A Celebration of the Incarnation

That, after all, is what Christmas is all about. From St. Athanasius:

"You may be wondering why we are discussing the origin of men when we set out to talk about the Word's becoming man. The former subject is relevant to the latter for this reason: it was our sorry case that caused the Word to come down, our transgression that called out his love for us, so that He made haste to help us and to appear among us."

What Say Ye, Science Dude?

I always loved science. My first Lego set was a "technic" model, complete with rack-and-pinion steering (at age six). In high school I blueprinted motor designs for Harley-Davidsons, tuning intake and exhaust length to leverage sonic resonance. Right now I have Maglight in my toolbox that I converted into a light-saber by replacing the bulb with a laser diode lifted from an old cd-burner. But reading through The God Delusion, I was struck again by how Dawkins just doesn't get it. I am referring to morality and causality. He writes about a time when he heard a scientist give a lecture. The scientist was corrected by another scientist, and he immediately admitted that he was wrong, and changed his lecture. Dawkins writes that he nearly got teary-eyed over the exchange. But notice what actually happened - the scientist who changed his mind was not wrong in a moral sense, but only wrong in the sense that he had incomplete knowledge. Dawkins is celebrating improved knowledge, but not improved morality. This is poignant precisely because Dawkins believes that religion is immoral. Dawkins claims to have the moral authority to condemn religion, but he neither develops this theme (which would be a bit, ahem, religious), nor turns his lens of criticism upon science. If religion is so evil, let me only ask the following. Who gave us the internal combustion engine, and anthropogenic global climate change? Who gave us the bomber, the machine gun, and the gas-chambers of WWII? Who gave us nuclear weapons? Who is cluttering the atmosphere with space junk? You see, Christians believe that people are born sinners. Scientist or priest, we will always turn our power toward destruction, unless the Lord intervenes. So before we start tarring and feathering those we disagree with, perhaps we should spend some time in quiet introspection.

The Failure of Multiperspectivalism in Theology

One of the results of post-modern thought in theology is a new found interest in multiperspectivalism. Multiperspectivalism is a communal approach to idea generation that seeks to create ideas from multiple perspectives. This is different from Frame's "Multiperspectivalism", in several ways, most notably that Frame's Multiperspectivalism is a description of how any given individual knows anything. In my use of the term, I intend to communicate a method of generating communal knowledge. Where you once had a doctrinal tradition expounded over and against other doctrinal traditions, we now have the presentation of competing perspectives as mutually beneficial perspectives. This is alternatively seen as good or ill, depending upon one's traditions and presuppositions, but it is sufficient at present to acknowledge that this situation is the case.

A few examples will suffice to demonstrate this situation. In his Symphonic Theology (P&R Publishing, 1987), Vern Poythress suggests that the non-technical language used in the Bible presents differing perspectives getting at a single truth (the example Poythress uses is the plural nature of the four gospels). This kind of statement is significant because it was written by a tenured professor at a highly rigid evangelical school (Westminster Theological Seminary, which recently dismissed Peter Enns because his published work Inspiration and Incarnation did not conform to the Westminster Confession), and was published by a very narrowly focused publishing house (as its name, "Presbyterian and Reformed" implies). Poythress may only be presenting material common to linguistic science, but he is able to do so in a context that typically places creed above all else. This is an indication of the level of acceptance that multiperspectivalism has gained. Other examples include the plethora of works out now that contain "multiple perspectives" on items of theological controversy. In the not too distant past one would never have seen a book dedicated to dividing equal space among four opposing views of baptism. Even more poignant, perhaps, is the increasing number of multiple perspective conferences being held by the Southern Baptist schools and seminaries. These kinds of historically-embedded institutions (Presbyterian and Southern Baptist) have theological traditions as rich and inflexible as pre-Vatican II Rome. The results of multiperspectival theology have been staggering. My purpose is not to examine whether this recent trend is good or bad, but only to note that we are not doing multiperspectival theology well.

How can I make such a statement, and how do I intend to defend it? Multiperspectivalism is based upon certain presuppositions - it is the solution to a set of difficulties that modern language theory presents us with. Because this post is not about language theory, and for the sake of space, I will present the basic presuppositions that lead to multiperspectival approaches of communal theology. The most basic presupposition is that people come to theological convictions based upon their own specific circumstances and experiences. For example, a Catholic in Utah may view his Mormon neighbors as sincerely good if theologically misguided people. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, however, had a very different view. He consistently presented Mormons as insidious cultic murderers, who would kill to keep their membership rituals secret. It is safe to say that both have the same idea in view - that Mormon theology is wrong at some level. However, the respective views on what this means or how it works out are very different. Another basic presupposition is that a perspective is not the whole truth. My understanding of even well documented historical events, such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, constitute a very narrow slice of the pie. A third basic presupposition is that a parallel examination of these perspectives is not an exclusive competition, but an inclusive complementation. These basic presumptions lead to a multiperspectival approach to communal theology.

But are we doing multiperspectival theology well? Let us return to our presuppositions and revisit what makes multiperspectivalism important. There are three things upon which our basic presuppositions are built. The first is divergent experience. Without divergent experience, our first presupposition breaks down. In order for our knowledge and beliefs to depend upon our divergent experience, we must have divergent experience. This is not a binary relationship, however. It is not as if the simple fact of divergent life experience necessitates multiple theological perspectives. Rather, there is a range of effect here, where the greater the divergence of experience, the greater the divergence of theology we expect to find. This is true even for dogmatic faith. Thus, the broken communion between the two-thirds-world Anglican church and the English/North American Anglican church. Although they embrace the same creed and liturgy, they have moved far enough apart to even break fellowship. This is largely a result of vastly different experience. This is one reason for the continuing interest in the history of the early church and its theology. We are finding that the evolution of Christian theology over the last two thousand years presents a very divergent understanding of some basic theological points. Several post-reformation protestant writings, for example, posit Rome as the harlot of Revelation, and the Pope as the Antichrist. Conversely, prior to the Reformation it was universally acknowledged that the one catholic church constituted the people of God, with the bishops and Pope as God's divinely appointed ministers. Such radically divergent views are clearly products of their respective times.

The second thing upon which our presuppositions are built is the limited scope of anyone's knowledge or ideas. While this can again be accepted as self evident, it should be noted that this idea has a range of influence upon our presupposition. The greater knowledge and experience a person has, the less narrow his views are likely to be (interestingly, this idea corroborates the old adage of the wisdom of grey hair). For example, a person raised in Spain is likely to experience Christianity only as Roman Catholic. A person raised in Papua New guinea may have an equally (or even more) narrow understanding of Christianity, albeit radically different. A world-travelling theologian who spends time in divergent traditions is likely to have a more holistic understanding of Christianity. The idea behind multiperspectivalism is that no community can consist of world travelling theologians inhabiting divergent traditions, especially when that community is itself a religious tradition! Multiperspectivalism is a way to take the narrow views of a community's individuals, and create a communal knowledge that is more robust and indicative of the whole.

The third thing undergirding our presuppositions is that many good Christian men and women have held quite opposing views. In the evangelical tradition alone you have Tom Nettles (traditional Baptist), Richard Pratt (traditional Presbyterian), Robert Kolb (traditional Lutheran), and John Castelein (traditional Church of Christ) presenting their views on baptism in one volume (Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Zondervan, 2007). In fact, throughout church history there have been many very devout men who disagreed sharply on some things (one thinks of Whitfield and Wesley). Given the good fruit of these people, we conclude that it is more beneficial to examine their perspectives as complementary, rather than competitive. This is not to say that all differences are matters of perspective, or that all perspectives are valid, but rather that it is more beneficial to examine a perspective before discarding it.

The primary performance analysis, then, asks "are these elements present in evangelical multiperspectivalism, and if so, to what degree?" The answer to this question will determine if we are doing multiperspectivalism well.

Our first presupposition is that divergent experiences are necessary for good multiple perspective discourse. Do we have this is evangelicalism? I would answer no. There seems to be a sort of bait-and-switch going on here. We headline events with such titles as "perspectives on multi-campus churches", then invite four pastors from middle class white suburban Baptist churches to respond. It is hard to see how these men can have any significantly divergent experience. Sometimes, it is presumed that including members of differing denominations or creeds constitutes a multiple perspective debate. Usually, such is not the case. While academic knowledge of a different theological stream may help somewhat, most of the participants are still of identical socio-economic status, gender, nationality, race, and ethnicity. I suggest that a truly multiperspectival conversation needs to include people of the same tradition, but different socio-economic status, education, ethnicity, and nationality. What does a Panamanian Baptist have in common with a Southern Baptist? Where does she differ? What does a Christian in Sudan look like? Do they even have denominations? What can people with truly divergent experiences add to our conversations? I enjoyed a class on early church history that I shared with young, old, male, female, black, white, and even foreign seminary students. We had some interestingly brisk discussions surrounding baptism. I found these to be hugely beneficial. But most evangelical traditions do not include this kind of diversity in their multiple perspective discussions.

Our second presupposition is that a fuller picture of the truth can only be realized by fusing multiple perspectives. This stems from the inherent limitations to any one human's knowledge. Therefore, a robust multiperspectivalism includes an array of divergent knowledge and experience. I think evangelicalism has also largely failed here. Most multiple perspective approaches may have a few divergent theologies, but they tend to end there. For example, some have tried to synthesize Piper and Wright on Paul's view of Justification. These are divergent views, to be sure. But what about learning outside of theology? Do we also try to bring the other sciences into our discussion? What about sociology, psychology, anthropology, biology? I think many Christians have a healthy distrust of these academics. Certainly some in these branches have made sport of intentionally trying to tear down the Christian faith. However, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Indeed, sometimes ignorance of these fields leads to Christians hurting more than helping in their mission. Is the missiologist given the opportunity to interact with the linguist? Are they then brought into conversation with the systematic theologian? This is a point of failure in evangelicalism, I believe. I already mentioned the situation that occurred between Enns and Westminster. Enns was presenting work that he believed brought modern ANE scholarship to bear on systematic theology. His work was rejected for not conforming to a creed (by the way, to clear up any misconceptions, Enns spoke with the board and resigned his position, he was not fired). If we presuppose creed, then multiperspectivalism becomes nothing more than interpreting other ideas into our presumed theology.

Our final presupposition is that the best way to handle divergent views is through conversation, where ideas are synthesized, subordinated, revised, excised, and even held in tension. Traditionally, theology (and, incidentally, all other fields of study) has taken the position that there is only one sort of pristine theology that we are ever refining. Multiperspectivalism presumes that our theology is more of a lifetime quest. No imperfect human can ever have perfect knowledge. Therefore, we pursue multiple perspectives on the greater whole. But I generally do not see evangelicalism doing this. Instead, most purported multiperspectival conversations are centered around impersonal currents of mainstream Christianity, rather than around the personal interpretation and application of believers and theologians. So a conference billed as "multiple perspectives on Baptism" typically includes three or four main streams of Christian thought, with the proponents presenting traditional and almost cliché arguments and defenses. This is poor execution. These defenses and attacks are first of all well-worn, and second, have usually been framed in an era where defeating your opponent meant more than coming to a deeper knowledge of the truth. These kinds of structures do not work well with multiperspectivalism. Instead, I propose that we present multiple perspectives as inclusive and personal, rather than exclusive and impersonal. If we cannot do that, then we need to eschew the multiple perspective model en toto.

In conclusion, I do not believe that American evangelicalism is doing multiperspectivalism well. We have largely failed to include truly divergent people, we have largely failed to include truly divergent ideas and beliefs, and we have largely failed to hold such ideas in complementary fashion. I do not propose, however, to suggest a solution, only to note that we might want to reconsider using this sort of language if we don't intend to do it justice.

Country Music 101 (A Spoof)

Thanks to Andy.

Stewardship - or It's Not Your Life, Stupid

We are in the process of turning my Sunday School series on stewardship into booklet. Here is an excerpt:

So, Just What is Stewardship, Anyway?
When we hear the word "stewardship", most of us immediately assume that it is some sort of Christian code word for giving, or tithing, or contributing to the church building fund. But that is not the only way in which the word is used. Consider the following titles:
"Free and Clear - God's roadmap to debt free living"
"Serve God, save the planet"
"50+ promises of God in Stewardship"
"Big book of Presbyterian Stewardship"
"Recovering Christian Stewardship from secular fundraising"
"Non-profit Steward - a better way to lead your mission-based organization"
Consider these stewardship articles available from Lifeway.com:
"15 ways to increase your churches' offerings"
"Keys for overcoming your church's financial crisis"
"Overcoming four coming church financial firestorms"
"Ten ways to prevent embezzelment of church funds"
"Five ways to reduce conflict over church finances"
"Five vital tasks of your stewardship promotion team"
"Are you a cheerful giver?"
"7 questions before buying church financial software"

These titles reveal a huge range of meaning associated with the word "stewardship". It could mean skill in personal finance, or care for the environment, or proper church/diocese financial planning, or fundraising, or any number of other things. This dilemma raises three important questions:
1. What is stewardship?
2. Under what framework do we study stewardship?
3. What does stewardship mean for me?

Stewardship and Worldview
A worldview is how we understand the world in which we live. It is the Great Story of reality. We don't usually think about worldview when we think about stewardship, but our view of the world ultimately determines our view of stewardship. Consider the following story. You are watching a movie, and in that movie a group of characters are engulfed in a flash of light, disappear, and reappear hundreds of miles away. This act of teleportation is the bare fact of what is happening, but what does it mean? The meaning depends on the story of which it is a part. In one movie, the group of characters are a dwarf, an elf, and a wizard, and they cast a magic spell to escape the evil Legions of Doom. This is a fantasy story. It takes place in a world of magic, and fantastical lands, and quests, and dragons. In another movie, the group of characters are a human, a Vulcan, and a Klingon. They are "beaming" to a strange new world of exploration. This is a science fiction story. It takes place in a world of logic, science, and technological advance. In both movies the same "fact" is happening - people are being teleported in an instant. But what that "fact" actually means, and what it communicates, changes depending on the story.
In the same way, while we can talk about what stewardship is, it won't have any real meaning until we discover what story we are a part of. In order to discover what stewardship means, we will have to discover who we are and what story we are a part of.

Pearl Harbor Day

To the Congress of the United States

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Franklin Roosevelt

Radical Discipleship

From my forthcoming book:

The 1960s gave rise to a host of sociological innovations, not all of them for the better. One such innovation, Rock and Roll, spawned a whole sub-culture of values, actions, and expectations. One of Rock and Roll’s more infamous inventions was the groupie. Groupies were people who followed after a musical group or celebrity for extended periods of time, seeking sexual or emotional intimacy. Old, grainy films portray scruffy teens (and plenty of older folks trying to relive their youth!) piling into rickety VW camper vans and trailing a band’s tour schedule. In a weird, immoral sort of way, groupies are disciples. They consider all their plans and possessions worthless compared to the pleasure of intimacy with the one they follow. The disciples were the same way, and we are called to be the same thing. Give it all up. It really isn’t worth the excitement and pleasure of being with Jesus. Follow him, even if it means sleeping in the back of a VW van, the heat from an air-cooled motor toasting your back through the flimsy steel floor. Bell-bottoms and sideburns are optional...

The Lost God - Metanarrative Christology in Athanasius

The following was produced for my Church History class at J. Dalton Havard school of theology.

Introduction
One of the most dissected and discussed Christian ideas today is Christology¹. There is an emerging consensus among scholars that the Jesus of the New Testament only became the Christ of Post-Nicaea through a series of political triumphs, and perhaps even some underhanded excision of minority views². This construct has a certain appeal, especially to those who through unbelief have an interest in casting doubt upon Jesus' deity, but will such a construct bear the weight of rigorous historical-theological inquiry? To this point much of this discussion has surrounded non-canonical texts and minority canonical variants, combined with a rather plastic interpretation of historical events³. However, such constructs can and should be examined in light of the writings of theologians contemporary to Nicaea. At this point, however, such inquiries tend to classify Nicene writings into categorical groups, and present them as representatives of competing traditions. Perhaps it is time for a fresh approach. Perhaps an examination should be made, not of the content, but of the structure of Nicene writings. An examination of the structure of Nicene Christology may render fresh insight into its development and canonization. A contemporary Nicene writer of particular interest to this inquiry is Athanasius of Alexander. A prolific writer and stalwart defender of Nicene Christology, his works more than any other may help illuminate the origination of Nicene Christology. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Athanasius employed a metanarrative Christological structure, and that in so doing he considered his Christology to be both orthodox and unique.

Historical Background
Athanasius was born around AD 296, probably near the Nile basin⁴. Dark skinned, Coptic speaking, and short of stature, he was pejoratively called the "black dwarf" by his enemies⁵. Whatever his physical stature, he was a theological giant, a bulldog champion of the Nicene Christology. Athanasius was made bishop of the important see of Alexandria in the year 328, the same year that Constantine allowed Arius to return from exile⁶. Upon Arius' return, Arianism gained favor rapidly, and soon the entire Christological debate had become swallowed up into two essential categories. On the one side were the Arians, whose power and influence post Nicaea were empire-wide, and on the other side were the Nicenes, who won the official support of the Council of Nicaea, which represented the majority position of the Christian bishops. This was the historical context of Athanasius' work.

Theological Background
The development of Christology had already gone through several refinements by this point. The first and most obvious threat chronicled in the pages of the New Testament was the Judaizers' claim that Jesus' work was only sufficient in Judaism, usually demonstrated through circumcision⁷. A second threat alluded to in the New Testament was the Grecian idea that matter is evil, and spirit is good⁸. Despite Paul's warnings against this type of thinking, this threat would later evolve into full blown Gnosticism, as well as Marcionism⁹. This controversy seems to have been centered primarily on the question of Jesus' body. Since flesh is evil, the Gnostics taught that the body of Jesus was only an illusion. Through this controversy the church established that Jesus had a real human body¹⁰. At this time the church also established the canon of Scripture, and adopted the Apostles' Creed. So already we see a consensus emerging around the person and work of Jesus. From the beginning Jesus was called kurios, or "lord", as well as logos, or "word"¹¹. Jesus is also pictured in the New Testament as prophet, priest, king, and judge¹². Logos Christology is found first in John's gospel, and was later adopted by Justin Martyr. This language was later employed by Clement of Alexandria and his pupil, Origen. Both of these scholars were neo-Platonists, and their philosophy heavily colored their theology. These two, especially Origen, defended the faith from the errors of Gnosticism, re-establishing that Jesus was indeed a real human. However, in so doing Origen implied that there were two Gods, and that the Divine was somehow diminished by the emanation of the Son¹³. This was all around AD 200, scarcely a century and a half before Athanasius and Arias¹⁴. It was actually the ideas of Origen that prompted a response from Arius. He rejected the ideas that God could be split, and that God could be diminished. His solution, however, was to claim that the Son was a created being of the Father¹⁵. It should be noted that Arius was a respected elder in Alexandria, so this whole controversy can be seen as a provincial conversation that eventually swallowed up the whole empire. The controversy seems to have arisen not over the Biblical language regarding Christ, but rather what that language meant¹⁶.


The Problem of Meaning
It was in this political and theological context that Athanasius of Alexandria found himself near the middle of the fourth century, anno domini. Athanasius' response was to write an entire treatise on the incarnation of Christ - De Incarnation Verbi De (lit. "the incarnation of the Word of God")¹⁷. Its very title suggests that Athanasius would appeal to the logos Christological model, demonstrating that his goal was not so much the introduction of new Christological language so much as the illumination of Christological language he and others had already received. Athanasius adopts the logos vocabulary, but he rejects the philosophical speculation of his forebears in Alexandria¹⁸. These choices on the part of Athanasius give us insight as to the structure of Athanasius' Christology. For Athanasius, it would seem, a proper understanding of who Christ is demands a proper understanding of what Christ is. It was not the particulars of the life and times of Jesus that mattered (for as we have seen, the canon was established and even the Arians claimed the historical Jesus), but rather their ultimate meaning and significance. Jesus is the logos, but what does that mean? Athanasius seems to grasp intuitively the concept of contextualizing truth. To say that Jesus is the Word of God is only as meaningful to Athanasius as the context in which it is understood. Athanasius believed that by misrepresenting the Christian metanarrative, the Arians and other heretics were warping the truth of Christ.
Athanasius addresses this problem in his First Discourse Against the Arians. Athanasius laments the Arian use of Christian language, and compares the Arian hijacking of Christian language to the religion of the Jews¹⁹. Athanasius' argument goes something like the following: the only way to know the truth of Christianity is to accept the received orthodox Christian story. The Jews are an obvious example of those who share language and beliefs with the Christians, yet deny foundational aspects of the Christian metanarrative (such as the deity of Jesus). In so doing the Jews clearly proclaim that they are not Christian. In the same way, the Arians share language and beliefs with the Christians, but in changing the Christian metanarrative, they are not Christian at all. To expose this misuse of language, and to establish the orthodox story of Christianity, Athanasius began where all metanarrative theology begins - at the beginning²⁰.

The Word and Creation
It is formative for the present argument to note that Athanasius begins all his detailed treatments of Christology with creation. In the opening arguments of De Incarnatione, Athanasius establishes that the Word was the creator. To ensure that his readers do not understand the creative Word in a pagan sense, Athanasius immediately points out that this Christian beginning is very different from the pagan myths of creation²¹. This demonstrates that Athanasius was willing to use familiar language, but had no interest in allowing such language to subvert Christian orthodoxy. This begins to create boundaries around his Christological model, as he seems intent on guarding a tradition rather than creating a new one. For Athanasius, the establishment of the Word as the Author of creation is a primary presupposition - the rest of the story all depends upon this fact. In his very first paragraph, Athanasius writes, "We will begin then with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning²²." This demonstrates two things about the structure of Athanasius' Christology. The first is that Athanasius presents his Christology within orthodox language and beliefs. The second is that Athanasius understands this Christology in light of the received Christian metanarrative. In both these points, Athanasius demonstrates a notable lack of originality. This further supports the idea that Athanasius' Christology is a defense of something already established, rather than the presentation of something new.
In a similar manner Athanasius' First Discourse begins with a complaint against the Arian misappropriation of Christian language²³. In refuting such false teaching, Athanasius immediately turns to creation. The Arian idea that Athanasius takes issue with is the teaching that the Word had a temporal beginning, as a creation or emanation from the Father. Athanasius presents a hybrid argument that appeals to Scripture and creation. Creation is especially foundational to Athanasius' argument. If God in fact created all ex nihilo, and if the logos was God's creative agent, then both God and the logos must be external of time and space. How could the logos be God's creative agent outside of time and space and still be a created being? Athanasius accuses the Arians of holding these ideas in logical contradiction²⁴. In like manner, Athanasius argues that all things made were made by Christ (John 1:3), and therefore, the Word cannot be a made thing of the Father²⁵. Athanasius also appeals to John 17:5 to demonstrate that the Son shared in God's glory before the creation of the world²⁶. In his letter To the Bishops, as well, Athanasius presents the Word as God by right of his creative acts²⁷. Athanasius' tenacious consistency in returning to creation in order to define the logos demonstrates that his Christology was dependent upon a larger story for its meaning.
However, it is not merely to creation that Athanasius turns. He also presents arguments that presume the Christian teachings of heaven and angels²⁸. Likewise, Athanasius presents arguments against the Manicheans that appeal to the truth of the eschatological passages in Matthew and Thessalonians²⁹. In these examples, Athanasius is appealing to a Christian cosmology and eshatology. In all these arguments, Athanasius appeals to the orthodox Christian story of reality in order to refute false teaching. In this way, Athanasius establishes the eternality of the Son not by philosophical speculation, but by appealing to the metanarrative of which we are all part. It is only through a proper understanding of the Christian metanarrative that one can truly know the Word.
Creation alone, however, proved insufficient to demonstrate a complete Christology. The fall of man is also central to the Christian metanarrative, and is essential for Athanasius' arguments. Particularly in De Incarnatione, Athanasius appeals to the fall of man to explain the nature and reason of the incarnation. Athanasius uses broad language to describe the fall, contextualizing his argument in both Grecian philosophical inquiry³⁰ and Christian Scriptural authority^31,. Likewise, in his Contra Gentes Athanasius begins by presuming the Christian doctrine of a perfect creation and subsequent fall of man³². In Contra Gentes, it is only by understanding this presupposition that a proper understanding of evil can be grasped³³. From this presupposition, Athanasius goes on to demonstrate that idolatry is nothing more than a perversion of the worship of the true God, which man originally enjoyed. In De Incarnatione, Athanasius asks, "why are we discussing the origin of men, when we set out to talk about the Word's becoming man³⁴?" Athanasius answers his own question by stating that the fall of man is the very reason the Word became flesh. So important is human depravity to understanding the incarnation, in fact, that Athanasius describes man's plight in lurid terms in paragraph five. Not only was man corruptible, and in a state of constant death, but man also rejected God to the point of inventing new sins - adultery, theft, murder, and rape covered the earth, and man went to war with man, killing and being killed, so that in the end man had entirely perverted God's good creation³⁵. Man had lost God.
In Contra Gentes Athanasius also clearly defines the hopeless depravity of man and its origin in the fall³⁶. It is from the fall that Athanasius derives the sin of idolatry in all its forms, from the worship of the heavenly bodies, to the elements, to earthly objects and animals, to personified lusts, to men, and even emperors³⁷. In so doing, Athanasius is intentionally demonstrating that over time man has sunk farther into the sin of idolatry, moving ever away from the worship of God, and closer to the worship of man.
The only solution in Athanasius is for the Word to become man and to take the penalty, and impart life³⁸. It is necessary for God to save, but for man to take the penalty for sin, thus the hypostatic union. This is a beautiful early penal substitutionary atonement theory, that clearly derives from Athanasius' metanarrative Christology. Athanasius makes a point of demonstrating how in his extended incarnation Christ visibly reconstructed the Christian story, and defamed the false metanarrative of the pagan³⁹.

The Word and Redemption
In addressing Jesus' death and resurrection, Athanasius spends less time on the passion of Christ than on its meaning in the larger context of the Christian story. "The supreme object of his coming," Athanasius writes, "Was to bring about the resurrection of the body⁴⁰." Athanasius goes on to argue that in resurrecting his own body, Christ demonstrated his power over death and corruption, thereby assuring all believers that they too will conquer corruption and death⁴¹. This understanding of Christ's death is intentionally correlated with the effects of Adam's fall. Jesus' death was not a new thing in the cosmos, but the continuation of a long played out drama. Athanasius presents multiple perspectives on the death of Christ, but he always ties them into a metanarrative that demands human redemption. Thus while elements of a ransom theory of atonement are presented, they are presented as perspectives on the greater theme of human depravity and Divine justice⁴². Christ became a curse, taking our curse of Genesis (Athanasius here models Paul's argument including the cursed death on a tree, and footnotes Galatians 3:13)⁴³. Jesus became a ransom for all, saving us from the power of depravity and the Devil (again Athanasius adopts Paul's arguments, and footnotes Eph. 2:14)⁴⁴. It should also be noted that Athanasius appeals to the writings of Paul to support his interpretation of Christ's sacrifice. This is important because even if Athanasius presents an orthodox metanarrative, that does not mean that he presents the logos in an orthodox way within that story. By demonstrating that his own Christology fulfills the demands of Paul's writings, Athanasius is communicating the thoroughgoing orthodoxy of his Christology.

The Word and Eschaton
For Athanasius, the death of Christ accomplished the negative portion of our redemption, in that it satisfied God's justice in fulfilling the righteous demand of capital punishment, and freed man from death⁴⁵. But the positive part of redemption - the granting of life and righteousness - are accomplished by Christ's resurrection⁴⁶. Athanasius ties this into both the beginning and ending of the Christian metanarrative. In the beginning, the resurrection of Christ restores the fortunes lost to man in Eden. In the end, the resurrection of Christ ensures our own bodily resurrection and participation in Paradise. This sort of return to Eden demonstrates that Athanasius' metanarrative was not open ended. This indicates that Athanasius did not understand his metanarrative as a human construct attempting to give meaning to God's ineffable works. Rather, Athanasius presents his metanarrative as the only true conception of reality. Athanasius also reminds his readers that in his second advent Christ will judge all according to their works, and grant eternal life to the good, and eternal damnation to the evil⁴⁷. It is only through familiarity with the metanarrative that these exhortations make sense. In another context they might communicate a very different gospel. Thus we see that for Athanasius, proper Christology is the root of proper living, and proper metanarrative is the root of proper Christology. It is not inappropriate, therefore, to conclude that for Athanasius, metanarrative theology is the root of all Christianity.

The Structure of Athanasius' Christology
There is a noticeable consistency in the structure of Athanasius' arguments. Despite vastly disparate contexts and audiences, Athanasius always explains his Christology in light of the Christian metanarrative. His appeals also typically follow a diachronic sequence, especially in De Incarnatione. Athanasius does not introduce new language or ideas, and intentionally appeals to orthodox language and sources. In these two things, language choice and metanarrative, Athanasius demonstrates that he considers his Christology to be orthodox.
Athanasius also presents his metanarrative as the only true conception of reality. He intentionally compares his metanarrative to pagan myth in order to prove the superiority of the Christian story. Further, he structures his argument is such a way as to exclude any who would contradict his metanarrative. Like the sword of Damocles, it hangs over all Christologies, threatening to cut off those who err. By constructing his Christology in such a way, Athanasius is presenting his Christology as unique.
These two valuations demonstrate the structure of Athanasius' Christology. For Athanasius and his followers, Nicene Christology was both orthodox and unique.

Conclusion
Having established such, it should be asked how such a Christological model impacts the current debate on the formation of early Christology. Athanasius was the champion of the Nicene Christology. An examination of the structure of Athanasius' arguments should render some insight as to how he understood the development of Nicene Christology. Three aspects of Athanasius' Christology are relevant to the discussion of Christological formulation. First, Athanasius uses language that had already been established in the Christological discussions. This implies that Athanasius was either presenting received materials, or reinterpreting received language. Second, Athanasius interprets his use of unoriginal language with unoriginal Christian metanarrative. In using an established, orthodox Christian metanarrative, Athanasius demonstrates that he is not reinterpreting received Christological language. Third, in tying together the threads of Christological language, New Testament writings, and intra-testamental metanarrative, Athanasius demonstrates that a proper Christology is an unalterable part of the fabric of Christian religion.
What does this mean for the current reconstruction of early Christological development? In the first place, it demonstrates that the adherents to the Nicene Christology considered their Christology to be neither new nor optional. Conspiracy theorists take note - even if Nicene Christology was enforced through political leverage and sociological oppression, those who held to the faith considered it to be the only true and orthodox Christology. Those who are not Christian should at least construct their histories in a way that takes this into account. For Christians, however, the conclusions of this paper are more poignant. Athanasius has so knit his Christology together, that it is inseparable from the Christian metanarrative. If we choose to reject Athanasius' Christology, we must come to reckon with his accusation - that we have rejected the whole Christian story, and are guilty of another faith.


1. This discussion has moved beyond the predictable circle of secularists to include some within the umbrella of evangelicalism. Compare Veli-Matti Karkkainen, "Christology: a Global Introduction" Baker Academic, 2003. pp61-101., Hans Schwarz, "Christology", Eerdman's 1998, pp42-49, Albert Schweitzer, W. Montgomery, and F. C. Burkitt, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" Dover Publications, 2005, pp264-313, Mark S.G. Nestlehutt; "Chalcedonian Christology: Modern Criticism and Contemporary Ecumenism" Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 35, 1998., J. Denny Weaver; "A Footnote on Jesus", Cross Currents, Vol. 56, Winter 2007. Richard Sturch, "The Word and The Christ, an essay in analytic Christology", Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, pp 17-55.

2. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: Harper One, 2007), 151-205.

3. Cf. Ehrman, 151. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (New York: Harper One, 1998), 22-26.

4. Tim Dowley, ed., Eerdman's handbook to the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1977), 136.

5. Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 1984), 173.

6. Dr. Nick Needham, "Athanasius and the Deity of Christ, Lecture 1," speech delivered to Highland Theological College, Athanasius and the Deity of Christ, Highland Theological College, Dingwall, Scotland, Real Audio File http://www.wicketgate.org/athanasius/athanasius_1.html. (accessed November 10, 2009).

7. Kenneth Latourette, History of Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 1997), 120.

8. David R. Kimberly, "First Timothy 2:15 - A Possible Understanding of a Difficult Text," Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (Dec 1992): 481-486. F.F. Bruce. "The Colossian Heresy." Bibliotheca Sacra 141, no. 563 (Jul-Sep 1984): 195-208.

9. Eerdman's 102.

10. Gonzalez, 60-66.

11. Latourette, 141.

12. Gerry Breshears, "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 1 (March 1994): 5.

13. Needham, Lecture 1.

14. Eerdman's, 104.

15. Gonzalez, 161.

16. Needham, Lecture 1.

17. Athanasius also wrote four discourses against the Arians, several circular letters against Arianism, a defense of the Nicene Council, an Arian history, and numerous personal letters in which Arian ideas were condemned.

18. Although Athanasius retained Platonic elements in his argumentative structure, he clearly rejects the "sanctified Platonism" of Origen.

19. Athanasius contends that it is unbelief that the Jews misunderstand the Old Testament to fit their own ends. Athanasius of Alexandria, "Four Discourses", Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, ed. Phillip Schaff and Henry Wace, Athanasius - Selected Works and Letters (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 310.

20. It should be noted here that metanarrative theology does not seem to be unique to Athanasius. John Dominic Crossan has indicated that the Hebrew religion was essentially a metanarrative with implications for community faith. In Crossan's discussion of Hebrew theological model he writes, "Divine righteousness, social justice, and ritual purity are interwoven in Jewish tradition like three strands of one and the same rope." So the concept of a metanarrative theology, rather than being new, seems to be the received Christian heritage. Crossan, 182.

21. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1944), 25.

22. Ibid., 26.

23. Four Discourses, Selected Works, 308-309.

24. Contra Gentes, Selected Works, 20.

25. Four Discourses, Selected Works 326. This argument is embedded in a larger discourse against the Arian practice of calling God "Unoriginate", rather than "Father". Athanasius points out that the name Father only has meaning in relation to the Son, and therefore to change the name of God is actually an attack upon the Son.

26. Ibid., 328.

27. To the Bishops, Selected Works, 230.

28. First Discourse, Selected Works, 331.

29. Ibid. 337-338.

30. In paragraph two, Athanasius puts forward some Grecian theories of origin, and again in paragraph two confutes them, using a combination of philosophy of the mind and observation of human nature. De Incarnatione, Page28.

31. These must be referred to as Christian Scripture, for it is obvious that Athanasius is understanding even the Old Testament passages in light of the Christian metanarrative which he is propounding.

32. Contra Gentes, Selected Works, 4-7.

33. De Incarnatione, 18.

34. Ibid., 29.

35. Ibid., 31.

36. Contra Gentes, Selected Works, 5. Athanasius intentionally refutes the dualistic idea that evil and good are both eternal and necessary parts of the universe.

37. Ibid., 6.

38. Ibid., 34.

39. Ibid.

40. De Incarnatione, 52.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid., 49.

43. Ibid., 55.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid., 57. Athanasius offers a unique and compelling existential argument for the defeat of death at the cross, in that all who come to Christ so despise death that they are willing - even eager - to give their lives in martyrdom. So by observation Athanasius concludes that the power of death has truly been broken for these believers. Athanasius certainly lived this fearlessness out, but died peacefully in his own bed at a ripe old age.

46. Ibid., 62.

47. Ibid., 95.