One of the courses I am taking this fall is a history of the ancient church, and as part of the assignments for that class I am required to read a good number of pages from a lengthy list of books. One of the books I chose to read is entitled, Johannine Christology and the Early Church, by T.E. Pollard. I realize that unless you are interested in theology that probably sounds like a dreadfully boring book. However, the title alone intrigued me, and having just read the first paragraph I am even more eager to get into it:

At the turn of the [twentieth] century, F.C. Conybeare, in a review of Alfred Loisy's Le quatrième évangile, wrote: 'If Athanasius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, Arius would never have been confuted.' That is however only part of the truth, for it would also be true to say that if Arius had not had the Fourth Gospel to draw texts from, he would not have needed confuting. Without in any way diminishing the importance of other biblical writings in the development of the church's doctrine, it is St. John's Gospel--and the First Epistle of St. John--that brings into sharpest focus the problems which created doctrinal controversy in the early church and which indeed still perplex the church today.

The emphasis of the Christology of the Gospel of John is markedly different than the emphases of the other three Gospels, and I have been aware for some time how influential it was on the theology of the early Church, although not altogether aware of the nuances of that influence. If you have not studied or read about it before, it is important to note that the theological debates over the person of Jesus Christ in the third and fourth centuries were incredibly intense, and the formulations they arrived at play a crucial role in how we understand Christology today. I am looking forward to the opportunity to explore it.