Chalcedon: the paradox of incarnation

Incarnation is a very theologically loaded term, but it is were a theology centered on Jesus Christ must begin. It is a term with cosmological and metaphysical significance. It involves our entire conception of the universe and how it is put together. The short answer is that we cannot possibly know everything about everything and that how God can come to us in material form, let alone as a human being, is a complete mystery. Some of the fiercest debate in human history revolved around precisely how to deal with this mystery. The church's official position was finally worked out in 451 CE at the Council of Chalcedon. The basic gist of it is that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son, who was generated from (begotten of, not created by) God before the first moment of creation and of the same substance as God, was born of the Virgin Mary taking on human form, existing in two distinct, but undivided, unchanged, and inseparable natures (both fully human and fully divine).

I do not believe that eternal salvation rides on being able to fully understand and accept the Chalcedonian formulation. Most people have probably never even heard of it, unless they went to a parochial secondary school, took a college level course in the ancient world or early church history, or had a pastor with a passion for preaching orthodox or neo-orthodox theology. However, I do find that I have some neo-orthodox Reformed leanings and generally adhere to the Chalcedonian confession of who Jesus Christ is. I realize that this is a pretty big theological assumption to start with, but my personal faith convictions are such that I could not start anywhere else.

What makes Chalcedon so important is that it shows an ability early on within Christian theology to hold and maintain paradox. In a worldview strongly influenced by Platonic dualism, such a combination of divinity and humanity would be the ultimate paradox. It cannot be said with any confidence how the ancient mind really worked. Perhaps it was much better at handling paradox than the modern mind, but it is extraordinary that this council of bishops in 451 formulated such a meaningful way to understand the paradox of incarnation. There was, and continues to be, some disagreement. However, critical thinking and debate on this point of theology can be very fruitful. Chalcedon does not need to be dogmatically guarded from all heresy in order to be meaningful and foundational for one's particular Christian theology.