Christmas is not about Santa, reindeer, presents, or sugarplums dancing in your head. Christmas is about Immanuel, God with us. Without the Incarnation, Christmas becomes a meaningless celebration for celebration’s sake.

By the word Incarnation we mean that the babe in the manger who grew to be Jesus of Nazareth was fully God and fully man. When we read in Scripture that the Lord showed fear, grieved, thirsted, and died we understand this to mean that in his human nature he suffered these things. Then when we read that by his power he healed the sick, raised the dead, commanded nature, drove out demons, forgave sins, and rose from the dead we understand that these reveal his divine nature.

The two great theological mistakes are to depreciate either Christ’s human nature or his divine nature. Both of these mistakes have arisen at different times in history. Currently we are in a time that struggles with the idea of God’s supernatural intervention, so, the tendency is to see Christ as some sort of better-than-normal man. This was the ancient error of the Ebionites and the false teacher Cerinthus. By the way, the gospel of John was written to counter the teaching of Cerinthus.

Basically, these false teachings asserted that Christ only had a human nature and that divinity was in him by some sort of outstanding participation in God’s glory based upon Christ’s personal merit through his own goodness. This, of course, is not just an ancient heresy. Today many people view Christ in this way. The bottom line is that these people doubt that God would assume human flesh to become a man; rather, they believe that it is possible for a man to be so good that he can become godlike. As I mentioned, the gospel of John was written as a rebuke against such notions and it powerfully states that the “Word became flesh” and not that flesh became the Word.

Additionally, the exact opposite moral lesson is taught by the Cerinthian heresy than is taught by the Bible. The Bible teaches that the Son of God humbled himself and was made man. The Cerinthian heresy teaches that a man was glorified to become godlike. One, (Scripture) teaches humility, whereas the other (heresy) teaches exaltation. The heresy appeals to man’s pride and vanity whereby he thinks that by the merit of his good works he can become a god. The gospel teaches that even Almighty God humbles Himself for others. The gospel rebukes man’s pride and vanity which seeks to crown his own efforts with deity by pouring a massive dose of God’s humbling love upon his ego.

In the next post I will look at the other mistake of over spiritualizing Christ.

St. Augustine labored for years over the manifold ways to interpret the creation account in Genesis 1-3. After his arduous efforts he wrote the great work “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.” Within he observed that "It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days" (p. 103). I love his humility and wish that those who are so righteously convinced that theirs is the only interpretation of the creation story would take the time to read Augustine. Contemporary Christians too easily sweep aside the ancient and wise insights of some of the greatest minds given by God to His church.

Because Augustine believed Genesis 1-3 was hard to interpret, he urged Christians to be very careful to restrain themselves from taking hard-and-fast positions based on limited understanding of God’s counsels or the natural world. He puts it this way: "in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture" (p. 41). In other words, we should hold “lightly” onto our interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

One thing that Augustine was adamant about is that Christians should avoid making a so-called biblical case for things that clearly are opposed to what people know to be true from qualified sources. A classic example of this is how some Christians insisted that the bible taught that the sun revolved around the earth despite clear evidence to the contrary. The following is a lengthy but worth-reading statement in this regard from Augustine:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” (pp. 42-43)

The big problem that Augustine saw was that when we make quasi-scientific pronouncements based upon our fallible interpretation of Genesis 1-3 we run the serious risk of defeating the very purpose of Scripture, which is to provide the saving gospel of God to a lost world. One wonders how many scientists and educated people of goodwill have been repelled by Christians thrusting their hobbyhorse views of Genesis upon an incredulous world. Again, Augustine reminds us that non-believers have no particular interest in agreeing with our interpretations, particularly, if those interpretations seem wildly at odds with established knowledge.

“They are not bound by the authority of our Bible; and, ignorant of the sense of these words, they will more readily scorn our sacred books than disavow the knowledge they have acquired by unassailable arguments or proved by the evidence of experience.” (pp. 47-48)

Humility about the “how” of creation is helpful if we want to evangelize those who are not already singing in the choir.

While God is ultimately incomprehensible, there are still many things we can know about Him from the revelation of Himself in Scripture and in what He has made. One thing we need to remember, though, is that no matter how similar we think God is to us, He is still unique. There is no other being like Him. Consequently, when we ponder God’s nature we must think analogically. In other words, we can ascertain things about God from the things He has made but recognize that there are still differences. He is the Creator and everything else is His creation.

We can see from the creation a number of things about God. For one, the universe must have come into existence at some point in time. If the universe existed eternally then there would be no starting point and this moment in time could never arrive “now.” If the universe’s existence stretched back infinitely, it would be like trying to walk backwards to a starting point. The only problem is that you would continue to walk backwards forever. Therefore, we know that God purposely chose to begin the creation at a specific point. This implies that God is intelligent. He made a willful intellectual decision.

In considering God’s intellectual nature, we can see correlations between Him and ourselves. Yet, there are significant differences. For instance, when we consider lowly things, they can distract us from those things that are ennobling. Paul admonished Christians to think on the more noble things in life.

Philippians 4: 8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

The problem for us is that thinking about lowly things can turn us away from thinking about the better things in life. Additionally, when we think about lowly things it can cause us to give rise to certain unfitting affections such as lust or greed. In my view, this is a huge problem in contemporary society because it is awash in prurient imagery that is specifically intended to pull our thinking into the gutter.

It is not, however, possible for God to be distracted by lowly things nor can His thinking give rise to unfitting affections. First of all, God’s thinking does not move from one thing to another as does ours. Because of God’s divine perfection all things which can be known are contained simultaneously in Himself. Our thinking flits around like a butterfly from one thing to another. We are highly and easily distracted. God is not distracted in any way because of the power of His intellect. Everything from the noblest to the lowliest of things in all of time are simultaneously and fully known by God. Therefore, it is most fitting that God knows even the lowliest things. There is nothing that escapes His knowledge.

Secondly, God does not know anything by receiving information from things. We, of course, need outward stimuli in order to know what is happening. God’s intellect, though, is an active power. God knows things not by receiving stimuli from them, but, rather, by exercising His causation on them. Because God continuously sustains all things in the universe, it is obvious that His knowledge extends to the most remote things. Because of the perfect power of God’s intellect, He knows the lowliest possible things that exist.

From the creation, we can see that God knows even the number of hairs on each person’s head and when a lowly creature like a sparrow falls to the ground.

A common, deeply ingrained idea in our modern world is that faith and reason are adversaries. Conceived this way, reason is thought to be about following the evidence wherever it leads; whereas, faith is conceived as believing in things for which there is no evidence. Therefore, when we say a person has faith, what we often mean is that he lacks any evidence for what he believes. Ergo, it is not uncommon for critics of Christianity to say that believers engage in a form of self-deception or superstition because they are unwilling to submit their beliefs to the rigors of evidence or inquiry. From a Christian perspective, the adversarial view between faith and reason is called fideism. Unfortunately, many Christians believe in fideism.

I believe that it is a grave mistake to allow faith and reason to be cast in an adversarial relationship. There are other ways to approach the problem. There are actually four different ways of formulating the relationship between faith and reason.

1. One formulation is termed the “conflict model.” Here the objectives of faith and reason are essentially the same (i.e. explaining the meaning of the world). Consequently, when people of faith and those who follow unaided reason disagree, there develops a clear rivalry or conflict between religion and secularists. Fundamentalist and aggressive atheists tend to prefer this formulation. The conflict model is, obviously, adversarial.

2. A second formulation is termed the “incompatibilist model.” In this view, the methods and ends of faith and reason are seen to be distinct. Thus, the two can be compartmentalized into their separate realms. Often those drawn to a more “liberal” view of Christianity or who prefer a multicultural society also adhere to the incombatibilist model because it seems to reduce conflict.

3. The third formulation is called the “weak compatibilist model.” Here it is believed that dialogue is possible between faith and reason even though both represent distinct and separate spheres of influence. For instance, faith may believe in miracles while reason is directed toward scientific enquiry. The two separate spheres may dialogue and are not necessarily in conflict. Those in the Reformed tradition usually adhere to this view.

4. The “strong compatibilist model” is the fourth formulation. In this view there is no conflict between faith and reason because they form an organic whole. Each, in their own way, complement one another. Natural law theology springs from this model. Here it is believed that reason can be used to demonstrate the validity of articles of faith and defend them against objections. Reason does not replace faith, because faith is essentially supernatural; however, neither does faith eliminate the need for reason because it can strengthen one’s understanding of the articles of faith.

If you haven’t guessed, I consider myself to be a strong compatibilist. I take this position for two reasons. The first is that I believe the strong compatibilist model is taught by the Apostle Paul in the Bible. The second reason is that it makes more sense.

The classic passage where Paul connects the natural order of things to divine revelation is found in Romans 1:

Romans 1:19-20 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Remarkably, Paul indicates that God can hold all men morally accountable because God’s divine attributes, power and deity can be “clearly seen” in what He has created. Of course, we know from the full counsel of Scripture that through man’s willful disobedience his mind has been darkened by self-deception and Satan has deceived him into believing that these things are not true. Yet, this does not change the essential truth that Paul identified in Romans 1. Therefore, we can ascertain from Paul’s statement that both creation and revealed religion declare God’s nature and that it is incumbent upon man to reach out to God through both. In fact, Paul states exactly this in Acts 17:

Acts 17: 26-27 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Here, again, Paul declares that what God has made has the purpose of stimulating man to seek Him. In order to do this, man must use his reason.

However we may apply these insights to those who are unconverted to Christianity, we can see that it makes complete sense that Christ’s followers should explore every avenue available to them to further their grasp of divine truth. No contradiction can stand between the inquiry of reason and the revealed truths of Christianity.

About a decade ago it finally struck me that Americans worship their feelings. I had noticed that, in my little neck of the woods, Christianity had morphed into a “feelings-driven” religion, so I started mentioning this occasionally from the pulpit. I must say, this has never been well received. Then in the last several years a few books have come out that have identified the same trend. Usually these books classify the trend as one of increasing feminization or sentimental-ization. I think it is more courageous to say that Western culture has been trending for about 150 years away from the Patriarchal which elevated masculine values toward increasing feminism which not only elevates female values, it marginalizes and stigmatizes traditional masculinity. I have written about this a number of times. Needless to say, this is not a popular subject.

My latest encounter with feelings-driven (feminized) Christianity came through conversations with those involved in college ministries. In one conversation with two college-age men, I was dumbfounded by their extremely low expectations for themselves as Christian leaders. Their lifetime hope was to each impact one person for the Lord. When I heard this, I thought to myself that I hope to accomplish that every week of my life. When I explored this with my wife—who is a family therapist—she immediately noted that this is the effect of cultural feminization. As she said, “It is masculine to set and achieve goals; these guys have been indoctrinated against traditional masculine values.”

Troubled by this, I recently talked with the student’s-pastor of a Christian university. He is an extremely thoughtful and well-educated minister who has a strong influence with college students. He assured me that my conversation with the two young leaders was not an aberration. He added that students—as a rule--are intensely interested in “deep relationships” with a few people. He noted that he really has to work to get them to think beyond their very small personal world of highly nurtured relationships.

I also had an opportunity to talk with the leader of the largest Christian para-church youth ministry in our area. He confirmed these trends and noted that his national leaders are toying with the idea of scrapping their historic commitment to public evangelism in favor of developing ministries that only cultivate interpersonal relationships which may or may not lead to sharing the gospel. He noted that increasingly people are edgy about setting goals, accomplishing tasks and accountability for their actions. More and more, youth workers prefer amorphous activities that center on “hanging” together in an unstructured nurturing environment.

In talking about and identifying this feminine trend, I have been struck by how defensive people become—men and women. For some people, literally, it is as if I have said something with a horrible cultural taboo attached to it. I probably have. I’ve noticed that they either become agitated thinking that I am suggesting that women should be oppressed or they think I am suggesting that Christianity become a Neanderthal religion. I don’t want either option. However, I do want people to notice the cultural influences that transform Christianity in an unhealthy way. I believe it is very unhealthy for Christianity to be feelings-driven and all about “deep relationships” with a few people. To me, such a thing is nuts. Additionally, if evangelical Christianity continues to trend this way, I have serious doubts that it can maintain its doctrinal stability, its commitment to evangelism, or its ability to attract strong men.