Dubs Gregory...this one is from Nazianzus
In the 4th century, there was a fine line between orthodoxy and heresy. Consequently, what seem like trivial quarrels over semantics like “begetting” or “proceeding” were of the utmost importance. Choosing the wrong vocabulary or making a variant distinction between the substance of Father and Son could easily land a theologian among the heretics. Because of this, those struggling for the side of orthodoxy took great pains to define who the true theologian was, as well as what salvation meant in light of the nature of the Trinity. This meticulous defining of the faith is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Gregory of Nazianzus’ Theological Orations. Among the central subjects of the treatise are an introduction to the theological task (oration I), questions on the nature of God the Father (II), the Son (III, IV), and the Spirit (V). For the purposes of this blog I will deal primarily with the question of what it means to be a true theologian for Gregory as well as Gregory’s understanding of salvation.
In our individualistic, North American context, we often conceive of the theologian as being anyone who is able to think or muse about God. Amateur philosophers and pop-theologians abound in today’s culture. Yet for Gregory, the business of God was not a profession so easily entered in to. Says Gregory, “Not to everyone, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to everyone—the subject is not so cheap and low—and, I will add, not before every audience; nor at all times; nor on all points; but on certain occasions; and before certain persons; and within certain limits.[1] It is clear that the theological task is not something to be taken lightly; a theologian was to meet certain criteria to be considered legitimate. In an age when the still nascent Christian church was struggling to define its doctrinal identity in times of philosophical turbulence, it seems that, for Gregory, an attitude of worship was the defining characteristic of a true theologian. Gregory contends that the theologian must be holy and pious, as opposed to heretics who “worship the passions.” Every theological endeavor must be tempered with an attitude of humility and constant reliance on God: “For we ought to think of God as often as we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to do nothing else.”[2] Here is an important point for theology that we must take from Gregory: a heretic is not only defined by variant doctrinal assumptions or skewed theological perspectives; a heretic also runs astray by ignoring the obvious moral, ethical, and most importantly ecclesial implications that theology must have on its practitioner. In many senses, a worshipful disposition is equally important as an accurate theology. Worship and theology simply cannot be divorced, neither in the Church nor in the personal life of the aspiring theologian.
Thus the theologian must take a devotional approach to theology. So, when Gregory tackles the question of salvation, he is not only thinking of the atoning life and death of Christ as some sterile, abstract sense. The Son whom is worshiped is the same Son who is begotten of the father, puts on flesh, and redeems a fallen humanity. But how does this occur for Gregory? As was true of Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of the atonement often, but rarely refers to the cross or the Resurrection. This tendency is a bit puzzling to the minds of the Western tradition. However, we must understand that the East more generally and the Cappadocian fathers more specifically take a more holistic perspective on salvation. For Gregory, the Incarnation is in itself salvific. Traces of theosis and the influence of fathers such as Athanasius are obvious in statements like, “…I might be made God so far as he was made man.”[3] Gregory seems to imply that, in his union with flesh, Christ redeems the physical world through his life, though there is no doubt that a spiritual reconciliation is achieved through his death and Resurrection. Gregory draws an example from Christ’s baptism: “He was baptized as man—but he remitted sins as God—not because he needs purificatory rites himself, but that he might sanctify the element of water.”[4] The same is true of Jesus’ assumption of flesh. By uniting himself to the flesh, Christ recapitulates it and in doing so, dissolves the sinful nature, thereby allowing humanity the ability to be reunited to God through the process of deification. For this reason, it is necessary that Gregory maintain that Christ did indeed inherit the sinful nature, so as to be like humanity in every way.[5] Thus, for redemption to occur, Christ must unite himself to us, hence the need for Incarnation. In this sense, Gregory seems to maintain a salvation by contact; that which is not touched, it appears, cannot be redeemed.
[1] Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations I in Christology of the Later Fathers edited by Edward R. Hardy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 129.
[2] Ibid 130.
[3] Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations III, 173.
[4] Ibid, 174.
[5] Gregory of Nazianzus, “Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy,” in Christology of the Later Fathers, edited by Edward R. Hardy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 217.
In our individualistic, North American context, we often conceive of the theologian as being anyone who is able to think or muse about God. Amateur philosophers and pop-theologians abound in today’s culture. Yet for Gregory, the business of God was not a profession so easily entered in to. Says Gregory, “Not to everyone, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to everyone—the subject is not so cheap and low—and, I will add, not before every audience; nor at all times; nor on all points; but on certain occasions; and before certain persons; and within certain limits.[1] It is clear that the theological task is not something to be taken lightly; a theologian was to meet certain criteria to be considered legitimate. In an age when the still nascent Christian church was struggling to define its doctrinal identity in times of philosophical turbulence, it seems that, for Gregory, an attitude of worship was the defining characteristic of a true theologian. Gregory contends that the theologian must be holy and pious, as opposed to heretics who “worship the passions.” Every theological endeavor must be tempered with an attitude of humility and constant reliance on God: “For we ought to think of God as often as we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to do nothing else.”[2] Here is an important point for theology that we must take from Gregory: a heretic is not only defined by variant doctrinal assumptions or skewed theological perspectives; a heretic also runs astray by ignoring the obvious moral, ethical, and most importantly ecclesial implications that theology must have on its practitioner. In many senses, a worshipful disposition is equally important as an accurate theology. Worship and theology simply cannot be divorced, neither in the Church nor in the personal life of the aspiring theologian.
Thus the theologian must take a devotional approach to theology. So, when Gregory tackles the question of salvation, he is not only thinking of the atoning life and death of Christ as some sterile, abstract sense. The Son whom is worshiped is the same Son who is begotten of the father, puts on flesh, and redeems a fallen humanity. But how does this occur for Gregory? As was true of Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of the atonement often, but rarely refers to the cross or the Resurrection. This tendency is a bit puzzling to the minds of the Western tradition. However, we must understand that the East more generally and the Cappadocian fathers more specifically take a more holistic perspective on salvation. For Gregory, the Incarnation is in itself salvific. Traces of theosis and the influence of fathers such as Athanasius are obvious in statements like, “…I might be made God so far as he was made man.”[3] Gregory seems to imply that, in his union with flesh, Christ redeems the physical world through his life, though there is no doubt that a spiritual reconciliation is achieved through his death and Resurrection. Gregory draws an example from Christ’s baptism: “He was baptized as man—but he remitted sins as God—not because he needs purificatory rites himself, but that he might sanctify the element of water.”[4] The same is true of Jesus’ assumption of flesh. By uniting himself to the flesh, Christ recapitulates it and in doing so, dissolves the sinful nature, thereby allowing humanity the ability to be reunited to God through the process of deification. For this reason, it is necessary that Gregory maintain that Christ did indeed inherit the sinful nature, so as to be like humanity in every way.[5] Thus, for redemption to occur, Christ must unite himself to us, hence the need for Incarnation. In this sense, Gregory seems to maintain a salvation by contact; that which is not touched, it appears, cannot be redeemed.
[1] Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations I in Christology of the Later Fathers edited by Edward R. Hardy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 129.
[2] Ibid 130.
[3] Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations III, 173.
[4] Ibid, 174.
[5] Gregory of Nazianzus, “Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy,” in Christology of the Later Fathers, edited by Edward R. Hardy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), 217.
posted by ryan tafilowski at 9:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home