Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Incarnation

OK – here is one of those things that I think about, chew on – come up with a theological stance and then wonder – “Am I still Lutheran” and then when I mention it to someone else I realize that what I have said is probably really redundant and the whole world has come to this realization before me. – That being said – I am still going to put this out there – it would be nice to have some conversation.

So I am reading – "The Shaping of Things to Come" - (you can websearch the book for some book reviews - and yes I know I am late on the bandwagon for this one). I really have a hard time reading it slowly – partly because I feel like I am in deep with these ideas they write about and I crave more insight, and partly because I am in this stuff over my head and feel the need to hurry up and do everything at once (it is not a book that helps me to slow down like a good novels)

I wasn’t too far into the book when I came across this . . .

“When we talk of the Incarnation with the capitol I we refer to that act of sublime love and humility whereby God took it upon himself to enter into the depths of our world, our life, and our reality in order that the reconciliation and consequent union between God and humanity may be brought about. This “enfleshing” of God is so radical and total that it is the bedrock upon which rests all subsequent acts of God in his world. A halfway house on the way to God would not do for a lost humanity, and so God had to come down to man, not halfway but the whole way.”


Ok – so here is what I am thinking – I don’t think that God was any less a part of humanity before Jesus nor is God any less or more a part of the world now. (and I know I am getting picky here more about language – but that is our medium) I have been thinking about these phrases in practical terms – if we say that God lowered God self to human standards in Jesus and we are to be like Jesus – the imagery that comes to mind is that those of us who have lived a life of privilege “lower” ourselves to be around those less fortunate. and who is to say who is less fortunate and in what respect. . . it feels to humanly contrived - It just doesn’t jive with me. Not that I don’t believe in the Incarnation, it just was something that struck me . . .

Tim and I were talking about this and he commented that he thinks in many ways God is "above" us – but the image that comes to my head is this physical “aboveness” like God at some point was not really "here" – and then I realize this is maybe more of a personal struggle. What gets me is that God chooses ways to be revealed so that we might understand (among a host of other reasons I am sure).

This might not make sense yet - I am still chewing on it all.

Just some thoughts to put out there – (I am stopping now because if I go further I may not be able to stop)

Peace

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi -

What works for me about incarnation has nothing to do with above or beneath. It has to do with solidarity. Jesus enters so fully into human life that every molecule of our life is permeated with Christ's presence. There is no nook or cranny devoid of Christ's presence because of the enfleshment. Incarnation means that nothing we experience is foreign to Jesus, and therefore by that solidarity Christ can help us. Anyway, that's what works for me.

Hans J

dydimustk said...

Hey Erin,

Anytime theology starts flying around, my first question is, 'who gives a shit?' Ok, but then my second question is, 'What is at stake here?'

I think what is at stake in what Frost and Hirsch are trying to communicate is that the church must fully enter the world rather than setting up a separate connection to God. Rather than building safe-houses where one can be cleansed enough to talk to God... we must be willing to enter into peoples lives without asking them to clean-up first.