Warning: Academic theological discussion ahead. Read at own risk
In my last post, I complained that the doctrine of the incarnation had gotten a bad rap lately. For me, talk of “the incarnation” has become confused. Yet I think it is an important doctrine – especially for the missional church movement. And so last week I began a series of three posts on the incarnation to hopefully clear up some confusions and put forth a proposal. Post Number One in this series described the doctrine of the incarnation, the debate surrounding it within missional circles, and then the first of three positions ( as I see it) on the incarnation. I labeled the first position the “incarnation as singular event.” I pegged this position as the one ascribed to by John Starke at the Gospel Coalition (I think John’s position is representative of the Gospel Coalition as a whole) and people like Halden Doerge. Ironically, I see the “the Gospel Coalition” and Halden in the same camp although admittedly coming from different theological starting points.
Today, I’d like to describe a second position on the incarnation. It is equally as popular and finds its strongest advocates among the Emergent crowd along with people like Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren. It understands the incarnation primarily as God providing “the Way into the Father’s Kingdom.”
2.) The Incarnation as the Way Into the Father’s Kingdom
People like Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren alert us (rightfully I think) to the problem within position 1.): the Incarnation as Singular Event. They say that such a position has the effect of making Jesus irrelevant for the daily challenges we face in our society. The Incarnation as Singular Event tends to focus intensely on the “event” of salvation in the individual as initiated in an already accomplished and completed work of Christ in the past. This has the effect of dis-enculturating the work of Christ, extracting salvation out of culture. So, paraphrasing the words of Brian McLaren, this view of Jesus says that “He is not the one who saves from poverty, captivity, blindness, or oppression” even though Jesus uses these very words to describe His mission (Luke 4:18-21). (NKoC 2010 p.128). This is a Jesus detached from the suffering world and the pains of our daily existence.
And so, as has become so popular these past twenty-five years (actually more like 100 years), people like Borg and McLaren (and many others) push us toward the gospels (as opposed to Paul) and the life of Jesus as the clue to understanding the incarnation, the mission of the Son and who He is. Here we see that Jesus is the revealer of God “not only in his teaching … but in his very way of being.”(Borg Jesus a New Vision 191). Jesus is a model for discipleship. Jesus modeled what it was like to live life in the Spirit, in the very center of God’s love for the world. He led us into life with the Father in His Kingdom and taught us how to always be engaging culture as God’s instrument to bring transformation for God’s purposes in the world. There is a new Kingdom of God at work here and Jesus teaches us how to live in it and asks us to go teach others to do the same (McLaren Secret Message p.75).
People like Borg. McLaren, and the Emergent church in general do a marvelous job of capturing this aspect of what God has done in Jesus Christ for the world. We see how God has entered into our world via full humanity, and has shown us the way to truly live in relationship with God and His coming Kingdom. As a human, Jesus shows us that God’s salvation embraces the whole of the world for a transformation that begins now (not just a future). We see in Christ how to live in the Spirit and be used to accomplish miraculous things God has done in and through Jesus (John 16:22).
This view of the incarnation puts the focus on discipleship. It puts the emphasis of following Jesus because to follow Him “is to be like him, to take seriously what he took seriously.” (pg 17 Jesus a New Vision Borg). Jesus lived life to the fullest in God’s Kingdom by the power of the Holy Spirit and shows us how to do the same. In Him, we become his disciples for the transformation of the world.
And so I applaud and agree this view of the incarnation. It focuses on the humanity of Christ and thereby enables us to see the way God has offered all of us “a way” to enter into His life. It draws us into full and earnest discipleship. People like Brian McLaren, Mark Scandrette and Marcus Borg have opened up (in their popular writings) the fullness of the incarnation in ways rarely accessible in the past to Christians in N America.
Nonetheless, in my view, this position tends to not go far enough because it fails to present the disruptive and radical nature of the incarnation as God’s incursion into the world for the salvation of the world. In Christ, a victory has been decisively won for the world and that victory, via Jesus Christ, has entered into the world. We go therefore into the world as servants ushering in a unique victory, a new order in Christ. His rule and transforming work has invaded the world. This position, in my view, errs towards seeing Jesus as a Way into God’s Kingdom apart from Jesus also being the means.
And so, sometimes, when I hear some teachings about “the way of Jesus” within Emergent circles I worry we are putting forth a way of life that can turn into moralism or legalism. “This is what disciples of Jesus do!” Yet we are not being invited into the dynamic rule of Jesus as Lord and His victory over the powers. I agree much with the Emergent authors that this is a rich way of love and justice in God’s Kingdom. Yet devoid of the inbreaking power of Christ’s rule via the Spirit, will this not devolve into another moralistic ideal? Jesus is not only “the way,” He’s the victor, the King, the One who is bringing in His Kingdom through a people who submit to and affirm in life and practice that “Jesus is Lord.” So, as I see it, there’s a backing off off here that creates a less radical, less prodigal gospel. What say you? Have I got this right? Does Borg do this? Does even Brian McLaren border on this error?
I suggest that the “Incarnation as the Way into the Father’s Kingdom” position too often domesticates the incarnation into a way to be followed as opposed to a new order that has begun. This rule is intrusive and radical because God in Christ, as fully God, comes into the world humbly to disrupt the world and bring forth His Kingdom. This often ends up fudging on the divinity of Christ. Perhaps this is why their proposals cannot be radical enough for me to describe the dynamic of the incarnation for our lives today.
For sure Borg tells us that this Jesus invites us into the supernatural, that God truly is at work in the world. Borg decries the enlightenment for striping our world of the Spirit and God’s work in the world. He invites us into the fullness of God’s Kingdom and what God is doing to transform the world. He draws us into the experience of a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit that draws us into His work in the world. All this is great!! Yet, Borg in the end wants to deny the divinity of the Son (See for example Jesus a New Vision, p. 191). By doing this, I contend, his portrayal of Jesus doesn’t match the prodigal nature of the radical incursion that is God coming to us in the Son in Jesus Christ. His version of Christianity is not radical enough.
What say you? Have I been too harsh on Borg? Have I wrongly associated Brian McL in the same camp as Borg?
In the next post, I propose a third approach to the incarnation that goes beyond both the the Incarnation as Singular Event and the Incarnation as the Way into the Father’s Kingdom.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.