Incarnation implications
Thursday, December 24, 2009
"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." - Gospel of John 1:9-14 (ESV)
Modernity's skepticism often means that kids in church are taught that the Bible doesn't really mean a lot of the things it claims: Jesus didn't really walk on water; that's just a literary device! Blind and lame people weren't really healed; they were just re-incorporated into the community! And Jesus wasn't really raised from the dead; it was just the disciples' continuing experience of his spiritual presence!
I got quite a bit of this growing up, and I see quite a bit of it in mainline Protestant churches today. Let me make a couple of observations, the first one short and the second a bit longer (and with help from the bishop of Alexandria).
First, a Church or tradition that makes statements like those above has already lost its faith in God. Its people have already chosen another god to worship; they're just taking a little while to get Jesus out of the center of the picture.
Second, this kind of easy dismissal of Christianity's confessions often - no, usually - betrays a thoroughgoing adherence to a form of radical historical criticism that sets out first principles and then judges the witness of Scripture by them. In the year 2010, we know X to be true about the "natural world," so anything that appears to violate X must be false!
This approach results in an inevitable agnosticism (if not outright atheism). And it also shows a poor understanding of the theological ground of our faith. Here's why:
The Christian faith is rooted in the truth of the Incarnation. That is, God - the wholly transcendent Creator of the universe - deigned to take on flesh in order to redeem his people from the brokenness and alienation that had become their lot. The One who stands outside of space and time entered in, so that the creation might be fully renewed according to his gracious design.
If you believe that - if you believe that God has become incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ - then you believe that the seemingly immutable "laws of nature" are not so immutable at all. If a God who is wholly spirit and without bounds can come to inhabit the flesh of a man, then anything is possible. All of a sudden, a virgin birth, a ministry marked by proleptic miracles, and a bodily resurrection don't seem out of character for God's Messiah at all.
"In the world you will have tribulation," Jesus tells us. "But take heart; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33b; ESV).In his great treatise, On the Incarnation of the Word, Athanasius puts it this way:
"For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed on the same wood: for, for the sake of his picture, even the mere wood on which it is painted is not thrown away, but the outline is renewed upon it; in the same way also the most holy Son of the Father, being the Image of the Father, came to our region to renew man once made in His likeness, and find him, as one lost, by the remission of sins; as He says Himself in the Gospels: 'I came to find and to save the lost.'"
He has come. And he is coming.
Labels: Advent, Athanasius, Incarnation, Jesus Christ

6 Comments:
Amen.
I've got to say that this post really stuck in my craw. I tried to let it go yesterday when I read it, but when I woke up thinking about it this morning, I thought I should respond.
What bothers me about it is its dismissive attitude towards honest attempts of 20th and 21st century Christians to understand the Bible in the context of the modern world. Look, I accept that Christ performed miracles, but I can see how someone living in today's world might have difficulty understanding the turning of water to wine or casting out demons. It's not that God can't do those things, its just in most people's experience, that's not how God works today. And to bring in the historical criticism angle, it seems that back in the 1st century, such claims were often made about dieties/demi-gods. Thus, its seems a rational way for a modern person of faith to honestly grapple with the Bible to explain miracles in such ways--it is faithful to the way the person experiences God in his or her life.
Now, I imagine that you have any number of responses to this sort of exegisis of the Bible. But that isn't the point. The point is just that these people haven't "lost faith in God" or are on a path that leads "inevitabl[y to] agnosticism." If this were so, would they still be going to church and teaching Sunday School? To use Athanasius's metaphor, they are attempting to repaint the wood so that the image can be seen in the 21st century.
In the end, I wonder if all this insistance on doctrinal purity leads us further away, rather than closer to Christ. Focus on right belief contains the perils of arrogance and lack of charity. Perhaps we would be better served to ask whether we are living the faith described in the Bible. We should consider how are we living up to the Sermon on the Mount. Only then should we be prepared to cast stones.
Anonymous -
Thanks for your reply. Please understand that my post was not an attempt to "cast stones." I was trying to present a theological case for various implications of the Incarnation. And while I do believe in vigorous intellectual discourse, I have tried at various points in the past to make sure that bullying does not occur on my site (either by myself or others).
Please also feel free to use your real name! I think it helps conversation to be open about who we are and where we're coming from.
I appreciate your response, in part because it offers a good account of the position with which I am disagreeing. So in that sense, I think your rebuttal makes my own presentation that much more clear. We certainly represent two different theological viewpoints - which are, in many ways, mutually exclusive of one another. My only quibble would be that you misuse Athanasius' metaphor (in that he was talking about the renewal of human nature in the image of God, and you are talking about making the biblical witness more palatable to contemporary sensibilities).
You mention arrogance and lack of charity. If I am guilty of either, I apologize. I try to write each post in a spirit of charity. But that does, I don't believe, preclude vigorous discourse (and at times, debate). Thanks again for your response - and feel free to weigh in often!
Grace & peace,
Andrew
You know, I have wondered myself at what seems so obvious if you look at it: many of our presuppositions that we bring to the Bible have an "atheistic trajectory." Consider how people react with skepticism at the notion of angels and (even more so) demons.
Superstitions.
Yet, why disbelieve in them, but continue to believe in God who is likewise invisible - though perhaps more easy to make into an argument.
Why reject miracles of a God working in special ways through the creation that he designed, and still believe in a Creator at all?
And if we believe in a small, far-away, impotent god, surely our prayers and Christian lives will reflect this.
Andrew--
Thank you for your gracious response. I think I may have been casting a few stones of my own there. They were aimed perhaps, not so much at you as other evangelicals that I've read or listened to in the last few years. I apologize for using language that was too inflamatory.
And I agree that I misread Athanasius' metaphor. My only quibble with your response is that I was advocating an approach to the Bible not more "palatable" to modern sensibilies--liberals can struggle with hard texts as well as anyone, I think--but comprehensible.
I should say that my own theology is not as liberal as what I was advocating in the post, but I'm solidly center left. If you want lay opinion from such a gen-xer, I'd be happy to check in every once in a while. I'd like to be able to ask a few frank questions of my own in attempting to understand the evangelical perspective (which I take you to be--let me know if I'm wrong about this).
Like this: Why does a liberal approach to the Bible necessarily mean a slipperly slope to atheism or imply a "small, far away, impotent god" as Daniel suggests?
Btw--I didn't realize before that I could sign the post without having a Google account, which I didn't feel like signing up for.
Ed
Daniel--To me the question of why I believe in God is to some degree distinct from how I understand the Bible. I guess I haven't reasoned my way to faith from extracting doctrines about God from the Bible. For me, it's more correct to say it goes the other way. Based on life experiences, prayer and contemplation, the examples of godly people in my life, and my own experience of God, I found faith, and look to the Bible to understand it. But I bring who I am, who God made me to be, and the understanding of the world I live in to bear in trying to understand the Bible.
Post a Comment
<< Home