Friday, October 13, 2006

Incarnational? What do you mean by that?



A certain term has been showing up more recently in conversation in certain classes here: incarnational. I am sure most people think they know what this means, but to be honest I am not sure they do understand the term. As far as I can tell this word is brandished as a weapon against people of a more hierarchical bent in applied theology. So when I ask what role a priest or theologian has in theological leadership and formation of the laity the classic response is they need to be "incarnational." This appears to settle the debate since if I disagree about this it is taken to mean that I don't like Jesus. Hmmm.... Can we take a moment to investigate how this word is used?

The Incarnation is the classic dogma of the Christian faith that discusses the union between the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus Christ. Two natures held together in a hypostatic union. If you want a quick summary, read here. So what is essential about the incarnation is that God has taken up human flesh, Divine Word has become man. Jesus has become "incarnate."

Now, if this divine and human hypostatic union is the definition of the incarnation, I think it is at least theologically and intellectually naive (and borderline blasphemous!) to appropriate this word in terms of a minister's role. How could a Christian minister possibly be "incarnational" in the truest sense of the term? Are all Christian ministers God incarnate or a hypostatic union of Divine and Human nature? Really?

The obvious answers to these questions is no, of course not! A much better term or phrase for what evangelicals mean would be "dwell among the people" or "tabernacle" or "be amongst them like Jesus." Minister's are supposed to be among the people like Jesus spent his time with the outsiders. But it is absolutely incorrect in my mind to view this action and role of Jesus as "incarnate" ministry. Jesus' incarnate ministry was becoming man, his "humble" ministry was to divest himself of any human royalties here on earth and be amongst the poor and lowly.

So why is it that evanglicals so often use this term "incarnational" when it appears to be blatantly mistaken? Well, I think it is not only a lack of theological awareness in most, but also a desire to have a trump card with a big name on it. Obviously since minstry is suppose to be just like Jesus and nothing like any development in the Church (like robes! or priests!) then everything that Jesus was needs to be imitated by the minister. That is authentic ministry!

But of course this only shows a lack of respect for Jesus' uniqueness and role in salvation history (interesting comparison with how evangelicals view the "cult of the saints". At least Catholic aren't claiming that saints are incarnate!). Only Jesus is incarnate because only Jesus is God. In one sense, only a Catholic can have an incarnational ministry, for the Sacrament of the Eucharist is exactly that: union of divine nature and human nature present on earth.

Now this immediately sounds alarms because then the bread and wine are seen as divine; but the fact is that there is no more incarnation, it is the incarnate Lord who is present again in the sacrament (no need to discuss how this is at this time, only to affirm that since the second century the Christian Church has taught "real presence"). There are no more incarnations, only the continual presence of the one incarnation, Jesus Christ the only divine and human being held together in hypostatic union. If evangelicals really want to have an "incarnational" ministry then they need to go to the incarnation, not to their desire to hang around with people "where they are."

So my main frustration is the way the Incarnation is thrown around today as if it is always available anytime you want it. It is not and could not be so; there is only one incarnation and Our Lord is pleased to make himself known in his incarnation if we so seek him. But this does not mean we are to label a "power to the people" ministry as incarnation, unless you want to baptise anything you think is important with the label of God. That sounds like idolatry to me, not ministry. So let's be careful about how we use that blessed word; words are important, especially the Word who became flesh to save us from our sin.

14 Comments:

At 3:56 pm, Blogger Mair said...

I've never heard anyone say something like this before. It seems very strange to me that anyone would say we are to be "incarnational" and I think your response is appropriate.

 
At 4:00 pm, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

Thanks for that Mair, it really is the buzz word around here. My worry is what might come next, is our ministry to be "Trinitarian"? When that happens, I'm out of here.

 
At 2:12 pm, Blogger E. Twist said...

Dude, I'm so guilty of this. I love to sound cool. Dammit. What are you gonna do take all the cool words away. OK, as long as I can still "predicate" I'm fine.

Listen, tonight at my Jesus College placement a guy through "incarnational" out there. I smiled. You bastard.

E.

 
At 3:05 pm, Blogger Patrick Conley said...

Ok, the "wishy-washy liberal sissy" will go to bat for the evangelicals. I think the term has become so popular because it smacks of anti-institutionalism...now hear me, here: not anti-ecclesia, but rather a "church" that exists only for the sake of itself. A holy (or not!) club.

Isn't the thrust of the meaning behind "incarnational" asserting something that actually could be used to further a position of very high ecclesiology...that perhaps there is an ontological significance in the church being known as the body of Christ?

Further, I think the term embodies a challenge that we all frequently need: that the church does NOT exist for itself. And that indeed, the mission of God continues to be an incarnational mission: that God is not removed from people, but indeed he is Emmanuel. In my experience, Christians--perhaps especially evangelical Christians--need a reminder of the call to care for the poor, the orphan, the widow, and this not in some faint and disconnected way, but in the immediate, relationally, face-to-face.

Finally, with all these things in mind, I "own" the word incarnational precisely because it is so closely connected with my Christology..."incarnationality" (if I may), especially where the divine is concerned, is a fantabulously unique gift given to us, the followers of Christ, and, in my humble opinion, is a call which Jesus perfectly models for his Church.

 
At 12:00 am, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

Pads - I think I agree with all of that. My only concern is that you're not God so there is at root an inappropriateness in taking on the label of "incarnational" for yourself. Maybe in the Eucharist where Jesus has promised to show up especially, but my concern is that we are flatening the sacramental reality of the world so that "This is my body" has the same "ontological" significance as "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in their midst." Surely Jesus presence in my right now by the Spirit is different than his Eucharistic presence?

I want to affirm all that you have said, I think Jesus' mission to be face to face with the poor, etc. is essential to Christian identity. I just don't want to hijack a word which is specifically defined in the Church's teaching as a unique reference to the God-man. Can you come up with another word for the kind of ministry you have described? Something less historically-laden? When you do I am all in for it.

Thanks for keeping us on track though, you LWWS!

 
At 12:00 am, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

"My right", interesting. Read "me right now"

 
At 2:48 pm, Blogger E. Twist said...

Maybe the word is "indigenous." I think that's how Newbigin phrased it. Does that work?

 
At 3:48 pm, Blogger Mair said...

since I read this post on Saturday - I heard the word "incarnational" used no less than three times at my church on Sunday!!! WOAH!

 
At 11:01 pm, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

Indigenous. hmmm...sounds like a tribal thing. If we could turn Emmanuel into an adjective (Emmanuelich?) or something that would be nice.

I am thinking about getting a clicker and counting the call to incarnational action! Once wasn't enough!

 
At 2:03 pm, Blogger Patrick Conley said...

Hmmm...

I'll have to think about possible other appropriate words...

How 'bout

Trinitarian?

;)

 
At 2:39 pm, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

That's it, I'm outta here.

 
At 12:44 am, Blogger E. Twist said...

No, no, I got it.

EMERGENT

Oh, that's nice.

 
At 2:10 pm, Blogger Unknown said...

How about "palmitês" as in, "I am the vine, and you are the branches" (ego sum vitis vos palmitês)?

Incidentally, I am always rolling my eyes in response to that buzz word, not because of what that buzz might symbolize (in paddy's own words), but because I just get the sickening feeling that such a glorious word is being used as an identity marker, one that attempts to say, in effect, "I'm a hip Christian who's into being real [aka, "ermegent"] and doing church in strip malls with jangly-rock bands."

 
At 11:11 am, Blogger Gary said...

Calvinistic Baptists have more in common with Lutherans on the Doctrine of Justification/Salvation than they do with their Arminian Baptist brethren.

When it comes to the conversion of an adult non-believer, Arminians, Calvinists and Lutherans are in full agreement: salvation occurs when the sinner believes. Baptism is not a mandatory requirement to be saved. We have theological differences on how belief occurs, but we all believe that the second a sinner believes he is saved. If he dies a second later, he will go to heaven. He is a Christian.

Our significant denominational differences arise when we talk about the salvation of the infants and toddlers of Christian parents: how are these young children saved? What happens if, God forbid, one of them should die before reaching the age where they are capable of expressing a saving faith in Christ?

The Arminian answer is this: God saves all infants and toddlers who die, even the infants and toddlers of non-believers. They have no hard proof from Scripture to support this belief, but they believe that King David's comments about his dead infant gives them support for their position. Infants who die are "safe" in the arms of a loving God.

Calvinists look at their children in this manner: Their children are either the Elect or they are not. Presbyterian Calvinists will baptize their infants to bring them into the "covenant" (whatever that is!) of the Church but do not believe that baptism has any salvific value. "If my child is of the Elect he will declare himself to be a believer when he is older."

A Calvinistic Baptist will not baptize his infant, but looks at Election in the same way as the Presbyterian Calvinist: My child is either of the Elect or he is not. There is nothing I can do but bring him up in the Faith and leave the rest to God.

Lutherans believe that when God told us to baptize all nations, he meant to baptize ALL those who are of the Elect. Many Arminians and Calvinists assume that Lutherans believe that anyone we run through the baptismal font will get into heaven. Not true! Only the Elect will get into heaven. We baptize our infants in the HOPE that they are the Elect. Is it possible that some of the infants of Christian parents whom we baptize are not of the Elect and therefore will not be in heaven? Yes! But that is a mystery of God that we do not attempt to explain or understand.

However, we believe we are to do our job of "baptizing all nations" (who are of the Elect) by baptizing our infants and we then leave their Election up to God. We then follow Christ's command to "teach" them in the Faith as they grow up, but when they are older it will be their responsibility to nurture their faith with prayer, Bible study, worship, and the Lord's Supper. If these infant-baptized persons abandon their faith and turn their back on God, they may very well wake up one day in hell! Baptism is NOT a "Get-into-heaven-free" card! Salvation is by God's grace alone, received in faith alone.

No faith--->no salvation--->no eternal life!

The Calvinist position on the salvation of infants is very confusing to me…

discussion continued at:

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/07/calvinistic-baptists-have-more-in.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home