The Christmas Eve Christingle talk at our church began with an illustrated 'God's unexpected present' theme (the Incarnation) before moving to an extended focus on the cross. It finished with a 'committment prayer' on the screen that was all the language of coming to the cross and confessing our sin. A sermon on Christmas eve about Good Friday. This is not untypical of Christmas talks to congregations full of once-a-year unchurched. Indeed it is a familiar dilemma for any preacher and I share it. But would anyone like to discuss this further? Here are some of my starters.

*How do we honour the doctrine of the Incarnation in our preaching at Christmas? There is a well intended (and faithful) evangelical zeal for the gospel that easily leaves the doctrine of the incarnation as little more than a  'way in' to talking about the cross. Indeed there seems to be a nervousness about spending too long there.

*If sin had not entered the world would the Incarnation not have happened? Would we not have met Christ? It is a strange thought. Is the incarnation only a means to the cross or is it something more,  that a sinful world now requires the utter self-giving of Christ to enable?

*The Christmas blessing in Common Worship begins 'Christ who by his incarnation gathers into one all things earthly and heavenly...'. Does that point us to a richer and neglected theology of Christ's gift and presence in the world? Or is it deficient for not mentioning the cross at all?

The Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement writes: 'The incarnation needs to be put back into the whole scheme of creation. Human waywardness has certainly made it into a tragic redemption, but the Incarnation remains above all the fulfilment of God's original plan, the great synthesis, in Christ, of the human, the divine and the cosmic ... [for] "he is before all things and in him all things hold together"' Col 1.17 (The roots of Christian mysticism 1995  38-9)

So how did others preach the story and doctrine of the Incarnation this year without giving the impression that really only Good Friday matters?

DavidR

Speculation about a possible incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity if man had not fallen is just that….speculation. Clements’ ‘…but the Incarnation remains above all the fulfilment of God's original plan…’ (understanding ‘original plan’ as ‘without a Fall’  - but whether ‘original’ is the right word would take us again into the mystery of predestination) lacks any Biblical foundation; and "he is before all things and in him all things hold together" was true before the incarnation.

I agree that Christ is our Teacher, Example, King etc. as well as, as I see it, above all our Redeemer, and until he is our Redeemer by his cross and resurrection he cannot be these other things to us.

So I commend the, as you put it, ‘…well intended (and faithful) evangelical zeal for the gospel….’ at your Christmas Eve service, following Paul in Galatians, ‘But when came the fulness of the time, God sent forth his Son, becoming of a woman, becoming under law, in order that he might redeem the ones under law in order that we might receive the adoption of sons’, because, as I will never tire of saying, redemption is the prior and paramount need of sinners.

Phil Almond

In the Bible - in the Gospels - we see salvation played out at a human pace from birth to death. Disciples took three years to make. The urgency of salvation meant it was done properly and not hurried as if it didn't matter, or as if it were magic.

I often talk about the way Luke tells the story, where the shepherds, of whom we hear nothing more, went home rejoicing at what they had seen. By contrast Mary pondered these things in her heart - both are responses to revelation. I invite people to ponder in their hearts ... confident that God will be there in that pondering: do we not see that in Mary in the gospels?

Good Friday is a poor place to end the story - Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, second coming are all to come. I tend to focus in Advent on whether we will be ready to meet Jesus when he comes. Matthew 25 and the creation in Genesis suggest we ought to have had plenty of opportunity to meet Christ as the image of God in others. The prologue to John's Gospel talks of the life which is the light of all people, not the death which is the salvation of the world - the gospel, properly conceived looks beyond death to life, and to a love which is stronger than death and a life which extends beyond death.

So for me, some of the reasons God became human were to tell us "I can work at your pace" and "I want you to live because I love you" and "I want you to be able to recognise me when I come".

Christmas invites us to broaden our perspective ... not to narrow it.

DavidR, truly worthy answers to your question-- how can someone preach the Incarnation on the Nativity?-- would exfoliate into a vast and infinitely varied garden. With my apologies, I simply supply a few field observations off the top of a busy head, enumerated for reference.

(1a) Some preachers make note in passing of the emphases of the evangelist as they are reflected in the reading.

(1b) Some see the truth of the feast as something grasped more by affect than argument, and preach "horticulturally" to graft the confused sentiments of the congregation back onto the root of Jesse.

(1c) Some have built on the propers of Advent to stress the adventus of divine kingship. Of these, (1d) one sort follows St Bernard into these of devout reception of the King, and (2a) another enlarges on the sort of Kingdom that is ruled from manger and cross.

(2b) Sometimes preachers introduce, not the gospel, but the world that we see in its light. "Because the gospel is true, we know..."

(2c) Some, seeing that the story depends so much on prophecies, angels, and signs that all converge on the Incarnation of the Word, preach that God's love for us is behind all of His self-disclosures to us.

(2d) Some, thinking of the star and the Magi, preach the glory of the Lord and the adoration of the soul.

(3a) Some preachers have been heard to say that the divine condescension of the Nativity demonstrates the divine love that motivates the redemption of the world.

(3b) Some preachers who want to talk about sacrifice at Christmas have maintained that the whole Incarnation is a sacrifice, the Cross being the event that made this clear.

(3c) Some preachers begin with (2d) but then close on a Johannine note with the glory of the Cross.

Doubtless all of these exemplars can be and have been followed, both in clumsy ways and in luminous ones. There are other sorts of preaching. No sort of preaching is edifying to every sort of congregation.
 

From Mark, the best reply yet--

So for me, some of the reasons God became human were to tell us "I can work at your pace" and "I want you to live because I love you" and "I want you to be able to recognise me when I come".

Christmas invites us to broaden our perspective ... not to narrow it.

The human emotions of wonder and awe, aroused by these narratives, can open cognition to deeper awareness, enabling the mind to take in such reasons as these, and to ponder them, not in the chattering "monkey mind," but in the heart. In fact, it is unclear whether anything other than story can have this effect. Preaching that shows the Incarnation must surely allow the scriptural narrative to facilitate that opening, and preaching that bounces lightly off the story to hasten on to doctrinal "meat" may pour more into the bottle than it is prepared to receive. Blessed is the congregation whose preacher is not merely clever but wise in the processes of the heart!

Interesting that in the verses from Galatians (4:4f) quoted by Phil Almond to boost his case for stressing redemption by Jesus' cross and resurrection, there is actually no mention at all of death or resurrection, but only of Jesus coming into the world, i.e. the only thing specifically mentioned is incarnation!

Of course, in Jesus coming to redeem us Paul includes, (indeed usually centres on), his death and resurrection, but not in this verse - here it is just incarnation. Which perhaps suggests this is an excellent bit for Christmas preaching, combining the coming of Jesus and our resulting redemption. And then leading on in the next verses to the Spirit bearing witness to that redemption and our sonship.

Hmm. Must remember that passage for next year!

George Day

Of course, as you are probably intimating, Paul has already specifically linked law, Christ's death, redemption and adoption in the Spirit in Galatians 3:10-14. In 4:4f he affirms that redemption and adoption is the purpose of the incarnation.

Phil Almond

Some beautiful and helpful reflections on this thread - thank you. My starting position (as someone involved in training people to preach, among other things) is that there a widespread lack of confidence and content in our preaching on the Incarnation (and I share that lack in my own preaching). One familiar consequence in the evangelical world is the tendency to reduce it solely to God's method for bringing the cross into the world. It is, to put it crudely, a divine problem solving device. But it is surely much more than that. A faithful teaching of the incarnation will always find a cross at the heart of it but our understanding of the cross must be founded on the foundations of a rich biblical doctrine of the Incarnation. (And the incarnation itself is such an extraordinary gift of utter self-emptying, sacrifice and self giving that it already anticipates the gift of the cross doesn't it?)

The Christian theologians of the first centuries pondered this long. Irenaeus famously summed it up in this way. 'God became a human being that we might become divine'. I am not sure if Phil would accept this and would insist Irenaeus should have said 'that he might die upon the cross'. But Irenaeus was setting the cross in a richer and more glorious context - a teaching called 'divinisation' or 'theosis'. It is really not such a novel (or speculative) thought to suggest that this was always God's longing and plan - the original secret, a mystery hidden throughout the ages, at the heart of creation. It had to be so. And this is a mystery that now, through the tragedy of human sin, must come by way of the cross. The point is that the cross is part of, and central too, a much greater self-revelation of God that reveals the destiny of the whole cosmos. The Incarnation reveals the way God creates, gives himself and seeks to draw all things into unity in Himself, as it was in the beginning. This is the way God loves. This is his desire. So Maximus, a c6 theologian writes of three degrees of 'embodiment' of the Word. Each an intensification of the other. Firstly, there is the very existence of all this, the cosmos, creation, you and me .... this world is a theophany. 'All things came into being through him'. Secondly, there is the hidden presence of the Word in history - providential, guiding, Law, prophets - all uniquely revealed and interpreted in the Scriptures. Thirdly, the personal incarnation of the Word brings this to its fullest and unique expression. For Gregory of Nyssa the first two are so compelling a witness that he writes, 'that God should have clothed himself with our nature is a fact that does not seem strange or extravagent [for] he clothes himself with the universe and at the same time contains it and dwells in it'.  So Clement  (see my first post) movingly concludes, 'the incarnation was therefore the product of a long history, a fleshly fruit that had been long ripening on the earth'  and declares that 'everything exists in an immense movement of incarnation which tends towards Christ and is fulfilled in him'.

On the threshold of a new year in a very uncertain world I find that so encouraging.  New Year greetings to fellow travellers on this thread.

DavidR

Did ‘The Christian theologians of the first centuries’ whose observations you quote give support for these observations from the Bible?

Phil Almond

Phil. Not sure what sort of answer you are looking for. You obviously have not read them? You see it is a bit like asking if John Stott  or John Calvin based their teachings on the Bible. Irenaeus was also one of the leading figures to establish the canon of Scripture. He lived at a time when the church was under attack from the gnostics and other false teachers. His whole teaching was based upon the New Testament as the decisive norm and standard of the Church's doctrine. For him, it was essential to keep the path laid down by the authority of Scripture and in the clear tradition of the apostolic churches which was the best guarantee of resistance to innovation and dangerous speculation. I have just leafed through my copy of the writings of Gregory of Nyssa. Amazing stuff. My English edition has footnote numbers on almost every line tracking the scripture texts and allusions wherever they occur. So the simple answer is 'yes'.

DavidR

I was hoping that you would give me some Biblical chapter and verses used by the people you quoted to support their views. I can then comment on whether I think they do support their views.

Phil Almond 

Dear Phil. I was afraid you would ask more for chapter and verse?  But let me challenge you. I have written very fully and quoted or alluded to key doctrines and scripture already - and noted somne of my sources. What is it that you find difficult, surprising or wrong about what I am saying. And are you not aware of this teaching in the theological traditions of the Christian church through history?

Though I have never doubted your sincerity and passion for the Word, as I briefly respond please recall, with all respect, how your use of scripture has often been challenged on these thread - not just by me.

You ask for chapters and verses. It is a fair question at one level. Although you will not agree you surely know that I do not consider that bible truth cashes out so directly - like factual statements we can just read and agree or disagree on.

Can I also say, as someone who has taught church history and theology over the years, that I never lose a sense of standing on the shoulders of giants when I read and reflect on such early church theologians as I have been quoting. It does not mean that I always agree with them - or even understand them at times. But it is always a holy conversation. I feel we have lost that reverence for history and replaced it with a culture of suspicion. But as Wesley covered the country on horseback reading as he went it was these theologians he was reading - in Greek and Latin. They underpinned his theology and ministry and prayer. And it shows doesn't it? By their fruits ....

For passages that lead into the theme of the incarnation I would point to the prologue of John's gospel, to Phil 2 on the self emptying of Christ as a revelation of the nature of God - this is how God loves, creates and redeems. On the cross God is not offering something out of character in that sense. God's love is eternally a way of incarnation.  Also Eph 1 and Col 1.15-17 - and 26. 

I hope this helps