Discussing Incarnational Youth Work – Part 4. What does the original doctrine have to say?

Here we are at day 4 of Incarnational youth ministry week on YouthWorkHacks. Part 1 checked out the basics, Part 2 dug into the terms, Part 3 looked at the Bible, and today – Part 4 – we’re looking at the wider doctrine. Tomorrow we’ll conclude with some more practical things to think about.

Onto the doctrine then!

The Incarnation is primarily a unique work of God. It is not one that we are actually directly instructed to imitate because realistically to do so would be idolatry. We can work with it and even learn from it, but we can’t dress up in it like a onesie or a superhero costume.

A historic doctrine

Although history provides many theological interpretations of the Incarnation, we’re going to spend time now on what is widely accepted as the orthodox position. This is the unwritten view of the Incarnation that has been supported by the creeds most widely used across mainstream denominations.

Back in 325 AD and 451 AD, respective councils at Nicaea and Chalcedon met to debate what the Incarnation really was. They poured over the Bible together, debated for hours, and then arrived at two of our most important creeds. These two creeds have been used to establish orthodoxy ever since.

Digging into these creeds we find six essential aspects of the Incarnation. If you remove one of them, the doctrine collapses, and if you significantly over or underemphasise one of them, then the doctrine gets a serious dent. It would be enough to fail an MOT.

Let’s look at the six of the pieces in turn, then check out a little diagram that I made (and am excessively proud of).

Pre-existence

The Son existed in eternity as the second person of the Trinity before he was ‘enfleshed’ in Jesus. He ‘was’ before he was Jesus.

For Jesus to be Incarnate, it was important that He existed first. In fact, under a wider religious view of incarnation, it’s actually impossible to become incarnate at all without pre-existing in some form first.

In Heb. 1, where the divinity of Jesus is emphasised, there is a solid and unmissable affirmation of the pre-existence of Jesus. He existed in eternity before He was incarnate in the flesh.

Hypostatic union

Now there is a fabulous term to throw out at parties!

A central discussion at both the council of Nicaea and Chalcedon was on how Jesus could be presented as one hypostasis (substance) between God and human. How could He be both?

It’s a bit complicated in the details, but what the creeds are saying here is that Jesus was both divine and human – at the very same time. It’s like being both fully wet and fully dry – at the same time. Yea, I can’t do it either! That’s kinda the point though.

In the person of Jesus, the fullness of God (Col. 1:15) dwelt in human form (Jn. 1:1-18). Two complete, distinct persons, fully united in one ‘hypostasis’. Neat eh?

Humility

Athanasius of Alexandria (an absolutely early legend) said, ‘the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world’ (318, 1993:33).

Commentator Ben Witherington says ‘Jesus’ greatest temptation was to push the “God button,” to draw on his divine nature in a fashion that obliterated his true humanity’ (Witherington, 2016:125). That’s an awesome quote! Phil. 2:5-11 teaches that Jesus, the pre-existent God, humbled himself to both human reality and ultimately death.

Phew! Humility is not just how low can you make yourself, it’s from how high did you start off. This is why it’s more impressive when a tall guy limbos! We cannot full grasp the level of Jesus’ humility, because we began nowhere near his great height.

Atonement

Ok. Big one now! Jesus came to save us, and He needed to be both human and God for this to work:

As human, Jesus was the required sacrifice for the human condition of sin (2 Cor. 5:21). He was a human solution to a human problem. If He was just human – even a perfect one – then He would only be able to pay the price of one other human. This is where His epic God-ness comes in.

As God, Jesus was able to become both perfect sacrificial lamb (Lev. 16) and mediating High Priest (Heb. 4:14-18). This made His sacrifice eternal! It worked for all of potential humanity in the one event of the cross (Heb. 10:1-18; 2 Pt. 3:18).

‘For Athanasius… Jesus’ atoning death was the central purpose of the incarnation; the immortal Son of God needed to become man to die’ (Athanasius, 318, 1993:35, cf.:26; also check out Steve Jeffery, Ovey and Sach in Pierced for our Transgressions, 2007:172).

Eschatology

Here’s another fun party word. So, Adam was the assumed head of humanity being the first born of creation. Jesus, however, has become the new head of humanity being the first born of the new creation. Where Adam sucked, Jesus got it right (Rom. 5).

The Incarnation makes Jesus the undisputed King of the world, baby.

Jeffery says ‘The Son became incarnate in order to bring completion to creation. For God intended his creation to be ruled by a perfect human being, and without such a ruler creation is incomplete, lacking, defective’ (Pierced for our Transgressions, 133).

Revelation

Last but not least, Revelation.

Revelation is the translation of God to His creation, both primarily as the ultimate or ‘true’ human to humanity, and secondarily as a 1^st Century Aramaic-Jew living in that particular culture. He is the true ‘Word of God’ (Jn. 1) that has been ultimately spoken in these ‘last days’ (Heb.1).

This piece is a really important part of the puzzle, but it is not the whole picture of the Incarnation. Let’s summarise these six points in a diagram before we move back to the point, which is incarnational youth ministry.

So, what’s your point, Tim?

My point is that the incarnational theory of youth ministry misses five out of six aspects of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and seriously dilutes the sixth. That’s like 85% of the doctrine bypassed! Gaaarraggghhhhh!!  *cough*… sorry. It’s not that they always miss these in other areas of discussion, but they don’t come up when talking about the Incarnation.

Most of these aspects can only work if you happen to be God. They are unique, divine, and saving actions that cannot be emulated by humans. We don’t save right?

The incarnation primarily is a unique aspect of God. Saying that we incarnate into culture like Jesus incarnated into culture is to take one very small part of the Incarnation, ignore all the others, and then make it the whole – and then its twist what remains slightly to be about us rather than Him.

This is why it’s a big deal. It’s taking a tyre off a car then trying to fit it to a bicycle and that calling that a ‘car’.

I’m happy to say something like, ‘when God was Incarnate in Jesus, He was contextualised to a specific Aramaic-Jewish culture, so we too must consider how to contextualise into other cultures.’ That’s fine. I’m also happy to say something like ‘when God was Incarnate in Jesus, He became a relatable human being, so we to must focus on building relationships with those we serve.’ But I’m not happy to call what we do ‘Incarnational’.

When using any foundational doctrine as a basis for praxis, we should always ask whether the praxis flows healthily from the original doctrine without confusing or diminishing it. Incarnational theory uses one small part, morphs it into a thing we primarily do, then completely bypasses the other aspects of the doctrine.

My big big problem here – other than the fact that we keep thinking of the Incarnation through the lens of incarnational theory and thus diluting who Jesus is and what He did is… no, wait. That is the big problem. Let’s not do that any more.