Some of what I’ve been writing today as I start two chapters on essential beliefs about Jesus. This is part of a section on the incarnation:
The incarnation may be the greatest stumbling block that Christianity places in the road of faith, but that stumbling block is the cornerstone of everything Christians believe about Jesus.
What does the incarnation mean for all of us? The incarnation means that God has personally crossed the unimaginable gap between himself and every human being, becoming one of us, and making it possible for every person to know God by way of the path of being human. In Jesus, God comes to us as one of us, speaks to us in human language, relates to us and draws us into relationship with himself without requiring us to be anything other than what we are: creatures of flesh and blood, human beings to whom God is a mystery and the curtain beyond our limitations is impenetrable in our experience. In Jesus, God comes to us, in life, through death, beyond the curtain and in simple words and signs.
The incarnation is the complete refutation of every human system and institution that claims to control, possess and distribute God. Whatever any church or religious leader may claim in regard to their particular access to God or control over my experience of God, the incarnation is the last word: God loves the world. God has come into the world in the form of those of us who bear God’s fingerprints and live in God’s world. God has come to all of us in Jesus. The incarnation is not owned, controlled or distributed by a church. It belongs to every human being. In Jesus, God comes to every one of us with no one else and nothing else in between. The incarnation is not being sold or downloaded. It is a gracious gift to every person everywhere, religious or not.
To make the obvious point, I don’t think think those who affirm the real presence in the Eucharist are trying to control the incarnation. But it is a danger. In my tradition, the implications of the incarnation are seldom considered, and preachers act as if they are “connecting” people to God via sermons, services, music, etc. Our denomination actually suggested that churches use this motto one year: “First Baptist Church: Connecting People to God.”
I’m deeply distressed by that mentality in general, no matter what the specifics happen to be. I hope that the incarnation gives to all of us a sacramental view of reality, no matter what our view of the specific sacraments of the church happen to be. Jesus comes to every person and for every person in the incarnation. This is a truth that is not mediated by the church. It is proclaimed and offered, but not ever controlled.
The Internet Monk Archives 
I used to get in trouble for saying “The Incarnation means God Almighty having to squat down and take a crap behind the bushes alongside a dirt road in Galilee.”
Occasionally I’d get complete agreement instead of Flesh-to-Pile-of-Rocks, but nothing in between.
LikeLike
sue kephart:
You understanding is correct, the Immaculate Conception is God’s special gift of Grace preserving Mary free of Original Sin, so as the a pure ark of the new covenant.
LikeLike
My understanding is the Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary, Mother of God, (Jesus) as born without sin. I also don’t think any Protestant denoms except this as truth.
LikeLike
Jay and others:
Not to be the Catholic Theology police, but Immaculate Conception does not refer to Christ’s conception through the Holy Spirt. Christ’s conception is referred to as the “Virgin Birth” and is expressed in the Apostles Creed as “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary” and in the Nicene Creed as “For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.”
These Creedal statements are defining the Faith expressed in the St. Luke’s Gospel (Lk 1:26-38) and St. Matthew’s (Mt 1:23) where he cited the prophecy from Isiah 7:14 [cites from the Septuaigiant LXX version] which read “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
pax et bonum
LikeLike
Mike L. (are you aka “Progressive Faith”?),
Does the New Testament present the incarnation as the kind of metaphor that you have described? Please show me clear evidence that it does.
Has the church ever believed that the incarnation is the kind of metaphor you have described? Again, please show me some evidence.
You wrote:
“When we live out the same sacrificial, merciful, and non-violent protests against imperialistic values, then we can become the body of Christ. That’s Paul’s metaphor, not mine.”
The only thing you have in common with Paul in these two sentences is that you both use the phrase “body of Christ.” But how does Paul use that phrase? I challenge you to produce one shred of evidence that for Paul the “body of Christ” means anything close to the political moralism that you are referring to here.
There is a big difference between using biblical language and communicating biblical ideas. And my concern is that, if you have no concern for the ideas, you might as well drop the language too.
LikeLike
Brian,
Another great illustration!
If we say “Lincoln freed the slaves” (as if one proclamation can do such a thing), but we refuse to incarnate that idea into reality, then it would still be only an “idea”, right?
Historical events happens only once, the truth-filled metaphors of our sacred text continue to happen on a daily basis. There were still many people in bondage after 1863. Forced labor continued for decades in the south along with beatings and deaths. The proclamation had not been “lived out” or incarnated into our nation. It still hasn’t. For many, it is still an immaterial unfulfilled dream waiting to be birthed into their reality. Simply declaring slaves free did not make those people or their children and grand children truly “free”. To accept God’s call of emancipation means we should seek the freedom of everyone who is held captive. To say “I’m certain slaves are free” does nothing if the statement is not incarnate in the world.
You said: “This shows that the line between slavery and freedom is just Cartesian dualism”
I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic. I can’t follow that logic. Do you know what dualism is? I’m speaking about both the Cartesian form we deal with in the post-enlightenment era, and the version of Plato, which the Church father’s used to build many of their doctrines and later fed Descartes views.
peace
LikeLike
The word “emancipation” is another big stumbling block to me. To say “Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves” like that is some kind of historical fact really does violence to God’s true mission of emancipation, to free us from all of our false ideas that lead us to deny truth and justice.
I don’t think “emancipation” needs to be a matter of mental assent, to say, “The slaves in the South were emancipated by proclamation on January 1, 1863.” That is just too narrow. We show we believe in emancipation not by reciting so-called “facts” about the “Civil War,” but by everyday acting out God’s mission of emancipation in our own “civil war” against injustice in our communtities.
What I’m saying is really biblical too. We are “free in Christ,” but “we are slaves to Christ.” This shows that the line between slavery and freedom is just Cartesian dualism. it is really a shame that ancient interpreters of Scripture were so negatively influenced by reading Descartes.
LikeLike
Aaron,
I agree there has been many cases where Christian theologians mistakenly took symbolic illustrations literally (Gen. 1 for example). Words have many connotations. The following is a perfectly acceptable definition that illustrates my use of the word:
“Incarnation: a person or thing regarded as embodying or exhibiting some quality, idea, or the like: The leading dancer is the incarnation of grace.”
In this way, I affirm that Jesus is the incarnation of God’s values and character. When we live out the same sacrificial, merciful, and non-violent protests against imperialistic values, then we can become the body of Christ. That’s Paul’s metaphor, not mine. It would be problematic to imply some kind of physical/spiritual substance shift to these metaphors.
When I got married I said my wife and were now “one”. I did not assume that meant we were one substance. I simply meant that the two of us were of like vision, like mission, and equally committed together on one path? To interpret the incarnation story as being a physical substance shift from some imagined non-physical substance to a physical substance is as strange as assuming I had a substance transformation when we said our wedding vows. But it does make for a beautiful metaphor!
As with most religious squabbles, the problem is simply the inability of modern readers to understand a metaphor without trying to mistake it for modern history or science. We need better literature courses in schools to help people understand these common age old literary devices.
LikeLike
Aaron
News Flash: You are neither too white nor too young to participate in the ongoing struggle for civil rights. What you need are eyes to see and ears to hear.
Please return to earth where the incarnation took place with all its beauty and mystery.
LikeLike
Progressive Faith,
I think you sidestepped the true intention of my illustration. I wasn’t contrasting a belief in civil rights as a proposition with taking action to advance the rights of others. I was expressing how absurd it would be for me, a white male born in 1980, to call myself a champion of the black struggle for civil rights. It is something that not only is not true, it is something that cannot be true.
Sure, I can do things to advance the right of others, just like I can do things that reflect the character of Christ. But participating in the black struggle for civil rights is something I cannot do. I am both ethnically and historically too far removed from the events. Similarly, I am a creature. I cannot participate in the incarnation. To say that I can is to turn the whole notion of incarnation on its head.
Progressive Faith, why keep a term if you are not going to use it to refer to what it normally means? Why not just come up with another word or phrase? Is that really fair to people with whom you communicate? Don’t you think it really clouds the issue to use a word that you know will register one way in someone’s mind when in fact you mean something totally different (indeed, something diametrically opposed)? Maybe I’m too hung up on precision, but it seems to me that the best way to communicate and to be understood is to use language in such a way that you minimize the potential for misunderstanding.
If you’d like, I’ll even help you come up with a substitute word or phrase for what you are trying to express. How’s that sound?
I won’t even charge you anything. 😉
LikeLike
Wes R: yes sir
LikeLike
Aaron,
Thanks for providing a great example to illustrate my point. To say “I believe in civil rights” or “I believe that civil rights exists” or “this one definition of civil rights is the correct definition”, is not incarnating civil rights. It is an empty statement. However, if you or I take action to advance the rights of others, then we are accepting and affirming civil rights. Mental acknowledgment of a proposition is not faith. It wouldn’t matter what language we used. It is the participation (the faith) of incarnating Christ in the world that makes us a part of the kingdom. Without a way to make it real in the world, it’s just empty superstition.
iMonk,
I loved your last comments. Well said!
LikeLike
imonk:
It sounds as if you are saying that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and to that end there is one and only one mediator between God and men – not First Baptist Church, but the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. Am I on the right track?
LikeLike
The Incarnation was truly new and radical within its Platonic, Greco-Roman context and is even still radical today. To a culture that couldn’t conceive of God ever even having physical contact with the material world (e.g., see Philo’s commentary on Gen. 2), the idea that God would come to earth(!), loves the world (!!) and BECAME FLESH (!!!) would have have sounded like pure insanity.
It is this redemption of the material world that we have yet to fully come to grips with–Plato still holds sway–so for most people it’s still largely a matter of: matter=bad, spirit=good. John’s arguing just the opposite, thus opening up the possibility of a sacramental world–God working through the material. The Incarnation absolutely changes everything.
LikeLike
By saying that it connects people to God. It doesn’t.
By saying it has exclusive rights on distributing the presence of God. It doesn’t.
By saying only members of church X or denomination Y are real Christians. That’s deranged.
By saying the church is the Kingdom. Wrong.
By making tradition equal with scripture.
By denying, obscuring, editing and opposing what Jesus himself did and said.
By making itself so important that people who attend a one hour meeting think they’ve done something meritorious.
LikeLike
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
So let me ask this: In what way do you think the church has illegitimately made itself a mediator between God and humanity?
The only real example I can think of is the Roman Catholic Church with its particular doctrine of the keys.
Now, I don’t deny that there is a doctrine of the keys. In fact, I think it is essential for a New Testament ecclesiology. I hope you agree with me on that.
I guess what I am getting at is this: if you don’t think the church should be connecting people to God, what is the alternative? How can the church rightly exercise the power of the keys without falling under the rebuke you have outlined here?
LikeLike
Aaron: The question of the “wider hope” or “evangelical inclusivism” was not on the menu. the universality of the implications of the incarnation was.
If anything, I was writing out of my frustration with insisting the church is actually the mediator, a view that has lots of sympathy and which I reject entirely.
The CRCC is probably the most interesting document on the wider hope, and there are more than a few evangelicals who have tweaked the view that everyone who ever lived and was unable to hear about Jesus is in hell.
I consider it an open hand issue, and discussable without condemning those who differ. I have heard and read Dr. Piper’s discussion of the issue and I understand his concerns.
Chrysostom said: ““For he became Son of man, who was God’s own Son, in order that he might make
the sons of men to be children of God. For when the high associates with the low, it does not touch its own honor at all. Instead, it raises up the other from its excessive lowness. So it was with the Lord. By no means did he diminish his own nature by his condescension, but he raised us, who had always sat in disgrace and darkness, to unspeakable Glory.â€
ms
LikeLike
Progressive Faith,
That sounds nice and inspiring, but what you have really done is hijacked Christian terminology in order to express something totally different. You are using the word “incarnation” in a way that the church has never understood it (in fact, in a way that blatantly contradicts it, because the incarnation is, by definition, a unique event that cannot be democratized), which means, basically, that you are trying to piggy-back a foreign idea onto a word that has a rich history in the church, a history that you have utterly disregarded. You are getting a payoff from the sound of a word that you have effectively emptied of its proper meaning and have in turn filled up with your own ideas.
If I went around claiming that I was a champion in the black struggle for civil rights, that would be patently false. I am neither black nor old enough to have lived through the civil rights era. But suppose I said, “The black struggle for civil rights is not about skin color or a particular time in history. It is about the attitude I exhibit everyday of my life, as I live out that struggle daily.” I suppose I could live in that kind of a fantasy if I wanted to, but it would really have no credibility. Why not? For starters, I have not been legally required to sit at the back of any buses. The phrases “black struggle” and “civil rights” have some emotional content, but they don’t express anything close to the truth in my case.
With all due respect, I submit that your fantasy is something along these lines. Why not just admit that you think the incarnation is baloney and call your belief something else?
LikeLike
Michael,
First, I think you misread my motives. I am not trying to be judge and jury over your soul or over your blog. I am not the theological enforcer of the Reformed community. A request for precision is not the blogosphere equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition (I sound like Jesse Jackson!). It is, rather, an invitation for you to provide me with greater understanding of your position. It is an expression of interest in what you have said and of a desire to know more.
The reason I wanted to know more is because what you have said sounds almost identical to some arguments that have been used to justify some very troubling theological positions. I’m not referring here to the extent of the atonement. I am referring to the question of whether one must hear the gospel in order to be saved. My interest has to do with the uniqueness of the gospel message as the only message that saves.
My interest furthermore has to do with the uniqueness of Scripture as the authoritative deposit of divine revelation. Many people have played off the incarnation against the Bible, as though we have access to the former completely apart from the latter. But this is what I mean when I say we will inevitably end up renaming our existing idols with the name “Jesus,” if we do not have a clear understanding of Scripture’s uniqueness.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to spell out some theological nuances that would separate you from these troubling theological positions. I was not testing your Reformed credentials. I was looking to see if I could give wholehearted affirmation to what you have written or if I needed to hold back because you actually mean something that I cannot affirm. That’s why precision is necessary.
This is not personal. It is the honest inquiry of a curious mind, a mind that often appreciates what you have to say and is seeking more clarity and understanding of your position. Isn’t that better than either ignoring you or misrepresenting you?
LikeLike
Aaron,
I don’t understand accepting or denying the incarnation as a matter of saying “I believe” or “I think” or “I know” to any mental assertion about what Jesus was or how the universe works. Believing any one set of metaphysical theories has nothing to do with accepting or denying the incarnation.
To accept incarnation means to live it out by making God’s vision for peace and justice real (incarnate) in the world. To deny it means failing to live it out. I’m capable of both at times. I fail all too frequently, so yes, I do at times deny the incarnation. However, I also accept the incarnation when I do the many things that instantiate God’s vision. I want to be someone who accepts it more frequently.
LikeLike
aaron:
The “go back and read” line isn’t particularly original.
Aaron, I am not a Ph.d student as you are. When you come and ask me to be more precise, we’re already at the game. We’re heading for the doctrine of election, predestination, and limited atonement. You know it and so do I. When I don’t affirm a Calvinistic view of these matters, I’ll be nominated for….oh wait…you’ve already done that…
>Why don’t we just get to the bottom line here, which is what I have been suspicious of from the beginning: are you aiming for an inclusivist soteriology?
The actual game here is this: 1) take what a lesser theologian writes, 2) subject it to analysis and find the fault, 3) nominate the fault, in this case, whatever you mean by “inclusivist soteriology,” and then 4) surprise the entire blogosphere with the announcement that I’m an unrepentant and uncorrectable teacher of error.
I mention Luther not because of Luther’s view of word and act, but because Luther did not believe in the limited atonement or the theology behind it.
Perhaps we can find some common ground before I’m found guilty of not being a new Calvinist.
1) I believe the Gospel should be preached as Jesus said in Mark 13.
2) I believe the church’s ministers should preach the Gospel.
3) I believe every Christian should preach the Gospel in whatever way is possible to whomever has not heard it.
4) I don’t believe the incarnation automatically saves.
5) I am not a universalist.
I could have a lot to say about what you’ve written, but I simply will not be subjected to commenters whose stake in a conversation is “precision,” the “bottom line” and testimony to confirm their “suspicions.”
God came in Christ to save us all. Became flesh to save us all. Became the perfect mediator to save us all. Christ must be preached. All will not be saved.
ms
LikeLike
Michael, I would ask you to read my comments a little more carefully.
Do you honestly believe that I intended to separate the incarnation from its proclamation and assign the blessing exclusively to the latter? Or are you employing a reductio ad absurdum and saying that my view effectively leads to that conclusion? If so, I would ask you to think through more carefully how event and announcement have been tied together throughout church history, which would reveal that I am not forced to opt for the sub-Christian idea that you have imputed to me.
Obviously, the blessing is tied to the event, the historical accomplishment of redemption, but (as Calvin rightly argued), Christ does us no good if we remain outside of him. Hence the necessity of the ministry of the Spirit, who applies the work of redemption through the verbal proclamation of the gospel. To adapt a phrase from Kant: Announcement without event is empty; event without announcement is blind.
When the angel said “to you,” he was talking specifically to the shepherds. I think that is an important point because it shows the message was personalized for them; it was not a generic announcement for humanity, but a personal address from Heaven. I believe that in preaching the “to you” can be spoken to any person and made into a personal announcement, but here’s the catch: you can’t say “to you” unless you are actually communicating the gospel to someone. Quite apart from the question of divine intention in the atonement (which is where this seems to be going), the angel’s announcement has absolutely no benefit for the person who never hears it. Simply sharing the same human nature that Jesus has doesn’t do me any good if I am still in spiritual blindness and ignorance, living in rebellion against God. And this is where the church plays a crucial role by announcing Christ to the world.
I don’t think you read my comments on John 1:9 carefully. You are not accurately representing what I said. If you really do want to understand what I have argued, then I would encourage you to go back and read what I said, cross-reference it with John 3:19-21, and, if it still seems fuzzy, take ten minutes to read what Carson has written on it.
I think you can say to any person, “Christ came for you.” But I am specifically referring to people who never hear that message. How does it do them any good?
I wouldn’t say that your view is more Lutheran than Calvinist. Luther would have no room for a doctrine of (let’s call it) incarnational benefits divorced from the proclamation of the Word. I know the Christological distinctions between Lutherans and the Reformed, but that has more to do with Christ’s human nature receiving divine attributes, not the question of how the incarnation benefits humanity. In fact, I would argue that my comments about preaching, especially tying preaching to Christ himself as the one who addresses us through the human agent, is a very Lutheran idea.
Why don’t we just get to the bottom line here, which is what I have been suspicious of from the beginning: are you aiming for an inclusivist soteriology? I really hope that you aren’t, but the way you have said things makes me think you are trying hard not to foreclose on that idea.
LikeLike
Aaron:
>He is pronouncing a blessing on those who receive the apostolic testimony about Jesus.
So the actual blessing isn’t the incarnation, but the preaching of the apostles and their successors?
A savior born to “you,” was for the shepherds and anyone else who heard the message, not for the world in general?
John 1:1-18 is about, again, the apostolic proclamation? Not about the light that has illuminated every person?
I cannot say to every person- every person, anywhere- Christ was incarnated for you and for your salvation?
A “precise” Gospel proclamation is actually what we are talking about here?
It seems like it must be Calvin’s 500th birthday or something 🙂
I’m sure that if we were comparing my quite Lutheran views of the incarnation/Jesus with Calvinistic views, I would be found quite imprecise.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Progressive Faith,
I just went back and read what you have written. Basically, your view constitutes a democratization of the incarnation, which is essentially a denial of it. The doctrine of the incarnation cannot stand without a clear Creator-creature distinction. This distinction was not invented by Plato or Descartes. It is part of the fabric of Scripture from the very opening words.
Are you a fan of John Hick by any chance?
LikeLike
Michael, you wrote:
“The angelic announcement in Luke 2 plainly says that the incarnation is for all people. So does John 1. It’s historical nature doesn’t change its implications for me or one of the the shepherds who knelt at the manger. The apostles who touched the incarnate Christ were at no advantage. Blessed are those who don’t see and yet believe. The incarnation is for all persons.”
Luke 2 actually plainly says, “For UNTO YOU is born this day…” (i.e., you shepherds). Last Christmas I preached this message to my congregation, and I did encourage them to personalize that message for themselves and know that Jesus came for them personally. But the reason I could say that was because I was at that very moment proclaiming Christ to them. Those who have never heard such a proclamation do not receive the salvific blessings of the incarnation.
I actually agree that the shepherds are not at an advantage over the rest of us, and I think John 20:29 speaks to this issue. But you can’t divorce John 20:29 from the next two verses, which define the whole purpose of the Gospel of John:
“…but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
John is not pronouncing a blessing on everyone indiscriminately. He is pronouncing a blessing on those who receive the apostolic testimony about Jesus. We don’t all have to feel the nailprints in his hands, but certainly we all have to hear him proclaimed to us. John (or, I should say, Jesus) doesn’t come anywhere close to saying, “Blessed are those who have not heard, and yet have believed some undefined religious sentiment.” I’m not saying that that is what you have argued here; I am saying that what you have argued could be interpreted this way, hence the need for greater precision.
As for John 1, I would refer you to D.A. Carson’s excellent commentary on the Gospel of John. He argues that the reference in John 1:9 is not to some kind of universal, internal reception of grace. It is, rather, a reference to the fact that the light of the incarnation shines on the human race as a whole and exposes us all for what we truly are: either those born of God or those not born of God (see vv. 12-13). Basically, John 1:9 expresses the same thought as John 3:19-21.
LikeLike
JAy, I think you’re straining at gnats a little. There is the physical fact of the Incarnation, which happened at a certain time in a certain place, just as the Crucifixion and the Resurrection did.
However, no-one would say that the meaning of the Crucifixion and Resurrection are confined to that temporal occurence and that they are ‘over and done with’. The same with the Incarnation – the glorified physical body of Jesus has ascended into Heaven; it has not been disposed of or left behind. The Word was made Flesh and is still made Flesh.
So to say that Jesus comes (not just “came”) in the Incarnation *to* and *for* everyone is not, I think, impermissible. He came for us and for our salvation; He came to us to make Himself known beyond the manner in which the covenant with the Jews made God known. Still He comes to us as God made Man; when preaching the Good News to those who have never heard of Him, we say that not alone is there a God who made us, not alone is there a God who saves us, but this God took on our flesh and became Man for our sakes.
He comes to us as a Person bearing our form, as we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is the scandal for the Jews (and the Muslims); to put God into a body made from the dust of the earth. This is the difference from the sons of the gods in Greek and Roman myth. This is the difference from the avatars of Vishnu, Rama and Krishna, who were aspects of the supreme god in a personal form, but who are embodiments in a series of descents, and the Supreme is manifest within the totality of creation.
LikeLike
I love the incarnation, it speaks volumes about the love of our God. To wrap our hearts around the one who created matter, becomes apart of His creation, awesome God.
LikeLike
iMonk,
“So you are taking an eastern view that separation from God is an illusion and the incarnation is simply God telling us we are all Christs as we are. Don’t worry about it?”
Maybe I’d say, “yes” to the first sentence, if by illusion you mean a metaphor and if by “christs” you mean living sacrificially and being compassionate and forgiving. But I’d say, “Not exactly” to the second sentence. I mean to say don’t worry about a problem of “substances”. Don’t worry about being the wrong type of “thing” (as if being human is second class to being some imagined supernatural “angel”). But we should worry very much about making incarnation happen in us and in the many interconnected social systems of the world.
For me, the story (myth, parable, narrative) of incarnation is a declaration that God’s concern is real, not imagined. It’s here in a tangible way not in a some make-believe place or a Cartesian “other” reality. Incarnation is not a clash of material versus spiritual “realms” or “substances”. It is a clash of living out God’s vision versus living out the vision of the Empire. It is about making the metaphor of heaven into a reality on earth.
Good discussion! Thanks for sharing and responding.
LikeLike
I applaud you for emphasizing the importance of the incarnation. It is one of the essential, life sustaining elements that were stripped out from the smorgasbord that God gave his people to feast upon.
My greatest issue with American-evangelical-Christianity is that it presents itself as the truest and fullest expression of the Christian faith available, while it is in actuality the most McDonaldized, pre-packaged, sugary, fat-saturated, historically-anemic, expressions of Christianity ever invented. (Do I sound bitter?)
The Lord’s Supper is just one example of how A.E.C. (American-Evangelical-Christian) churches strip many of the life enriching nutrients from the food God gives us. A.E.C. churches often spend the bulk of their presentation before the Supper explaining how the bread and juice do not do anything to us, will not change us, and are at most a sign of what Christ did on the cross. We do it (the Supper) only because he commanded it. But mostly it is nothing, though it can become something if we try really hard and use it as a means for recommitting ourselves to serving God. In other words, if the Supper has any value at all, it is mostly about us and what we bring to the table.
Incarnation, on the other hand, is first of all about God, what He has done in Christ, and now does in us through the Holy Spirit. It is a powerful sign that God knows us as we are because he made us as we are; of earth, water, blood, bone, and tissue. He made us this way precisely because it is how he meant to make us. The way we are constructed, as mind-body-spirit beings, is earthy and good. To show us how good this is, He became as we are, spoke to us as we are, walked among us, ate with us, and finally even died as we do, except on a cross. His incarnation as a physical being is proof that creation, in its original form, was good. His bodily resurrection is a final stamp of approval upon earthy creation as being right and good. We will not be rescued from an evil earth to become floating spirit-beings, but restored to a new and re-created earth in new and re-created bodies that are like the one Jesus had at his resurrection.
Jesus left his followers with earthy things to do that would help them prepare for earthy, spiritual lives. One of these things was the Lord’s Supper. Earthy bread and wine received into earthy bodies are used by the Spirit to change us into earthy-spirit beings. The dna of Christ becomes ours as the bread and wine are incorporated into our own tissue. His vital, life enriching body and blood overtake and change our dying bodies. What happens to the bread and wine prior to our receiving it, I can’t say. But I’m fully convinced that God means for it to change us. It is real spiritual food that blesses and changes us when it is received in faith. Whatever else it is, it is not nothing.
I’m on a rant, and I apologize. But I’m with you on the importance of incarnation. We need everything God gives us. Let God be God, Christ be Christ, and Holy Spirit be Holy Spirit. Let everything He has done and will do be proclaimed and received according to his promise. Let nothing separate us from the life and love of Christ.
LikeLike
JAy: Again: Blessed are those who have not seen (or touched, etc.) and still believe. And “Though you have not seen him, you love him” and “Christ is in you, the hope of glory.”
I realize some churches are going to really be unhappy with what I am going to say in this book, but the confinement of any aspect of the incarnation to church control is a major issue. I’ll leave it at that. Major.
LikeLike
I do believe that through the incarnation (and the death and resurrection, etc…) all who desire may have equal standing before God. While I also believe that “God dispensaries” are the traditions of men, and hence NOT the key to the kingdom of heaven, I am still cautious to follow this train of thought so far as to think that there is no value for authority in the church. Much like was mentioned at the cornerstone panel, this belief against the traditions of Rome by many evangelicals has caused many of us to become simply spiritual rebels with no guiding source of authority in our lives (outside of our own personal relationship with Jesus, of course). I don’t think this yields entirely positive results.
LikeLike
iMonk said:
“The angelic announcement in Luke 2 plainly says that the incarnation is for all people. So does John 1. It’s historical nature doesn’t change its implications for me or one of the the shepherds who knelt at the manger. …The incarnation is for all persons.”
The incarnation occurred to offer salvation to all. I am not debating this. However, my previous comments related to the implications of two of your statements in particular.
“The incarnation is not owned, controlled or distributed by a church.”
“Jesus comes to every person and for every person in the incarnation.”
A traditional (RC) definition of the Incarnation is God becoming man. This is not “distributed” to anyone, especially since, as a result of the Ascension, the physical Incarnation of Christ is no longer on earth. (Let’s leave transubstantiation of another debate.)
So, to say that “Jesus comes to every person and for every person in the incarnation” has two issues as I see it. One, the Incarnation is past tense (“came” not “comes”). Two, while the Incarnation (physical embodiment of Jesus) came “for” me, it has not come “to” me. I have not seen/experienced/felt the *physical* incarnation of Christ. Further, prior to the Ascension, Jesus says that he will not be seen again until the day of judgment.
The Annunciation, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension occurred FOR all people, me included. The Holy Spirit comes TO me. The Annunciation, Incarnation, and Ascension did not come TO me. The Crucifixion and Resurrection did not literally come TO me, any more than Paul was literally crucified with Christ.
So, while I am not arguing the intent of your post, I feel there must be care taken in the language used, especially with respect to the term “incarnation”.
LikeLike
I’ll answer my own question. There’s a lot of mystery in the incarnation. I find that my best recourse in finding answers is to diligently read the Bible. So in the Gospel of John the Pharisees, listening to Jesus tell a man that his sins are forgiven accuse him of blasphemy, “You being a man make yourself God.” That context, along with others, convinces me that Jesus does indeed exercise power that is only exercised by God. So I believe that Jesus is God revealed in human flesh. And further consideration of scripture convinces me that the Trinity is a basic Christian doctrine. But I don’t understand it. And I don’t understand it because much of it is a mystery and I accept that. People I know don’t want to spend any time thinking about mysteries. They want things to be practical, and that’s ok. After all, there’s unemployment (my son is currently unemployed), and a financial meltdown that has put many Christians into financial stress, and there are lots of sick people in need of healing. I understand that. So I guess it’s best to stick to practical issues and keep the mysterious theological questions to myself. Again, I’m not viewing the issue negatively, but I still wonder, how many believers really want to delve deeply into understanding the wonder of the incarnation. I think it’s well worth the effort, but to reach the mass market better make it practical.
LikeLike
“The standard answer is that the historical incarnation is 0-33 a.d and previous to that God the Son existed eternally in the Trinity.”
Nitpick. The standard answer is that the historical incarnation is 1 A.D. or thereabouts (there was no 0) into eternity future, and the rest of what you said.
The Incarnation didn’t end with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He is God incarnate today.
Which I know you knew but it gets overlooked and some people actually don’t.
LikeLike
for those who Believe..
LikeLike
..and because of the Christ any view of separation from God is an illusion…
LikeLike
I appreciate the sense of urgency of Romans 10:14. Still, Paul indicates in Romans 1:19-21, and especially Romans 2:14-16, that those with no access to the written word of God (“the Law”) still have the work of the Law written on their hearts, and “according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus”.
LikeLike
…..”It trumps previous attempts at religions who seek to leave this world or “reach up†to God (as if God is “up†or “outside …thats what im talkin about….:)
LikeLike
Good food (I speak as a sheep)! Thanks so much.
LikeLike
So you are taking an eastern view that separation from God is an illusion and the incarnation is simply God telling us we are all Christs as we are. Don’t worry about it?
LikeLike
Michael,
I agree that this topic is a huge stumbling block. Thanks for opening it up for discussion. I struggle with the underlying principle in the statement:
“The incarnation means that God has personally crossed the unimaginable gap between himself and every human being, becoming one of us, and making it possible for every person to know God by way of the path of being human”
I think that is a destructive byproduct of Cartesian dualism. It imagines God as some other “thing” or other “substance” and that crossing that boundary is difficult or maybe “impossible” without the magic formula. We are plagued with this dualistic mindset and the consumerist notion of another realm or boundary that must be crossed with a purchase (transaction or ransom). God help us if we ever use that goofy image of a canyon with a cross as a bridge. I want to strangle Plato and Descartes every time I see it.
In contrast, I see the incarnation (the story of Jesus) as a condemnation of this dualism and a celebration of humanity (our “God-likeness”). It trumps previous attempts at religions who seek to leave this world or “reach up” to God (as if God is “up” or “outside”). Incarnation is the idea that God exists IN humanity (even in a lowly Jewish peasant), in the world, and in our human systems, when we bend and shape these systems toward peace and justice. The essential metaphor for incarnation is not a cross or a miraculous birth, it is the torn veil in the temple and the ending of the idea that we need some other outside substance to make this new kingdom on earth.
peace
LikeLike
Jim,
Read the Gospel of John.
LikeLike
You’ve got a time and eternity question there, and God, of course, doesn’t have to play by those rules.
The standard answer is that the historical incarnation is 0-33 a.d and previous to that God the Son existed eternally in the Trinity.
I believe there are aspects of the incarnation- as God’s way of relating to the world- that predate the historical Jesus, but that’s not Christian doctrine. Just theological speculation.
LikeLike
No offense intended, but did the human Jesus exist before the incarnation? If so, in what form? When Jesus was born was something added to God? So, before the incarnation there was just Jesus, the second person of the Trinity in heaven. Now there is the second person of the Trinity and the man Jesus? Right? Seems confusing to me. Lest you think I am a just trying to be difficult, I’m not. Just a “Billy Graham Baptist” mulling over the kind of question most people would never ask their pastor.
LikeLike
Yes, Michael, John 1:9 particularly says, “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” Notice the “everyone” there.
LikeLike
OK Here’s an idea. If you want people to know about the incarnation, what Gospel based Christians would define as Jesus’s (the second person of the Trinity) birth, life, death and resurrection; then start reading the Gospels, what Gospel based Christians would say is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, during you Sunday services.
I see a difference in the incarnation of Christ from the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as I am a Trinitarian Christian. However, the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Spirit so maybe that is why some are confused.
There are many ways God connect to us. He is the hound of heaven. We may think we are connecting to Him but he is doing all the heavy lifting. This is why I have a problem understanding tradtions who give all this power over to people. Such as “I give my heart to Jesus” “I pray the sinners prayer” and so on. This is assumes “I” am in charge. As you say imonk we are not in control of God.
LikeLike
I especially like your last paragraph. In fact, the incarnational distinctive is one of those biblical and theological concepts that I love to mull over.
Thanks for this post.
LikeLike
The angelic announcement in Luke 2 plainly says that the incarnation is for all people. So does John 1. It’s historical nature doesn’t change its implications for me or one of the the shepherds who knelt at the manger. The apostles who touched the incarnate Christ were at no advantage. Blessed are those who don’t see and yet believe. The incarnation is for all persons. (Not Rahner. Capon :-))
LikeLike
….this is where “”some”” of the teachings of the great metaphysical thinkers shine….Ernest Holmes..Joel Goldsmith..ect….they let God out of the box..so to speak…imo..
LikeLike
I think when churches say “connecting”, they mean “helping people focus on the relationship”.
LikeLike
OK, maybe I am wrong, or maybe my background (Roman Catholic) is different. But I was under the impression that the Incarnation referred to the Immaculate Conception, Annunciation, and birth of Christ (“…the Word became flesh…”). As Aaron said in his comment, “The incarnation is a historical event. For this reason, it is not accessible to all people at all times and places.”
In my reading of your post, you seem to be using the word “incarnation” more as a spiritual indwelling in us (the Holy Spirit as introduced at Pentacost).
Otherwise, I agree with what you are saying. The Grace of God is not the church’s to dispense. Instead, Grace is for each person to discover.
And as far as “Connecting People to God”, I guess that the mission of the church is really more “introducing” people to God. Again, I think that this is what Aaron is getting at. (“Those who have no access to Scripture … really have no connection to the incarnation.”) The church provides the initial connection. It is up to the individual to maintain that connection, although the church should also help in this respect also.
Maybe “Connecting People to God” isn’t such a bad description, as long as we emphasize that the “connection” is not a passive activity for those in the congregation or community.
LikeLike
Considering the scriptures that talk about Christ and His Spirit dwelling within us, as well as those that talk about the church as His body, could it be that we as the church (in a far from perfect way) collectively manifest or participate in the Incarnation? Or, maybe, the better question is: Do we incarnate the reality and character of Christ to the world in how we speak and behave as the church? — Or do we incarnate the mere trappings of manmade religion?
I agree wholeheartedly that the Incarnation is something we cannot control or keep in our little religious boxes. But if we do not incarnate the Incarnation in how we live our lives and relate to each other, then how can the world ever come to see or know Him?
I guess what I’m trying to get at is that our central mission and focus as the church should be to be transformed from the inside out in the likeness of Christ so that we can reveal Him and demonstrate His love in action to the world. But when we let ourselves become a stuck-up herd of super-religious buttholes, I think we actually become a veiling barrier between the world and His Incarnation.
LikeLike
Ok, I’m sold. Where do I reserve an advanced copy?
I have frequently heard such language in terms of Worship music connecting people to God. That’s what really scares me about contemporary worship: it’s the theology that is so permanently attached to it, which insists that a certain worship experience is necessary to reach, invite, and please God (God won’t show up if the sacrifice of praise isn’t acceptable). I think you make a brilliant point, that no one controls the incarnation. I think you also make the important point that preaching the Word is indispensable; a kickin’ worship set is no substitute for preaching.
LikeLike
The earlyChurch had NO access tothe New Testament as it didn’t exist. They gathered for the prayers and the breaking of the bread. As Jesus had commanded them.
If the preacher isn’t preaching he Gospel (Matthew,Mark , Luke and John) and isn’t admimistering the Scarments(then it isn’t a church). May be a praise service. Maybe a learning on how to live out your life according to Rev Bob but it is not a church.
LikeLike
Michael,
Good post. Thanks for it.
However, I think, in our current theological climate, more precision is required here. What you have said here could be taken in a very “Rahnerian” sense, effectively bypassing the necessity of gospel proclamation.
The danger, of course, is that if we are not tethered to Scripture in our understanding of Jesus, we will inevitably assign the name “Jesus” to whatever idols we already worship.
The incarnation is a historical event. For this reason, it is not accessible to all people at all times and places. It requires, therefore, a verbal report and interpretation. God has given us his own announcement and interpretation of the coming of his Son in Scripture. Therefore, I think it is imperative that we see the incarnation as inextricably linked to the written Word of God. Those who have no access to Scripture (or, at least, to the message that it contains) really have no connection to the incarnation. Hence the necessity and urgency of the missionary mandate. “How shall they believe in whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?”
I don’t think my reflections indicate an attempt to “control” the incarnation. I believe, rather, that if we have a robust understanding of the ministry of proclamation, we will grasp the biblical truth that in preaching, Christ himself addresses the world. The preacher does not “control” the incarnation. He is, rather, Christ’s own mouthpiece. And in this sense, the church really does connect people to God.
LikeLike
Those who don’t get it will not get it. Just as the Pharisees didn’t get it. Isreal had no control over Grace. Grace and Truth come from Jesus Christ. Isreal was necessary to produce the Savior.
Those that live by the literal law will die by the literal law. Jesus was addressing the fact that there would be no more worship in the temple in Jerusalm or on the Samarian mountain. His Church is a world wide Church.
Those that are based in the Epistles of St. Paul need to defer to the Gospel based traditions in these matters.
LikeLike
Outstanding point. Don’t sue me if I steal it.
LikeLike
Even ‘before’ the incarnation, I think even a proper theology of Creation should lead away from some of the “control and dispense” models of connection to God.
I think in some ways that’s what Jesus was addressing with the woman at the well. Israel certainly did have a certain role to play in the economy of grace, but it was never a control and dispense role, which they sort of fell into and which we can just as easily fall into.
LikeLike