“The central problem of popular Evangelical Christianity is its failure to comprehend the full implications of the Incarnation.” (Robert Webber, “A Critique of Popular Evangelical Christianity,” New Oxford Review, October, 1979, p. 7)
Methodist pastor Donald Sensing posted a nice link back to the website discussions on the Virgin Birth by Mark Roberts and me. When I looked at the comments, one gentleman offered a scathing critique of Orange County Presbyterians who seem to have enough time on their hands to write about theology, while ignoring the needs of the world. I offered a bit of sarcasm, Mark patiently pointed out that Christians who take seriously the incarnation have always affirmed that we need to “walk our talk” with actions that are consistent with our beliefs.
Now, a brief chance for me to demonstrate more than sarcasm (as I should). To wit: The “full implications of the Incarnation” is not “comprehended” until the doctrine is both affirmed and lived out, both believed and expressed.
As Bob Deffinbaugh has written in a nice piece that discusses the “personal implications of the incarnation” In it, he points out that the incarnation is both a “particular event” and a “principle”. It is worth reading in full and, happily, offers plenty of biblical support for the notion that we, the church, as I have said elsewhere are the “incarnation today.”
What is also significant to me (and maybe only me) is that on the theological spectrum Deffinbaugh is a dispensationalist from Dallas Theological Seminary, and I am a Calvinist from Fuller Theological Seminary. While we may disagree on a few nuances of faith, and might even approach the subject from a different starting point, when it comes to the notion that Christians are to be Jesus for the world today we agree and stand on the same biblical ground. (See for example, John 17:18, 20, 21; 2 Cor 4:7-10).
For me, because of Pentecost, the church (meaning true believers—the church “invisible” as it were that is always amidst the church “visible” with it’s obvious mixture of “wheat and tares”) is the embodiment of God on Earth at the present time. (What Bonhoeffer called “Christ existing as community.”)
The doctrine of the Trinity that is only revealed to us through the incarnation (there was no understanding of a Triune God before God came here himself), is then validated when the world recognizes THE SAME SPIRIT (Romans 8:15-17) given to the Church at Pentecost (and in saving regeneration) through the lives of the saints.
Of course, even true believers are still imperfect, so the “image of God” that we project is flawed. To make matters even worse, the “Church Universal” as Presbyterians call it is made up of those who are unregenerate, as well as the hodge-podge of the partly sanctified. The early church recognized this, (and fretted over it frankly) so the thoroughgoing ethical instruction of the NT is to REMIND the Church who they are and to exhort them to live out their new nature.
Paul’s incarnational ethics could be summed up in two phrases:
1) As Jesus was, so we are to be. (see for example, 2 Cor 4:17)
2) Be who you NOW are (by the Holy Spirit). (See Phil 2:12)
If we who have so vigorously defended the incarnation of Jesus, were to do so with lives of witness to the Spirit of Jesus present in us, then maybe the commentator on Rev. Sensing’s site would be more predisposed to read our theological articles.
Recent Comments