On the matter of incarnation

In response to the proposed combined creed for liturgical use, the Chapel Chronicle responded (emphasis mine):

 

Such a Creed may well be a way forward for those who wish to integrate the worship of Our Mother God with the West Tellurian tradition. Certain problems might arise: for example, the word "incarnate" would be troubling to Filianists who believe that while the Daughter certainly entered into manifestation, she was not made flesh nor manifested at a particular time or place on the plane of physical matter (which is but a tiny portion of the total cosmos).  -- http://www.mother-god.com/mother-god-blog.html#A-Combined-Creed

 

This is in part, why I have previously written, "one may need resort to a mild form of Nestorianism to overcome the Jesus question," although I do not fully advocate Nestorianism (which, by definition, views "Jesus in human flesh" as entirely separate from the divine "Son of God," hence they are two unrelated entities).

 

I foresaw this question to arise for years, and have been working on resolving and articulating this matter in a way that is consistent both with the historic understanding of Christian theology and traditionalist understanding of metaphysics.

 

First of all, the challenge is whether the Child of God was made flesh, or was (or had to be) manifest at a certain time and place, and if so, whether it was salvifically necessary. Discussions on this matter requires a good understanding of what one believes christologically.

 

In a well-known model (often preached by evangelical Protestants) Christ had to be a living man with flesh and blood, and without sin, so that his death would provide for an eternal sacrifice to atone (or propitiate God "the Father") for the sins of all humankind (argued that Adam brought the original sins to the world and that we, the people who live on this planet, are all descendants of Adam*). This is often called the "objective" or "satisfaction" theory.

 

Another model, often known as Christus Victor, "is rooted in the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. [Gustaf] Aulén argues that Christus Victor view of the Atonement is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the Powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin." (#) Prof. Marcus Borg, in his book The Heart of Christianity, further argues that the death of Christ was caused by the unjust "domination system" of this world, which is a product of human sin.

 

The problem I see in both models of redemption is that it limits the very act of universal salvation and redemption to one singular incarnation, to one singular historic event occurring at one specific time at one specific geographic locale. This reminds me of a prediction I made in my youth that there would be a massive theological catastrophe within the Church if it becomes known that there are intelligent and sentient human life forms outside this planet, that are not genetically related to us. If Christ had to be born in flesh, approximately 2000 years ago, in Palestine, to an Israelite family of the tribe of Judah, so that all offsprings of Adam (well, originally his followers argued that Jesus was the messiah to save Israelites, the children of Abraham!) would be saved, then what about those who were not offsprings of Adam -- are they sinless and thus require no redeemer, or do they have their own saviours on their own planets?

 

Just for a thought, let me unpack this with a little story that may be familiar to some:

Once upon a time, in a far away planet many thousands of light-years beyond our solar system, there was a beautiful planet a lot like ours. Let's just call this planet "Herthe" -- as it is a home, or a hearth, of some fine people. They have no concept of males or men, as the inhabitants of this planet are all feminine. They have mythology, culture and religion, just like we do. They have an advanced civilization, as well. Their mythology talks also of the fall of the maidenkind and the daughter of Dea separating herself from her divine self to become a maid so the inhabitants of the planet can return to their creator.

 

Now what?

 

The Herthans have a similar problem like our own: sin, separation from God, being cast into the resulting darkness and death, and a redeeming figure that is a child of God, who takes a human form to experience the human suffering, and eventually offers herself to the force of death.

 

The story like this has existed for many centuries on our planet even before Christianity, and even outside Palestine or the Roman Empire.  In ancient times, there was a story of Isis (Egypt) or Inanna (Mesopotamia) and her death and resurrection. In Asia the mythology around Kuan-shih-yin Pu-sa, or Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, loosely corresponds. In Hinduism, a scripture called Tantrarajatantra states that Lalita took the form of Krishna for the salvation of the gopis. By this, the Hindu scriptures understand that God, originally feminine, revealed herself in a different form in a way that could be understood in a certain patriarchal culture and religious milieu so that her presence still remains and salvation of all souls accomplished. [#] Likewise, the Christian myth (the word "myth" here is used in its traditional definition, the story that illustrates what cannot not be true) finds a parallel in Demeter and Kore.

 

It is important when discussing incarnational theology to emphasize that the incarnation is eternal.

 

Eternal, by its very own definition and implication, signifies that it is outside the constraints of time or space.

 

Because it is eternal, the incarnation is salvific for all people, not just the Jewish people residing in Palestine over nineteen centuries ago.

 

(This is also an important point for Christian theologians who advocate a theory that those who lived before Christ who were righteous through faith were likewise "retroactively" saved by his death and resurrection because the "Son of" God coexists eternally with the "Father.")

 

This understanding requires a revisiting of the controversy over so-called Nestorianism. I have come to believe that the incarnation is an eternal universal event, thus cannot be limited to one specific time and place. Yet, the incarnation is manifested (and is told) in several forms relevant to -- and appropriate for -- a specific historic and cultural setting. Hence the Gospels of Jesus Christ reveal the holy mythos of the incarnation within the framework of Judaism of that time, through an incarnation in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. While I still believe that God truly experienced humanity and human suffering--including its most severe element, death--through an incarnation (while Nestorius asserted that Christ the Divine could not truly suffer or die), I am open to many different ways in which the same story of the incarnation is revealed, manifest and told. Ultimately, they point to the ultimate act of salvation accomplished once and for all from all eternity to all eternity in the divine realm.

 

The Aristasians, rightfully, have continuing disagreements over the matter of incarnation. In the past they had adopted the mythology of Inanna (as had done the followers of Lux Madriana) but they may have felt that confining the eternal mythos in yet another cultural "box" (Mesopotamian instead of Hebrew or Hellenic Christian) would have also been problematic. At the very least, however, the Inanna myth was never told as a "historic event" but as an ancient tradition, thus largely avoids the debates along the lines of my foregoing discussion in this article.

 

At the very core, this discussion highlights the problem of religion in the age of rationalist materialism. Ultimately, this is a matter of faith and devotion, rather than that of a scientific and empirical reasoning. By no means I have all the answers, and my discussion on this topic is continuing and will continue to develop over time.