Comments on: The Opposite of Incarnation is… http://waynepark.com/2009/09/02/the-opposite-of-incarnation-is/ WAYNEPARK.COM: meditations on faith | place | race Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:36:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Wayne http://waynepark.com/2009/09/02/the-opposite-of-incarnation-is/comment-page-1/#comment-630 Wayne Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:12 +0000 http://waynepark.com/?p=1232#comment-630 ___________________ “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.” ___________________

“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.”

]]> By: Wayne http://waynepark.com/2009/09/02/the-opposite-of-incarnation-is/comment-page-1/#comment-391 Wayne Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:44:20 +0000 http://waynepark.com/?p=1232#comment-391 <a href="#comment-389" rel="nofollow">@Rob </a> 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. @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.

]]> By: Rob http://waynepark.com/2009/09/02/the-opposite-of-incarnation-is/comment-page-1/#comment-389 Rob Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:09:59 +0000 http://waynepark.com/?p=1232#comment-389 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? 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?

]]>