Like Salt (Part VIII): Truth

I want to share a fascinating story that I only recently read.  I make my living as a church historian, which is all the more reason why I feel embarrassment about it.  Why hadn’t I heard about this story years ago?  It says something about my ignorance; but it also says something about the relative isolation of Protestants.

I tell this story because it illustrates how important it is to attend to the Christian essentials, what the church father Origen called “First Principles.”  By Christian essentials I mean what Christianity is at its essence, without which it would no longer be Christian.  John Stott called it “basic Christianity” and C. S. Lewis “mere Christianity.”

There are many actors in this story, but one stands out.  He is the epitome of what I would call a “salty” Christian leader.

Over a thousand years BEFORE the Reformation, which marks the beginning of Protestant Christianity, Christians disagreed, debated, and eventually divided over how to understand the nature of Jesus Christ, clearly a Christian essential.  Two questions emerged.  The first concerned how God could be one God in three persons.  Wouldn’t the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit undermine the oneness of God?  The second concerned how Jesus could be both human and divine.  Wouldn’t the divine nature of Christ naturally eclipse the human, thus making Jesus less than TRULY human?

Christian leaders could not settle their differences, especially concerning the second question addressing “Christology,” which resulted in devastating divisions.  Those divisions have endured to this day.

Still, there is a movement currently under way that shows promise of resolving the conflict and healing the division.

Why is this important?  It shows how salty Christian leaders can do the work of the kingdom, even and especially in theology.  They strike a balance between charity toward opponents, on the one hand, and a fierce commitment to the search for truth, on the other.  However rare, it is possible to do both.

There are too few of this kind of leader.  It is far easier to draw lines, mock opponents, caricature their positions, and condemn them.

Here is the story.

In 1964 Viennese Cardinal Franz Koenig convened a meeting with representatives of the five branches of ancient Christianity: Catholic (his own), Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, and the Church of the East (often called “Nestorian”).  Protestants were not included.  The purpose was to explore how these churches could move toward Christological agreement.  Koenig appealed to these five branches to address the controversy and to heal the division, a division that first occurred at the Counsel of Ephesus in 431 and only grew more severe over the centuries.

He started by outlining three assumptions, upon which all parties agreed.  First, each group would specify how it wanted to be identified.  Each could NAME itself, which would prohibit name-calling.  Second, each group would explain what a Christological confession should AFFIRM.  Finally, each group would state what a Christological confession should DEFEND against.  These guiding principles in effect created a round table around which representatives gathered as equals.

The result was the Viennese Christological Formula.  It borrows from the complex, wordy, and abstract Chalcedonian Formula of 451, which failed to unite the church.  But it shortens, qualifies, and simplifies it, often elegantly.  Surprisingly, all five groups signed off on it, which set in motion (we hope) the healing of an ancient, costly, and poisonous division going back to 431.

Here is the formula that was agreed upon:

"We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate; perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity. His divinity was not separated from his humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without commixtion, without confusion, without division, without separation. We in our common faith in the one Lord Jesus Christ, regard his mystery inexhaustible and ineffable and for the human mind never fully comprehendible or expressible."

It is extraordinarily beautiful.  It is precise, yet it leaves room for mystery.  The inclusion of the lovely “not for the twinkling of an eye” adds a poetic touch to it.

It symbolizes a return to first principles.  Churches fight over all kinds of issues, from the sacred to the profane.  We have witnessed it throughout history, and even in our own personal experience.  I do not wish to trivialize or dismiss these disputes and divisions, though some are obviously more important than others.

Koenig challenges us to return to first principles.  It will not get us all the way to unity and harmony in the church.  But it is a good place to start.

What in essence do Christians believe?  We believe that God created the world, which culminated in the creation of human beings, the crown of God’s creation.  As image-bearers humans could use their freedom to seek and honor the goodness, truth, and beauty of God.  Instead, they chose to rebel, toppling the entire created order into chaos and ruin.  But God was not finished yet.  He set in motion a plan of redemption, which culminated in the incarnation of the Son of God as Jesus Christ, perfectly divine and perfectly human, who accomplished the world’s salvation through his death and resurrection.  The Holy Spirit is now at work in the world to renew and restore all things, which Jesus will finish when he returns at the end of history.

First Principles.  Koenig did not compromise an inch of Christian truth.  He simply discerned how to articulate it in a way that welcomed and united the people of God.  He served as a salty theological leader.

Today there are over 30,000 Protestant groups in the world.  Some of the points of division are over substantial issues.  But most are not.  Yet we continue to divide.  Protestants have much to learn from Cardinal Franz Koenig.