From a comment by Daniel Kirk in his post on Christology in Luke:
...I think that one of the more significant things we find in the Jesus of the Gospels is what it means to be truly human. Too often, in my experience, when folks start finding divinity in the Gospels that becomes an explanation for why Jesus can do what he does (heal, exorcise, etc.)–and why we, in turn, can’t. But if all of it is a big picture of what it means to be truly human, as God’s children, then the family of God on earth has just such a high calling and stunning responsibility.
If this is true, might it be a good enough reason to continue using the word "incarnation" in reference to the church and its mission, despite the fair warnings of Creideamh? Incarnation, after all, is about becoming truly human -- something the church and the world is called to be.
I get where you are coming from but still NEIN! :)
ReplyDeleteWhen the Logos took on flesh it is true that humanity discovered what it is to be human. Absolutely. Beautiful. Spot on.
But we did not learn how to be God. And hence we cannot be incarnational! The incarnation is not about being fully human. It is about God taking on flesh and it follows logically that he will be fully what he becomes- ie the perfect man.
What is the benefit of incarnation language when ambassador is a Biblical model that we're actually exhorted to think through and it gives us all we need. :)
But through the truly human Jesus didn't we also discover what it means to be truly (like) God? Christlikeness is Godlikeness and all that. I'd invoke "image of God" language into this, but Im not sure if that will help my case or harm it!
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, incarnation is a cool sounding word, and that's all writers really care about. :)