Here's the Harry Reasoner piece Greg has quoted on the radio show many Christmas seasons:
The basis for this tremendous annual burst of gift buying and parties and near hysteria is a quiet event that Christians believe actually happened a long time ago. You can say that in all societies there has always been a midwinter festival and that many of the trappings of our Christmas are almost violently pagan. But you come back to the central fact of the day and quietness of Christmas morning - the birth of God on earth.
It leaves you only three ways of accepting Christmas.
One is cynically, as a time to make money or endorse the making of it.
One is graciously, the appropriate attitude for non-Christians, who wish their fellow citizens all the joys to which their beliefs entitle them.
And the third, of course, is reverently. If this is the anniversary of the appearance of the Lord of the universe in the form of a helpless babe, then it is a very important day.
It's a startling idea, of course. My guess is that the whole story that a virgin was selected by God to bear His Son as a way of showing His love and concern for man is not an idea that has been popular with theologians. It's a somewhat illogical idea, and theologians like logic almost as much as they like God. It's so revolutionary a thought that it probably could only come from a God that is beyond logic, and beyond theology.
It has a magnificent appeal. Almost nobody has seen God, and almost nobody has any real idea of what He is like. And the truth is that among men the idea of seeing God suddenly and standing in a very bright light is not necessarily a completely comforting and appealing idea.
But everyone has seen babies, and most people like them. If God wanted to be loved as well as feared he moved correctly here. If He wanted to know His people as well as rule them, He moved correctly here, for a baby growing up learns all about people. If God wanted to be intimately a part of man, He moved correctly, for the experiences of birth and familyhood are our most intimate and precious experiences.
So it goes beyond logic. It is either all falsehood or it is the truest thing in the world. It's the story of the great innocence of God the baby - God in the form of man - and has such a dramatic shock toward the heart that if it is not true, for Christians, nothing is true.
So, if a Christian is touched only once a year, the touching is still worth it, and maybe on some given Christmas, some final quiet morning, the touch will take.
It leaves you only three ways of accepting Christmas.
One is cynically, as a time to make money or endorse the making of it.
One is graciously, the appropriate attitude for non-Christians, who wish their fellow citizens all the joys to which their beliefs entitle them.
And the third, of course, is reverently. If this is the anniversary of the appearance of the Lord of the universe in the form of a helpless babe, then it is a very important day.
It's a startling idea, of course. My guess is that the whole story that a virgin was selected by God to bear His Son as a way of showing His love and concern for man is not an idea that has been popular with theologians. It's a somewhat illogical idea, and theologians like logic almost as much as they like God. It's so revolutionary a thought that it probably could only come from a God that is beyond logic, and beyond theology.
It has a magnificent appeal. Almost nobody has seen God, and almost nobody has any real idea of what He is like. And the truth is that among men the idea of seeing God suddenly and standing in a very bright light is not necessarily a completely comforting and appealing idea.
But everyone has seen babies, and most people like them. If God wanted to be loved as well as feared he moved correctly here. If He wanted to know His people as well as rule them, He moved correctly here, for a baby growing up learns all about people. If God wanted to be intimately a part of man, He moved correctly, for the experiences of birth and familyhood are our most intimate and precious experiences.
So it goes beyond logic. It is either all falsehood or it is the truest thing in the world. It's the story of the great innocence of God the baby - God in the form of man - and has such a dramatic shock toward the heart that if it is not true, for Christians, nothing is true.
So, if a Christian is touched only once a year, the touching is still worth it, and maybe on some given Christmas, some final quiet morning, the touch will take.
"God in the form of man"?
- Isn't that Docetism?
Posted by: James Findlayson | December 15, 2009 at 04:09 AM
"God in the form of man" sounds familiar...Philippians 2:6-7 (NASB)
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."
Posted by: Steve Bruecker | December 15, 2009 at 06:14 AM
Give me Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the Bible poses no problem for me.
A.W. Tozer.
Posted by: Damian | December 15, 2009 at 09:17 AM
James,
Docetism rejects that God has come in the flesh, so "God in the form of man" is not Docetism.
Posted by: Nathaniel | December 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
The confusion might be in the word "form." It's not being used as mere appearance (for example, if someone appeared in the "form," or appearance, of something else), but as in the very substance--actually "being made" as something, not just appearing in the shape of that thing.
Posted by: Amy | December 15, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Thank you, Amy.
It seemed to me the piece was describing an Avatar, not Christ.
Posted by: James Findlayson | December 21, 2009 at 04:56 PM
Hi Amy.
Thinking further on it, I suppose my belief in the mystery of Christ being fully man and fully God is re-presented at Mass through transubstantiation. Our worship and Christology are one, for Christ is truly present.
How does your 'form' of Eucharist express your Christology? Or are they separate issues?
Posted by: James Findlayson | December 22, 2009 at 03:32 AM
Hi James, how do you propose to answer the question how Jesus' human nature is present in more than one place at a time? The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation with its Aristotelian framework is not defensible biblically. Of course Rome doesn't rely on the Bible, so maybe this doesn't bother you. The Person of the trinity Who is also a man cannot do what is being said about Him without violating a historic creed [Nicene].
Posted by: Brad B | December 18, 2011 at 07:48 PM
btw, I'n not depending on using the Nicene Creed to prove that transubstantiation is unbiblical, I only mention it because Rome also embraces it as authoritative tradition to be believed as true. Except for the usual gymnastical twisting and tangling of authoritative sources, it would be obvious incoherency.
Posted by: Brad B | December 18, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Note to self:
Put the word "gymnastical" in my leximicon. Or my dictionaminary.
Posted by: Cog | December 19, 2011 at 04:58 AM
Before Moses was "I am"
Posted by: Andrew | December 19, 2011 at 05:51 AM
I wish you all the joys to which your beliefs entitle you.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 19, 2011 at 08:52 AM