The Opposite of Incarnation is…
My last year @ Regent College is ahead of me. I’ve been workign at somewhat a frenetic pace, produce, produce, write, write, and every so often you’ll stumble upon somethign that’s significant and maybe a contribution. Maybe that happened recently. I was listening to yet another lecture by two older Caucasian gentlemen in the academia talking about how we ought to go down to them, downward mobility, kenotic spirituality. Over and over again. One fine young gentleman asked why immigrants (refered to as “they”) cluster together in cliques and do not open to the broader society. As if “they” would be easier to reach in our downwardly-mobile efforts if they would just come out of “their” shells. I started to get uneasy because even in this great seminary – I was noticing a glaring blind spot.
So I wrote a paper about it.
Avoiding any nasty polemics I presented a theological foundation for a more well-rounded missional approach – a sort of social Christology – a Trinitarian basis for a more balanced mission. In a nutshell – going downwardly mobile is only half the story. Incarnating is great, but the flip side is ascension. God became man – but man was uplifted into God. It’s a technical discussion.
But in a nutshell – here’s what I wrote in an online class forum. I’ve yet to hear any response.
- “Downward Mobility” – but does this not imply a starting point of “upward” privilege? That is to say, if we are talking about going “downward” doesn’t that mean our starting point is from above? Why not invite into the discussion those who are already in the “down” position? I think these lectures are a bit dated and need to include some minority voices who are already coming from this socially “down” position. We cannot talk about “downward mobility” to those who have already been living in rock-bottom circumstances. It sounds great, but what does downward mobility mean to my Christian friends who grew up in the South Bronx, just a few subway stops from where I went to high school? For them it’s meaningless talk.
- “Parish model” potentially leads to “gentrification“: Mind you – I LIKe the parish model – but at the same time when we talk about “incarnation / relocation / cluster living” – this attempting to move INTO the margins – doesn’t this contain the possibility of taking over those margins? When privileged classes and ethnicities move back into the neighborhood for whatever reason – religious or otherwise – it moves other people out. I’ve seen an entire neighborhood in Portland change overnight. To the whites moving in, it’s “re-vitalization” – restoring beautiful old turn-of-the-century homes. To the blacks who are systematically being bought out (and having the equity grossly undervalued on their homes) they call it “gentrification”. Whether we as Christians intend to do that or not when we adapt monastic lifestyles and “move into the neighborhood” it potentially contains this implicitly oppressive behavior. And when Charles alludes that where our kids go to school should not matter – easy for him to say – when nice suburban kids come to the ‘hood – they are usually scared into being good. But it doesn’t work the same the other way around. So this brings us back to the original problem, namely, our frame of reference in this class. We’re starting the discussion already from a place of privilege. Why not bring some of the more marginalized voices into the mix???
Like
Hi Wayne – Facsinating stuff. This is something I have also thought about. In fact, I might almost fit that category of “gentrifier”. However, I’m mostly here because I can’t afford to live anywhere else! The rasing dynamic is great. It’s clearly part of that most incarnational passage, Phil 2. It’s not something I had really put totherther before, so thanks for sharing. The purpose of incarnation is not only identification with, but transfomation of. But I sense a bit of a contradiction, then (if I got you right on that first point) because you seem to be resisting any stratification of higher/better – lower/worse. On that point I feel like you are mixing “theological” stratification with social: these white guys who talk about incarnation are patronizing (I hear you saying) bc they imply that they are in a position of power and must lower themselves to rescue the marginalized. I agree that it seems problematic. But you can critique that without critiquing stratification (not the best terminology). Incarnation will always be God among us and God transfoming and that will always imply, at least conceptually, a “good” source and a “needy” recipient, right? This is why we preach the gospel. But the lowering and rising, as you say, should not be confused with “I am a white middle class person who is in a position of privilege and I lower myself to those less fortunate ethnic people.” No. In fact, it may be that the ethnic Christian lowers himself (allows himself to be treated patronizingly, for example) in order to bring up and transform those who think they are in a position of privilege.
I think what needs more discussion in our Christian efforts: What to we mean when we talk about social transfomation?
@Rob
thanx for the pushback Rob… yeah I’m wondering how this line of thinking will be received by the grader. We’ll see. Over time I’d love to study and build up the theological foundations of this premise.
___________________
“I’m working on a thesis attacking this situation from a Patristic / Trinitarian standpoint. A technical discussion follows, if you’ve the patience.
I’m using the Eastern Orth. tradition of the social model of the Trinity – the ontological dialectic of 100% man / 100% God – that is to say, the ontological Triunity of God provides us not only with a communitarian vision but a dialectic for a social vision, that is to say, the lowering of a higher class (incarnation) but also the raising of a lower class (ascension).
The problem with the angry asian discussion thus far is that it has quickly adopted the language of the social sciences, a starting point that is suspect and quickly deconstructed (and thus dismissed) by the perceiving eye. Think how easy it is for us to toss around words like “white privilege”, “glass-ceiling”, “systemic”. The result is that an important discussion becomes semiotically foreign at best and bitterly polemical at worst.
What’s needed are asian american theologians who are able to tackle this from a more robust starting point. OK, call it giving into the Western theological hegemony, that argument has been going on for millenia, and frankly it will never win. I can count on one hand prominent theologians off the top of my head who are attempting this divorcing from Christianity’s philosophical beginnings and I can say they are sharpening their own stakes they’ll end up on.
In the end I appeal to the Trinity because it carries the gravity of several church Councils, Patristic writings, and current theological renewal. The Trinity (in its social model) is the perfect dialectic that lowers God but also raises man. We’re not askign for more charity; we’re asking for representation – and that’s what the ascension of Christ into the community that is called “God” is all about.”