was not simply veiled in flesh, he was human. This is the view of docetism (denying the human side of Jesus) or Apollonarius (denying a human mind to Jesus),  both views which were condemned in the early church. I understand what Wesley was trying to say here, and I don't think he was heretical. But I do think it is poor theological imagery.

Silent Night

Why was it silent? Did Jesus not cry when he was born?  Was he not human? Because he was God did that mean he didn't do the things that humans do?

OK getting off my soapbox.  

We had terrible ice here this morning in Chicago, and when we got to church (Crossroads Community Church) someone came out to meet us at our car, warned us about how slick it was, and then gave his arm to Mariah to help her to the door while I carried Eily. They were doing this with everyone and even having some people get out right next to the door and then parking their cars for them. I thought that this was a great way to show love to the people as well as to visitors. I remember reading about a church in the NW that had their junior high kids escort people into the building with giant golf umbrellas whenever it rained: not only did people not get wet, but it gave the JH kids a way to get to know people. I just thought that we should highlight some of the great things churches do.  

We visited a church while we were still looking for a church in which the pastor made a side comment about how the regular members need to park in the back of the parking lot and sit in the front so that it makes a statement that we love visitors. Another good idea!