incarnation | bekahcubed

** This post was copied from our Christmas letter this year – so don’t feel bad about skipping it if you’ve already read it. Otherwise, you are definitely obligated to read it in its entirety :-) **

It’s cliché to talk about how having children changes your view of God – but having a newborn this Advent season has definitely given me a whole new perspective on the Incarnation.

God became man. It’s a weighty thought any time – but this Advent, I’m struck with the reality that God became infant.

Part of being a human is having physical and psychological needs – a need for food and clothing and shelter, for comfort and companionship. And part of being a human newborn is having no way of fulfilling those needs by oneself – and only one way of expressing those needs to others. An infant cries.

As Tirzah Mae squalls in her bed or on a blanket or in my arms, I contemplate that Jesus – God Himself – cried. And as I run through the list of possible causes of Tirzah Mae’s distress, I contemplate that Jesus had an earthly mother who was just as clueless as I, who struggled to meet the needs of her newborn. I contemplate how the Creator of the Universe became dependent on His creation. What humiliation! And for what cause?

Philippians 2:6-8 tells us why Jesus came: “…though he was in the form of God, [He] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Jesus had all the needs humans have save one. Everything my Tirzah Mae needs, He needed – except one thing. Tirzah Mae, perfect though she may seem, was born sinful, under the wrath of God. Jesus was not. He had no need to be saved from the wrath of God because He didn’t deserve the wrath of God. Yet Jesus Christ came, bore the humiliation of being a human infant so that He could go to the cross – so that He could bear the wrath Tirzah Mae and I deserve. I can feed and clothe and comfort my Tirzah Mae, but I can never save her. Yet Jesus – Jesus came as a little infant like her so that He could save her.

Cliché though it may be, as I reflect on and care for my wonderful early Christmas gift, I am reminded of the greatest Christmas gift of all – and I am thankful that God became infant in Jesus Christ, that God became sin in Jesus Christ, that God bore the penalty of my sin in Jesus Christ, and that in Jesus Christ my greatest need is met.

I pray this Christmas that we all may come to know the great salvation for which Jesus humiliated Himself.

**I’m going on another book review kick, this time sparked by having to return another section of books. Which means I have to get them all reviewed before I forget them!**

Keith Ward’s Christianity: A Short Introduction travels through a collection of Christian doctrines and thought from creation to the nature of the soul to the incarnation to the trinity to the role of art. Each chapter is divided into three sections, in which each section seeks to portray one Christian perspective on the topic at hand.

In general, the three perspectives given are as follows: one perspective is the majority position of historical Christianity (that is, Christianity as reflected by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformation Protestantism), a second perspective represents a minority position among historical Christianity, and a third perspective represents liberal Christianity. (Not that the author makes this distinction. He simply refers to the positions as being “different Christian positions.”)

An example of this trichotomy (except that I’m not sure which of the two historical positions is the majority position) is Ward’s three views on the Bible. The first view is the view of the Bible as inerrant (such that every detail of the Bible is correct). The second view is the view of the Bible as infallible (such that the Bible communicates every “pertinent” detail correctly.) The third view (the liberal view) is that the Bible is an accurate representation of what followers of God believed about God in their own times.

Of course, in suggesting that Ward follows this format of majority historical/minority historical/liberal, I leave out at least two important chapters that DO NOT follow this schema.

For instance, the chapter on the Incarnation presents two liberal views:

Jesus was just a man, but one who the early Christians saw as an “icon” of the Messiah–one who died, but who appeared (in visions given to early Christians) to be raised
Jesus was just a man, but one who was specially gifted by the Holy Spirit such that he “represented” God on earth.

Not having had much exposure to liberal Christianity, I had no idea of the mental gyrations liberal theologians perform in an attempt to still merit the term “Christian”.

It is here, in the theology of the Incarnation, that liberalism completely separates itself from Christianity. It is notable that only one of the three views given on this topic is that of historic Christianity–and the reason is simple.

Christians throughout the ages have united to affirm the Incarnation of Christ as true God and true man–and to condemn all other views as heretical–from ancient times (especially the Council of Chalcedon in 451) onward.

This doctrine of Incarnation is fundamental to the Christian faith–and any faith that calls itself Christian without affirming the doctrine of Incarnation deceives itself.

While the author points out that he doesn’t want the reader to know his position on any of the issues in this book, the mere inclusion of such liberal theology in a book purporting to be an introduction to Christianity indicates that this author has no firm attachment to the historic Christian faith (such as is articulated in the three ecumenical creeds: the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.)

Furthermore, the author’s continuing statements that “some Christians still believe…”, as though Christian thought that is not continually changing is inappropriate, also indicates his derision for the historic Christian faith.

A better title for this book might have been “Religions Calling Themselves Christian: A Short Introduction”–except that, sadly, this author and many others in liberal “Christianity” have deluded themselves into thinking that they are Christians, when in truth they are no such thing.

Rating: 1 star
Category:“Christian” Thought
Synopsis:The author attempts to introduce the reader to Christianity–but ends up doing something less than that since the author’s personal brand of Christianity is not, in fact, Christianity.
Recommendation: As an aspiring theology geek, I enjoyed sharpening my mind on the (often heretical) views of the author–but, as an introduction to Christianity? This is not a good choice.

**Oh, in case any of you were wondering, the second chapter which definitely did not follow the “majority historical/minority historical/liberal (heretical)” format was the chapter on the Trinity. Once again, this is because historical Christianity has always united to affirm the Trinity. (And no matter how hard Ward tries to argue that Modalism is compatible with the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity, he epically fails.)

The Incarnation: God become infant

Book Review: “Christianity: A Short Introduction” by Keith Ward