Frumentius (a Christian) was, along with his brother, taken captive at a young age, and presented as spoils to an Ethiopian king and his family. Like Joseph (from the biblical book of Genesis), Frumentius grew to gain the respect and trust of the king and the king’s family, and soon was put in charge of many important ministerial matters. His popularity with the ruling family continued even after the king died (at which point Frumentius was officially granted his freedom), though Frumentius decided to use his freedom to instead return to his homeland where he could once again devote himself to his Christian practice.

As these things tend to go, the Church in Rome was at that time wanting to spread Christianity deeper into Africa, and selected Frumentius to return south and be its bishop in Ethiopia. So back he went and did all within his power to expand and consolidate the Christian faith in that land. Frumentius was successful enough to be credited with eventual sainthood.

But those darned Ethiopians–sure, they found value in Christianity, but they just didn’t embrace Roman orthodoxy enough. They didn’t turn themselves into Rome-centric Christians. They fell prey to the dread Eutychian heresy, or, in other words, the Ethiopians simply did not view Christianity the way the hierarchy in Rome did, and chose not to hold the same beliefs “just because.” And how dare these Ethiopians find themselves resisting Euro-Centric beliefs!

Now, as for the specifics of this Eutychian heresy? Well, their non-orthodox belief is that Jesus was not possessed of two natures in one body (fully human and fully divine, in one person) but that Jesus had one nature–a mash-up of human and divine–in one body. Say what? Yes, yes, it all sounds the same. The distinction is this: the orthodox view is that Jesus went through everything and felt everything that any human could (including temptations) because he possessed a distinct, fully human nature; thus God as well underwent this fully human experience. The Eutychians, on the other hand, regarded Jesus as possessing a single and admittedly unique nature (that mash-up), and the key to doing all he did while in human form (from miracle-performing and exorcisms through resurrection) was precisely because of the god-nature mixed within him.

And…?

Perhaps one way to get to the distinction between these two views is to ask which is more important to you: a savior who knows what’s it’s like to be you and can offer you a way to live and prevail because he’s [sic] been there, or a savior who’s NOT IN YOUR SAME BOAT (thank goodness) but who actually is better, more powerful, and best able to deliver you from all that assails you and your people?

Is it possible that the answer might just possibly have had something to do with whether you are European or African? Does context perhaps matter?