On Nestorius
When considering controversies
in Christian history, one that may stand out against the multitudes as more
poorly handled than most is the Nestorian controversy. The storm surrounding
the teachings and espousals of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople from 428 to
431 A.D., was a cloud of miscommunication and hidden agendas. We see clearly in
the story of this theologian, deemed heretic, a marked turn from early
Christendom in which the meek and marginalized were striving for
Christ-likeness and towards a more imperial approach in which rival centers of
Christian thought in Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople were vying
for political influence. It is in this context that Nestorius becomes the hub
of a Christological conundrum[1].
Nestorius’
Dangerous Ideas
While Nestorius’ most controversial teachings center on
the nature or natures of Christ, the phrase that set fire to the prepared pier
of tension between the Alexandrian and Constantinople sees was theotokos, or God-bearer. It was the title
that had been utilized in the western church for Mary, mother of Jesus. For Nestorius,
this phrase loomed too closely to making God out to be a lesser being than
orthodox Christianity taught and, zealous as he was against heresies, he honored
his nickname, “Firebrand” by taking up theological arms brazenly[2].
The most distinctive characteristic of Nestorius’
Christology is his emphasis on the distinct qualities of Christ’s nature or
person. While he utilizes different language than what had been decided upon at
the first ecumenical council, his intention was never to make Jesus out to have
two different natures; only two distinct natures. One particularly problematic issue
with this highlighting was that it was incredibly difficult for Nestorius to
explain exactly what he meant. This was due to his having to explain his
terminology along with his belief and this did not bode well with those who
were comfortable with the earlier established linguistics. Another concern of
his opponents lay within the idea that Christ could not reconcile to God what
he did not take on and so if he was not truly human in the fullest sense, he
could not truly restore humanity. This, in hindsight, was not what Nestorius
was saying, but the aforementioned breakdown of communication inhibited the
circumvention of controversy on this point. So, his accusers claimed that he
essentially did not affirm a real incarnation. Thus, we see the early church
divided, not over beliefs, but mere linguistics and pride[3].
Nestorius’
Interlocutor
Now, we turn our focus to the man who became the main
opponent of this Bishop from Antioch: Cyril of Alexandria. In order to truly
understand why Nestorius ended up classified as a heretic and Cyril is
memorialized as a church father, we must give a look at both men together. This
is because many of their actions and the decisions they made were all in the
context of striving for a greater influence in the wider church and in
asserting themselves as the greater theologian and authority. Also, it has been
noted by several historians that both bishops were similar enough in
temperament that they likely would have had difficulty getting along regardless
of linguistics and theologies.
Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria from 412 to 444 A.D., was a
self-proclaimed peace-lover regardless of the ruthlessness with which he took
on Nestorius. As far as we can ascertain from his own writings, he sincerely
believed that he was protecting not only orthodoxy but the church itself by
wrestling through this Christological controversy. Herein lays some irony as
both men claimed in their respective writings to be willing to lay down their
life for truth and orthodoxy. Truly, it was Nestorius’ innovative streak that
offended Cyril; new language in Christology debates meant new problems and it
seemed unwarranted and dangerous to the Alexandrian[4].
It is commonly agreed on that Nestorius’ greatest
downfall was his over-estimation of his ability to explain himself and thus
maintain pull in political circles. Couple this with his abrasive and somewhat
cold personality and he is left with many personal hurdles to overcome in order
to get his ideas heard. It was this tendency toward hard and fast statements
that led him to refute the title theotokos
in the first place, thus opening himself up to misunderstanding and
misconstruction. In all fairness, he did not simply say that this title was
inappropriate, but offered a couple of viable alternatives. His first, Christotokos seemed acceptable as he
felt it was more specific to the event; namely the birth of Christ. The second,
anthropotokos was even less well
received than his first suggestion, but seemed right to him as it was the man
himself whom Mary bore and not the metaphysical God in his divine essence[5].
Tragically for Nestorius, he gained almost no stage to defend himself.
Questionable
Proceedings
True to form, it was Nestorius’ idea to have a sit-down
with Cyril and other leaders in order to hash out the details of their
respective Christologies[6].
What he failed to realize was the political wit of his opponent. Prior to the
meeting of the council, Cyril sent a packet of Nestorius’ teachings to Roman
Pope, Celestine I (422-432) for consideration[7].
As a result, the council was moved from Nestorius’ region in Constantinople,
where he would have found some support by mere association to Ephesus, the
legendary retirement place of Mary, mother of Jesus. One can see how this was
not going to go well for the one who seemed to hold a low view of the virgin
mother[8].
After receiving the packet, Celestine I, assuming he was
being asked for a ruling and not merely his opinion, enlisted the help of John
Cassian who was also a supporter of Cyril. Clearly at a disadvantage, the council
convened under Emperor Theodosius II in Ephesus. Unfortunately, Nestorius’
supporters were slow coming and after tarrying for a few weeks, the council
proceeded despite objections from many attendants. Not surprisingly, Nestorius
was deemed wrong and, almost as if to add insult to injury, Cyril was charged
with the task of carrying out the excommunication orders. When the Nestorian
proponents finally arrived and discovered the ruling, they assembled their own
council and deemed it the true gathering, the outcome of which was the
excommunication of Cyril. Nearly as quickly, Cyril and his supporters met again
and condemned the participants of the pro-Nestorius council and reaffirmed
their initial ruling. Embarrassed, Theodosius II had both Cyril and Nestorius
arrested and ordered to reconcile[9].
Once again, Cyril proved himself the more cunning of the two and Nestorius was
indeed condemned to exile in 430 A.D. and officially banished in 431 A.D.[10]
Reflections
on Nestorius
From his exile, Nestorius wrote a thorough espousal of
his beliefs entitled Proceedings of
Heracleides by which he clarified some of the ways that his opponents
committed themselves to destroy him by way of an elaborate straw-man fallacy[11].
Still, he was never again influential in Christian circles.
So what can be said of this once prominent church leader
who ended alone in exile? Mostly that it is a terrible thing when theology is
utilized to realize political endeavors. Also that what is at one time deemed
heresy may resurface again in the mouths of those who may advocate the view
with more clarity as can be seen in the Protestant aversion to referring to
Mary as the theotokos. In all things,
this is a story which contemporary Christians must look at in all its bareness;
though there was theological progress made it was at the expense of community
between Christians. Let the future church be diligent against such tragedy.
References
Ferguson, E., Woodbridge, J. D., &
James, F. A. (2005). IV. The Second Phase, 381-433: Nestorianism. In Church
history (pp. 258-261). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
González, J. L. (1987). The Nestorian Controversy
and the Council of Ephesus. In From the beginnings to the Council of
Chalcedon (pp. 353-367). Nashville: Abingdon Pr.
Hall, C. A. (2002). Christ Divine and
Human. In Learning theology with the church fathers (pp. 83-90). Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Hart, D. B. (2007). The Formation of
Orthodox Christology: The 'Mother of God' In The story of Christianity: An
illustrated history of 2000 years of the Christian faith (pp. 94-96).
London: Quercus.
Hurley, P. J. (2012). Informal Fallacies:
3.2 Fallacies of Relevance. In A concise introduction to logic: Using
traditional logic (pp. 89-90). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Litfin, B. M. (2007). Cyril of Alexandria.
In Getting to know the church fathers: An evangelical introduction (pp.
239-258). Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
Sheppard, J. (2005). At the Crossroads:
Midieval Contributions. In Christendom at the crossroads: The medieval era
(pp. 5-6). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
[2]
(Hall, 2002, pp.
83-90)
[3]
(Hart, 2007, pp.
94-96)
[4]
(Hall, 2002, pp.
83-90)
[5]
(Hall, 2002, pp.
83-90)
[6]
(Litfin, 2007,
pp. 239-258)
[7]
(Sheppard, 2005,
pp. 5-6)
[8]
(Litfin, 2007,
pp. 239-258)
[9]
(Sheppard, 2005,
pp. 5-6)
[10]
(Ferguson,
Woodbridge, & James, 2005, pp. 258-261)
[11]
(Hurley, 2012,
pp. 89-90)
Thanks for reading! Have you ever experienced such division in the church; that is, division over semantics and not beliefs? Do tell! Let's all resolve to prize community over being right.
Pax,
The Dread
No comments:
Post a Comment