The Shape of Christology - John McIntyre

Having ploughed my way two-thirds of the way through this book over the weekend, I feel as though I should post some of my thoughts to correlate and review:

Having read McIntyre's other book in this vein (The Shape of Soteriology) and having found it interesting, I decided to read this book as part of my revision regarding Christology. I've enjoyed it.

The book is structured in this way

1 - The idea of Shape in Christology - comprised of three aspects: given, model, method.

a. given - how the given (starting point) is different throughout the Christological discipline and how the given relates to the model.

b. method - method is treated secondly as the method of responding to the given results in the model used.

c. models - how does this all fit together and what are right and wrong ways of formulating models.

2 - Popular models effective in current Christology - three: two-nature, psychological and revelation.

a. two-nature - McIntyre begins by looking at the Aristotelian foundations of the two nature model and seeks to show how this functions throughout the classical formulations and heresies. In his critique he seeks to reschematise the idea of the nature of the humanity and the nature of the divinity.

b. psychological - in critiquing the idea of the nature of humanity in Christ, McIntyre views the Barthian view of humanity against the idea of humanity as portrayed by John-Paul Satre. Opting for the latter, he builds a picture of the humanity of Christ based upon "situational deployment" - based upon the decisions Christ makes as a man. It is from here that he approaches the humanity of Christ in his modern approach to the two-nature model.

c. revelation - in response to this with respect to the divine nature of Christ, McIntyre proposes to view this through the eyes of the revelation model of Christology. McIntyre argues that the renewed interest in the doctrine of revelation has shifted the focus from the thing revealed (God) to the doctrine itself. The divine nature is deployed in terms of "life lived and death died". Thus, McIntyre seeks to explore the model of revelation so as to more fully understand the divine nature of Christ.

Having only read up to the chapter on the Psychological model, I want to put down a few thoughts on his chapter on the two-nature model.

Aristotelian Universals
McIntyre begins by looking at Aristotelian metaphysics and the ontological distinction between prote ousia and deutero ousia. Effectively he results in formulating the Aristotelian ontological form - no physis anhypostatos. From this basis, he argues that he can plot the majority of the classical Christological development. Thus, because of this formula, no physis anhypostatos, Nestorius must question how there can only be one hypostasis and result in stating that there must be two hypostasis (cf. below for my views on the Nestorian controversy). However, this was not a one-way thing because at the opposite extreme we have Eutyches arguing that there were only two natures before the union not after. Again, this is based on the idea that no physis anhypostatos. Thus, we see Eutyches and Nestorius seeking to correct Christology against Aristotelian views on reality.

McIntyre then goes on to view this idea of no physis anhypostatos against the Chalcedonian definition. According to McIntyre, the definition is often read in an "impersonal" way. This is because it affirms that there are two physes but only one hypostasis. How then do we view the physis of the human against the claim no physis anhypostatos?

There are two answers: Leontius of Byzantium and Ephraim of Antioch.

Leontius formulates the idea of enhypostasia - the idea that the human physis finds its hypostasis in the hypostasis of the divine Logos. McIntyre labels some criticisms of this idea before going on to look at Barth's appropriation of enhypostasia. His main problem with this is that Barth favours the idea of the humanum being united with hypostasis of the Logos rather than a homo, an individual man. This is obviously due to his view that man is completely separate from God and he wants to avoid the idea that man is "coredemptive" with God. However, it seems to lose the idea of Jesus being an actual man. (McIntyre: "Barth, I should say, is right in insisting upon the fact that Jesus Christ the humanum exists in the form of an actual man (though how, having said so, he can still believe in Jesus it was not a homo, i.e. a particular man, but humanitas that was united with united with the Logos, is difficult to understand). McIntyre much prefers the idea of Ephraim of Antioch who argues for a confusion of hypostates rather than of physes. Thus you remove the problems avoided by previous christologies but you also remove the idea of an "impersonal" God.

McIntyre ends the chapter in two ways. Asking whether we should abandon the Christologies based upon this often-argued "defunct" ontology. He argues two things: firstly, although post-Kierkegaard we reject the idea of Aristotelian metaphysics, on a practical level, we often talk in a way which suggests we do. Secondly, we can still utilise the models without having to hold on to this outlook on reality. (here I feel he is a little convoluted).

In closing, he says that the two-nature model is useful but only so far as we reschematise the idea of the divine and human natures in Christ. He borrows a lot from Satre here and so looks at a much more existential portrayal of the human nature. I'm interested to see where he goes from here.

Criticisms so far:

1 - McIntyre wants to keep everything. Which is nice. But I think nigh on impossible. He tries to argue that you can hold to many different views of Christology in one all-encompassing view but to me it seems idealistic and also reductionistic in places.

2 - He seems very reliant upon philosophy be it classical or existential and so be aware that some passages are very dense and he doesn't explain much of the philosophy as he goes along.

3 - Very dated. Delivered as a series of lectures in 1965 so bears the inevitable marks of mid-20th C theology/philosophy.

But other than that, thought provoking