Doxos

Another Straw Man?

ONCE AGAIN The point is made that the general “loud mouth” Atheists really miss the point. But, once again, they don’t miss it by too far. Take a read of Is Christianity Simply About God Entering the Uterus of a Jewish Virgin?

The problem is, of course, that it really *is* exactly about that. God becoming incarnate: Christianity is not part of the historic stream of the faith without that. It’s mystical, warm and fuzzy – or cold social justice issues – but it’s dead.

But the stereotype doesn’t hold up under close examination – because the atheist authors are not arguing against historic, catholic Christianity (East/West) but a horrid, ultra-protestant boiling down of doctrine such as you might find among the Fred Phelps of the world. Thing is – that’s not Christianity either.

Or is it?

And do we find a way to include them in the dance when we do or do we simply write them off?

Eric Reitan does tell a beautiful story – a modernisation of the Gospel that is VERY worth the read. But is it Christian?

The story begins with the idea that the fundamental reality is personal, an eternal and infinite Person who created the world we know as an act of love. According to this story, love isn’t love if it doesn’t embrace that which is not the self. And God, whose nature is love, was therefore inspired by His very nature not only to create, but to create and embrace something truly Other than Himself—a universe bound by finitude and mechanistic laws of cause and effect. But love finds its fullest expression in mutuality, in relationship. An inanimate universe governed by mechanistic laws and randomness cannot respond to divine love. For that, there needs to be a personal Other. And to be another person, something fundamental is required: a person must have a will of their own.

This is what’s important: Where is the division? For conservative sorts who want to imagine (as I do) that Christianity is meaningless without the literal historicity of the incarnation of God in the flesh of a Jewish Virgin, what do I say to those to are trying to be a faithful follower of God in the way of Jesus without that? And for progressives, who insist it’s *not* about that at all – what do you say to the rest of us? Why do both of us insist on cutting the other off?

3 Responses to “Another Straw Man?”

The young fogey
April 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

I think you and I can agree that what’s missing is the Catholic view. The average lapsed-Protestant Anglo-American thinks his only choices are Modernism or fundamentalism (two sides of the same Protestant and thoroughly modern coin), strip-cartoon Christianity.

As I like to say all rebellion of man against God is to do where he meets us in the flesh (including sacramentally): who Jesus is, the Eucharist and sex are the hot spots in that war.

The God-man and ‘a wise teacher, nothing more’ are mutually exclusive. That’s the scandal (folly or a stumbling-block) of the Incarnation: either you believe it or you don’t. There is no via media. And if one doesn’t, like the crowds once did to Jesus, one is free to just walk away.

Alexis
May 1st, 2009 at 7:23 am

I’m jumping in on the facebook/blog comments with a few pence of my own (grin) as per Huw’s suggestion.

Nicole says the early church was not concerned with defending the divinity of the incarnation – erm . . . . Well, no, not so much – Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century) is not only the first to discuss Mary – and her role in the Incarnation – but he also “defends” the divinity – in the context of a historical reality – arguing against the docetists who held that the incarnation was both a phantom (thus the term “docetist”).

Drew points out that he thinks you can have the incarnation w/o the virgin birth – curiously enough -Gregory of Nyssay meets him half way on this one – and says that it is not a necessary point of faith to hold that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of christ. (it could have been Nazianzen – I tend to confuse the two). Thus – Mary is important for her role in the mechanics of the incarnation – and more importantly for humanity – the doctrine of recapitulation (which emerged in Paul’s writings, and was later developed by Justin and Irenaeus). For more on the Marian development of recapitulation see Proklos of Constantinople Homilies 4 and 5.

Your point about coming together – about sharing the table/fellowship – is really important – and again Nicole’s comment about how in the early church there were many differing beliefs region to region and they still came together – a prime example of this is the earliest recorded debate over the date of Pascha – Irenaeus tells the Bisohp of Rome off for being such a conformist wanker . . . . Anyway – I find myself agreeing with the two of you but with – I “think” a much simpler starting point (one which as an easterner you’ll get) – here’s my question: are you baptised?

We are “baptised into Christ, have put on Christ” therefore – in the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem – we are “properly called Christ” – so – in this light is it right that we deny a part of our body – our very self? This of course falls back into Paul’s “incarnational” language about the community. But it touches also upon the points raised in the conversation on Facebook – the Incarnation is important – not merely because it is a “historical reality” but also because it is the point of reference we all share – to deny/diminish the (importance of the) incarnation is to deny/diminish one another – and to deny/diminish Christ.

Are you baptised – then welcome. Are you baptised – then of course you can be ordained in our community. Are you baptised – how may I be of service to you; and how can WE together (as an incarnation of the Incarnation) be of service to others.

Everything else – hinges on this one point. Anything that tries to avoid it – simply does not “get” Christianity.