The reason for the season
This article by Muriel Porter reflects on the wonder that is Christmas, and its representation of the God who pitched his tent amongst us:
Christmas does more than celebrate the birth of a baby in a stable in Bethlehem. At its heart, Christmas commemorates the incarnation - the coming of God among human beings as a vulnerable human; not pretending to be a human, but actually, fully, becoming human. And if God became human, then humanity itself can be Godlike.
Christmas declares that it is in and through our own flesh that God comes to us, dwells with us and redeems us. So how can we despise and reject our bodies, our human frailty, our human needs? Sadly, Christianity has always struggled to accept this mind-blowing concept. Some parts of the church shy away from it, wanting us to be saved from our humanity, rather than through it.
A Christmas without awe-filled worship of the God who comes among us as one of us, is not really Christmas at all. No wonder churches that think Christmas is just a time for happy families, don’t think it is worth the candle.
I always find at Christmas that my thoughts turn to Easter. And tonight at Tangent, we are looking at an aspect of the Christmas story which seems more at home in the passion than the nativity narrative - the slaughter of the innocents. However, I can’t help but experience a fantastic awe at the Word who became flesh, who came as a vulnerable child to teach the world to love.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:06 am
I am struggling to understand what she is trying to convey.
Humans becoming more godlike.
Is this some syncretic add on from Hinduism , a reference to Wesleyan perfection, or what.
I must admit I have yet to meet any bishop of a church who doesn’t welcome anyone on Christmas day.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:48 am
“God became human, then humanity itself can be Godlike”
Have not got much time today, but that makes me uncomfortable…its a bit Creflo Doallarish / Mormonish for my liking?
Any thoughts?
December 20th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Lionfish and Homer - I don’t know what Porter means, but I have no problem with that statement. She didn’t assert that humanity could become “God”, but only “Godlike”. (Perhaps she should have said “God-like”). To call ourselves “Christian” is to claim to be “Christlike” (or Christ-like).
Homer and Lionfish, I assume that you would both describe yourselves as “following” Jesus? Why do you do that? Surely at least one of the reasons is because you think he was God in human flesh - ergo, to endeavour to emulate him is to endeavour to be more like God…and hopefully, throughout life’s journey, become increasingly God-like.
Truly, to me that is one of the most beautiful, wondrous (ick…I’m getting soppy) things about Christianity. God became a person, and in reading the records of that person’s life, I can follow that person and become more like God. Even better, those stories assure us that it is somehow possible to communicate with God and be guided by God.
So…I have no problem with the notion that the stories of Jesus give us hope that we can be God-like, or at least approach being God-like - that’s one of the exciting things about Christianity!
December 20th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Good point Bec. I was just trying to get the discussion rolling.