Tag: Christianity

I’ve been kind of beating around the bush about the doctrine of the incarnation and what it means as a challenge to Christians. So let’s get down to business.

The roots of my view here are in the two commands of Jesus–love for God and love for one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40). These commands are defined by the way in which God acts towards us (1 John 4:10-11). God carries out the intent of the two commands from his perspective as we are to do from ours. That’s God’s end of the incarnation–God love, God sent, God saved.

But there’s another element: God challenged. While this idea is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, I think it is best summarized in the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:16-21. I’m going to summarize even more. “God was in Christ” is the incarnation. Through the incarnation God crossed the gap from the infinite to the finite in the incarnation. That act reconciled God and humanity, that is, it brought us together. Then God gave us the work and the principle (word) of reconciliation. That’s the challenge.

When Jesus said, “Love one another just as I have loved you,” (John 15:12) he passes on that challenge to us.

Now for many Christians, possessing the “correct” doctrine of the incarnation is part of what makes us special. It’s what gives us–people who believe in Jesus–the exclusive hold on salvation. And I do, indeed, believe that it was the incarnation that made salvation possible; even better, it showed that it was possible by showing that God could and would indeed cross the boundary between the finite and the infinite, and would do so both ways. It showed that God would become kin to finite and imperfect human beings (Hebrews 2:10).

But does that really make us “special” as compared to all other people? I think what it does is make us challenged. We are challenged to love in the way that God loved. That means that we need to become gap-jumpers. To love as God does, we need to recognize that there is no gap that cannot be crossed, and that we are called to cross those gaps. Jesus was a reconciler and God has called on the followers of Jesus to be reconcilers–gap jumpers.

And that’s the other end of the incarnation.

It’s unlikely that anyone has failed to notice that I have spent no time thus far in trying to demonstrate that the doctrine of the incarnation is true. I’ve just been playing with its meaning.

In fact, I generally don’t find it appropriate to try to prove a mystery in the first place. Let’s just face the fact that a person who is 100% divine and 100% human doesn’t really make any sense to us as such. Personally, I think that if it does make sense to you, you have a problem. In one sense, the mystery is a metaphor to help us understand the divine presence in the life of Jesus. (If that sentence doesn’t either twist your brains or give you some problems, then perhaps you should read it again. Go ahead! Have problems with it!)

For me, the key to deciding whether a metaphor, mysterious or not, is valuable is in the fruit. Does it help us improve in keeping the two greatest commands (love God and love our neighbors) or not? And in my view the incarnation does help us fulfilled. In the incarnation, God crossed the greatest gap that there could be between any two entities. God is infinite, we are finite. No matter how much you subtract from infinity, infinity is not diminished. God has bridged an infinite gap in coming to dwell with us.

The theological term “kenosis” or “emptying” describes what was happening in the Christmas story. Read Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus gave up everything, becoming a human and accepting human conditions. That means that he had to live as we do. Often we think of Jesus having many special powers and full knowledge of how his life would go, but for him to live like us, to be tested as we are (Hebrews 4:14-16), he needed to work largely with powers that we have. At the same time we call him fully divine. Now that’s a mystery!

Interestingly we celebrate this emptying at the winter solstice, in one sense the low point of the year. We make it a joyful celebration, but at the other end of the two-ended cord, it’s an emptying, an end.

Christians often complain of the association of Christian holidays with pagan ones, and Christmas is a good example. It’s pretty unlikely that Jesus was actually born on December 25, but the celebration certainly fits the event. There’s no dishonor in sharing a theme with paganism. Not all pagan ideas are bad. There’s no reason to believe that every myth from another religious is filled with falsehood. (See http://www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm for some information on other winter solstice celebrations.)

Myths, metaphors, and celebrations can be great, and they can help us grow.

We’re so used to talking about what God gives in the incarnation that my title may almost seem sacreligious to some readers. God’s gift cannot have a selfish aspect, can it? Does the cord really have two ends in this case as well?

First, at the simplest level, all relationships have more than one side to them, otherwise they could not be relationships. A mother loves her child, and in most cases will continue to love that child whether or not her love is returned, but she certainly wants, even needs to see her love returned. There will always be an emptiness if there is no response from the child.

When we state that God doesn’t really need our worship or our prayers, it sounds like we are talking about how complete, absolute, and sovereign he is. But it also makes God seem distant and unreal. Worship and prayer are both part of our communication–our two-way communication–with God. And God needs to hear from us, as he needs us to hear from him. Isaiah 66:4 says that God is going to choose to mock the people, because when he called, “nobody answered!” God looks for two-way communication.

In the same sense as the mother will always miss the love of her child if it is not given, so God will eternally miss our love, if we do not give it to him.

Now in several essays I’m going to discuss the distance God crossed in the incarnation, but for now let me say simply that there is at least one thing that a being that is essentially infinite cannot have experienced, and that is being finite.

And this is where I see God “getting something” in the incarnation.

¹⁴Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. ¹⁵For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. ¹⁶Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV)

If we take seriously the concept of Jesus as God in the flesh–the fundamental Christian doctrine of the incarnation–we also see here God taking on the testing and trials of finite humans, living with our limitations, experiencing what it was like to be human. Now I admit this concept is a bit hard to grab hold of. It keeps my concept of the trinity pretty seriously stretched out. But nonetheless I think it follows directly from our doctrine of the incarnation and trinitarian theology.

I want to warn you where I’m going with this. Because there are two sides to the conversation and two sides to the relationship, I think that the incarnation is a challenge to us in our daily lives on earth. God gave, God crossed over, God experienced our life. As those who received the benefits of this (on this end), we are challenged in the way we think and act.

I’ll expand on that in my next entries, as I look at how the incarnation challenges us to God-like activity in worship, prayer, relationships, and charity.

Some years ago I worked for Radio Shack. One function of a salesman is to match the customer to just the right item or part. An elderly lady, clearly not too comfortable with technology, came in to buy a “telephone cord.” Now at the time, “telephone cord” could mean any of a number of things. One type of cord would connect the handset to the base unit. A few different types of cords could connect the telephone to the wall jack as well. It took a few minutes for me to get it clear that the cord she wanted connected the phone base unit to the wall jack. I was hoping both ends would be RJ-11 or 14 plugs, but just to make sure I said, “What does the other end look like? Let me show you the possibilities.”

“It doesn’t have any other end,” she replied.

Now I want you to know that I did figure out the correct “other end” for her cord, and she went home as a satisfied customer. But I think that many people tried communion with God, whether through personal prayer, meditation, or the scriptures, as a sort of one-ended cord.

I’m going to post a few entries about the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and salvation this Christmas, but first I wanted to examine this problem with our understanding of communication with God, as I see it.

I think we often see God’s action in relation to humanity as a one ended cord. On the one hand, many conservative Christians see the one and only critical element to be the sovereignty and power of God. In the Calvinist position, God chooses who will be saved and then saves them. We talk about human activity, but there is no point in the process at which Calvinism allows human activity to be significant. The cord has just one end! It may be people who are saved, but the people don’t really matter.

On the other hand, many liberal Christians put the focus so thoroughly on humanity that the only thing that matters is what a human being can do and become. God is again effectively outside of the loop. The cord has one end–it’s just the opposite end.

Now please don’t remind me that many Christians, Calvinists, conservatives, liberals, and others, are not at the extremes I’ve described. I know that. That’s why they are extremes. But I do know that the extremes exist, and I believe there are many who might not like the description who nonetheless behave as though the cord has only one end.

In terms of Biblical inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy tends to the treat the cord as having only one end. Inerrancy is attributed to the autographs, but we have no autographs. Errors are OK in the text of the Bible, just so long as they were not introduced by the original writers. Anyone can make a mistake except for them. Why are errors more important if they are introduced when God speaks to a prophet, than they are if they are introduced by a copyist? I believe the reason is simply that inerrancy is designed more to protect the doctrine of God than it is to protect the integrity of God’s communication with humanity. God’s communication must be perfect.

But communication involves two persons. The cord has two ends. God cannot communicate perfectly if the message is not received perfectly. And if the message is only received perfectly by the original prophet (conveniently unavilable to check), but not by later readers, than how is that perfect communication? That, in my view, is the weakness in this doctrine. It does not deal with how we can know God’s will specifically, but rather deals only with God’s side of the equation. The only people assumed to know God’s will are the original recipients.

Likewise salvation can be seen entirely as divine action, as simply part of our definition of who God is, or it can be seen as a way in which God interacts in people to produce a new kind of fruit.

In my next entry I’m going to talk about the doctrine of the incarnation in terms of two ends for the cord. What did God accomplish through the incarnation?

My wife asked me to write a devotion for her devotional list and I thought it would make an excellent entry for this blog as well.

²⁶Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazereth, ²⁷to a virgin who was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸And when he had arrived he said, “Greetings, favored woman! God is with you!” ²⁹At this word she was troubled and wondered about this sort of greeting. ³⁰And the angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. For you have found favor with God. ³¹Now look! You will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and will call his name Jesus. ³²He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. ³³And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom won’t have an end.” ³⁴But Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen, since I have never had sexual relations with a man?” ³⁵And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you. That’s why the son to whom you will give birth will be called Son of God. ³⁶And Elizabeth your kinswoman, who was called barren, is also six months pregnant with a boy in her old age, ³⁷because nothing is impossible for God.” ³⁸Then Mary said, “Alright! I’m the Lord’s servant! Let what you have said happen to me.” And the angel left her. — Luke 1:26-38 (Totally Free Bible Version Project)

Now what one usually expects a Christian writer to do at this point is to talk about the virgin birth and what that means in Christian doctrine. But what I want to do instead is talk about people and how they react to new revelations of God’s will and his word. Let’s just think about the process here.

1. An angel comes with a revelation. Matthew doesn’t mention an angel’s name, nor a specific appearance to Mary. I believe that Luke does so to try to emphasize the importance of the message and the shock that Mary must have felt at his appearance. Sometimes we can get a much better idea of what a gospel author is trying to emphasize by comparing details like this between the stories in each gospel.

2. Mary is surprised when she is greeted as an important person. This is a common reaction to a divine messenger in the Bible. Mary can’t imagine that she is that important. This is a good thing to consider as you face the day and your work. You may not receive your work from an angel. You may not receive it from somebody important. But you may see a challenge that requires your response. Will the challenge trouble you, or will you be ready to face it?

3. The angel tells Mary not to be afraid. No matter what the challenge or where it comes from, fear isn’t going to help. Fear isn’t going to do anything for you. The first thing to do is to overcome your fear. “Fear not!” is a good message for life.

4. Mary is told that she is more important than she thinks. You too, may be more important than you think. No, I’m not talking to the arrogant folks and those with big heads. I’m talking to the people who are slogging through their days doing the things that are set before you. You’re more important than you think. There are no unimportant jobs; there are just people who insist on doing them as though they are unimportant.

5. Mary finds out that she is not really going to be the central character. Sometimes we think that the only way we can be important is to be front and center, to be the person that everyone is talking about. But Mary finds out that she will be important because of her son. Sometimes our important work is simply to make it possible for someone else to do something. Perhaps others will get most of the credit. But just because you’re not in public getting the praise doesn’t mean that you’re not an important person.

6. Mary wonders how it’s all possible. The answer to this is simple. God’s power is going to come over her. Now we often think of God’s power as earthshaking or always miraculous. But God’s power is at work in your body and in your mind as long as you can breathe and you can think. It’s all possible because the power of God is on you–not in causing daily virgin births, but in making it possible for you to fulfill your calls and tasks.

7. Mary comes to acceptance. Let it happen! When you have realized who you are, when you have heard the task, when you realize what a wonderful creation you are and that God’s power works in you, you can say, “Bring it on! I’m ready for the call!”

How about facing this Monday with the words of Mary: “Alright! I’m the Lord’s servant! Let what you have said happen to me.”

There’s a church I drive by pretty regularly. They have a quite prominent sign, and on the front of their building they have a list of doctrinal positions held by their church. I used to think it was a singularly unwelcoming sort of thing to put on the front of a church. During Hurricane Ivan, all the signs were apparently damaged by the wind and removed.

Just today, I drove by and saw that the signs have been put up again. Here’s how they read:

Yes, KJV 1611 is there twice.

Now this church, which I will not name, has every right to believe what they want and to put whatever they want on the front of their church. But by putting on the front of the church, they are projecting a message, and I got to thinking about just what that message was.

Most Christians would notice a few missing items, I think. The word Jesus doesn’t occur. There’s nothing about God’s love, reconciliation, salvation, forgiveness, or service. I don’t imagine that’s for lack of space. They could, for example, have replaced one of the “KJV 1611” entries with “We love you” or “Grace is wonderful” or perhaps just “Forgiven!” But even so, I would have to wonder about their priorities. Somehow, the essence of that church has been boiled down to these eight entries, one of them repeated twice, and there’s really nothing very positive about those entries.

Some of them seem quite contradictory. For example, we have “fundamental.” Now I am far from a fundamentalist, and I won’t speak for fundamentalism, but most fundamentalists I’ve encountered are interested in getting back to the basics of Christianity. In fact, I’ve rarely had a conversation with a fundamentalist that didn’t center around something about Jesus. I might well have disagreed with what they thought about Jesus and what he was really about, but they were definitely interested in trying.

But how does “fundamental” fit with “KJV 1611?” The “1611” part should tell us pretty quickly that these people are not interested in any Christian fundamentals. They’re not particularly interested in finding out what Jesus said and did if they rely on a fairly ordinary translation of the Bible made nearly 1600 years after Jesus lived. What is fundamental about a translation anyhow?

On the other side we have “Pre-millenial.” If I remember rightly, before the hurricane it included pre-tribulationist as well. If that is the case, I congratulate them on moving that little gem of doctrine down their priority list. But pre-millenial isn’t exactly all that fundamental or traditional either. It’s just one of many ways of interpreting Revelation, something people with very fundamentalist views can easily disagree on, and fundamentalists in my experience often agree to do just that.

Then we have “missionary” and “evangelistic.” But again, this goes with KJV 1611. What’s missionary about forcing people to use a Bible that is in a language they barely understand if they do at all. Evangelism is the spreading of the good news. But what good news is contained in the eight items emphasized on this church’s front wall?

In fact, these two words, “missionary” and “evangelistic” strike me as the least appropriate entries in the list. This list is inward looking. It’s self-congratulatory. It’s designed to bring in people who agree with the congregation on complex doctrinal details. There is nothing particularly missionary about it. There is no good news here. There is only an invitation for the “in” crowd to come join the club.

There is indeed very little independent about this. There may be no external denominational control, but that may well be for the worse, because there is no way to correct a self-destructive tendency of doctrine.

Now I do spend some time attacking the teachings of the KJV Only crowd. I think the KJVO movement is pretty silly. I’ve talked about it a good bit before. (See my Bible Translations FAQ for more information or my book What’s in a Version?.)

What I want to point out here is that it is very easy for us, as Christians, to put our doctrines on our sleeves, and let our doctrines determine who we will fellowship with. We let our doctrines replace our discernment. We let the “stuff” we believe replace the need to serve other people. We need to not only proclaim good news, but we need to be good news. One can get doctrines get in the way whether one is liberal, moderate, conservative, charismatic, pentecostal, evangelical, or fundamentalist.

The real question is not what your doctrines acutally are. It is whether your doctrines allow you to put people first.

I believe it is quite possible for people to be “saved” or “in right with God” or “in good spiritual health” with a wide variety of doctrinal positions.

Doctrines can be good. They can keep us pointed in the right direction. But as soon as you find your doctrines getting between you and other people, perhaps you need to check them out. After all, Jesus said of people, “You will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16). He said it of people. I would suggest it’s one test you must apply to doctrines as well.