Thursday, December 25, 2008
Struggling With Incarnation
Like most kids, I loved Christmas growing up. The smells, sights, and sounds were exciting. My favorite part was the living nativity scene at our church. I remember the sound of my father’s voice as he read the story of Jesus' birth while the characters acted out the scenes. I remember helping gather up farm animals to make the whole thing seem “real” and I also remember the first time I was old enough to play the part of a shepherd. I even remember the year that one of the angels fell off the roof of the church and broke his leg. But I also remember having doubts about the story. Something didn't seem right.
I was taught that the main point of telling this story was to convince people that it really did happen. Belief in Jesus meant believing these things about him. Having faith meant having the inner strength to deny what seemed rational and assert certainty in what seemed implausible. Like many, Christmas was my first encounter with the C.S. Lewis style of false dichotomy that suggests “either it happened, or it is a lie”. I wonder how my religious experience might have been different if I had been shown how a story can be very true without ever actually happening. I wonder how much easier it might be to have peace in the world if we stopped fighting about which one of these ancient beautiful stories "really happened" and began living out their symbolic meanings.
It’s Christmas and today we celebrate the birth of a story. It is a story that never actually happened, but it continues to be true every day all around the world. It is the story of a transforming way of life coming into the world. I’m glad I finally found a way to relate to this story and take part in it. There have been many wonderful progressive theologians who liberated this story from fundamentalism and opened up the notion of incarnation to mean so much more than ancient superstitious beliefs or the bizarre Greek fascination with gods having human children. The Christmas story is a symbolic, subversive, declaration against oppression. Every culture has these kinds of stories, but instead of the typical religious myth about a warrior coming to power through violent victory over their enemy, this community chose to create a story about making peace by loving your enemy, restoring relationships by forgiving unconditionally, and finding strength by giving up your power. Instead of creating a story about overthrowing a single emperor, this story directs us toward methods that could end all empires by stopping injustice and devoting ourselves to peace at all costs (even death). This story invites us to participate in the transformation of this world rather than placing our hope in some future "plan B". This story asks us to direct our attention to the lowest of places rather than the highest palace. This story is about changing the world through a different way of living that rejects the methods of empire. This story suggests that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.
6 comments:
Hey Mike,
Hope you and yours had a wonderful holiday.
As we know, belief in God itself trancends empirical logic, it requires.....well..... faith, believing in what can not be proven by our senses or can not be tested scientifically. Where I am going with this, is your sentence:
"It is a story that never actually happened, but it continues to be true every day all around the world."
What led you to believe this is not factual? Why is it a reach to believe this was an actual event? Why do you not hold faith that this took place without proof yet believe in God or atleast the Christian interpretation without the same proof?
I just re-read my questions above, was my parallel clear? I confused myself a bit.
Inquiring mind really would like to know. My own faith journey has landed me in a state of apathy concerning spiritual matters. Maybe for once, that is a good thing until I clear my head.
JP,
I do "believe in it". I do believe in God. I just don't think it happened. Do you think there was literally a prodigal son, or a good samaritan? Do you think there was a literal Mona Lisa? Do you think there was a literal Romeo and Juliet? The bigger question is why do you pick this one story (or set of stories) from all the truth filled myths, parables, painting, and other artistic expressions to be taken as things the "actually happened"? Why does this have to have happened in order for you to see it as "true"?
The kind of belief that you suggest is more like a type of superstition. I'm not superstitious. However, I am a Christian and I do believe in the truths of our stories. They've changed my life and continue to challenge me to confront imperial values in my life and the surrounding world.
Mike, I have no problem with the beliefs you hold...at all. The story of Jesus has been told through time as a literal event. I am just wondering what about this Story leads you to believe it did not factually happen. Orthodox Christianty has passed this Story on as literal truth so when it comes to our existance it has deeper implications then whether or not Romeo and Juliet existed. If you can believe in a God of the Universe who created all, why not believe (factually) that how God revealed himself was through the factual claims that the Christian story (Birth, Death and Resurrection) happened......factually.
If you can believe in a God that you've never seen, then why can't you believe literally in Santa Claus? There are better arguments for your point, but I don't think you want to go down that path. Just because some power hungry Roman church leaders decided to reformulate and pass off the stories as literal facts does not make them factual. Reading them as literal stories belittles them.
"If you can believe in a God of the Universe who created all..."
I didn't say that.
First, when you say "God of the Universe" you've implied (maybe unintentional?) that God is "of" the Universe or came out of, or is a part of, etc. I can't buy that. Second, when you say "created" that is something I really can't accept given what we now know as facts about the universe.
My point about Romeo and Juliet is that if we ask "did that really happen?" we just make a mockery of the story and its author. If we insist that it happened, we make a mockery out of ourselves. Why can you see that so easily with Shakespeare's work but not with the Bible?
Mike,
I am not sure I really have a point. I atleast do not have a stance on the issue. I have an inquiring mind and want to know why you see the Christian story as not a literal account of what transpired. I understand something can be true without being factual. The thing about the bible and what scholars and early church fathers claim is that the story was and is true.....factually. At what point did you say "I believe in the Christian story, but I deny that it's a literal account of history"
If you hold faith in your belief of God, why do you not have faith that what the religion teaches is factually true.
Again I am not asking questions as someone who hold the opposite view of you. I again have no stance on the issue. I am just curious on how you arrived at your own views.
JP,
Because it is the best answer I can find given every angle, every point of view, and and every bit of data that I can find. Every other answer fails to make a valid point. I'll continue to hold my current view up to scrutiny. To be Israel is to struggle with God.
At the end of the day, I feel the view I now hold gives the most respect to the story. The view I was taught as a child, simply makes these stories into a joke.
Post a Comment