Ezana gold coin with cross, 340-400 ca. Half-length bust of Ezanas, crowned, holding stick or scepter, flanked by two wheat-stalks, the whole in a beaded circle. Inscription in Greek, "King Ezanas." Ezana was Ethiopia's first king to embrace Christianity and make it the official religion.The reason this series on the history of Black Catholics in America has begun by focusing on the introduction of Christianity in Northern Africa during the first century, where the people were neither “Black” nor “Catholic” as we think of these terms today, is because it is important to understand that Christianity was not initially introduced to Africa under colonialism and slavery and that Northern Africa played a vital role in shaping the Catholic Church.  
Having focused on the culturally Greek cities of Alexandria and Carthage we now turn our attention to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is one of the oldest Christian denominations in the world, with origins dating back to the early 4th century. Christianity was introduced to Ethiopia during the reign of King Ezana of the Aksumite Empire. As I pointed out in the second installment in this series, although the larger-scale Christianization of Ethiopia did not occur until the 4th century according to Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, the country’s introduction to Christianity occurred much earlier. According to Orthodox tradition, the eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as having been baptized by Philip the Evangelist, returned to his homeland and began to spread Christian teachings in Ethiopia during the first century after the death of Jesus.
 
The Ethiopian Church and Roman Catholicism split following disputes about the nature of Christ during the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The Council of Chalcedon affirmed the doctrine of the two natures of Christ (divine and human) in one person, which was not accepted by several Eastern Christian communities, including those in Egypt, Syria, and Ethiopia. These communities adhered to Miaphysitism, which emphasizes the single (united) nature of Christ.
 
I’m not sure this is a fair criticism, but as a Roman Catholic priest, my concern with Miaphysitism would be that it might lead to a tendency to downplay or compromise the humanity of Christ, allowing it to be overshadowed by his divinity. This might make it harder for us to see ourselves in Christ and Christ in us. It might be harder for us to enter into the narration and drama of salvation history.
 
The Miaphysite might respond to that criticism saying that our Chalcedonian emphasis on two natures in one person undermines the holistic approach characteristic of Christian mysticism. They might say we are too technical and analytical, thereby undermining the basis for moving beyond the narrative and entering into the mystery.
 
What do you think? Consider the role of narrative in understanding Christ's life and teachings. How might focusing on the distinct natures (as per Chalcedon) versus a united nature (as per Miaphysitism) affect our interpretation of the Gospel stories and the lessons we draw from them?