How Incarnational?
Well, it seems to be my day for linking, which is not surprising. (For those who wonder why I’ve been blogging less, though I think I’m still blogging quite a lot, it’s because I have to file a form 990EZ for a non-profit with which I’m involved. It is really not that complex, but I’m a bit accounting challenged.)
I’ve been following The Crowded Handbasket nearly since it’s inception, but this is the first time I’ve linked. There’s a rather good article there asking the question just how incarnational you are. Since I make a point of using the word “incarnational” regarding just about everything, I thought I should look and answer the question.
As for my own position, I would have to use a descending graph line from points 3 to 5. I’m definitely “in” at 3, and then less and less so as I go. My own phrasing is that God was uniquely present in Jesus of Nazareth, not that God cannot manifest himself in any other way, but that he did so in a special way in that case. I also accept the “fully involved” term. Otherwise I’m a bit less exclusive than is defined by #5.
Perhaps that will make for some discussion!
Well, I’m a solid “5”, but will have to take another look at the Council of Chalcedon’s “substance” again. I guess I’m still in the “conservative” and not “moderate” camp in this regard.
How does it influence belief? It seems to me that there would be a lot of agreement regarding Jesus in general terms from number 2 on. But beyond the surface level, I can see how the degree to which you are incarnational could influence your view of things like Christian exclusivity … if you view Jesus as one example of God being present in a particular individual as in #2, I suspect you would not have a narrow path to salvation.