Christmas and the Incarnation

I always think a lot about the whole Incarnation thing around Christmas time, but now I need to go back and rethink some of the things I’ve always taken for granted.

That’s always a good exercise, a kind of mental spring cleaning. But what is it about “the whole Incarnation thing” that you feel like you need to rethink?

It’s one thing to say “the Word became flesh.” It’s another thing to actually try to figure out how it happened.

And you feel you need to figure out how it happened?

Yeah, I do. And what’s with this whole Rogerian, non-directive counseling attitude.

Oh, nothing. Go on. You were about to tell me why you feel you need to figure out how “the Word became flesh,” as The Book puts it.

I’m not trying to figure it out because of what the Bible says (and that’s John’s Gospel, by the way, Chapter 1, verse 14). It’s what you have told me that has me thinking so much about it.

And what is it you remember me saying on the subject?

You said, “The Word has been part of me since the beginning, but he wasn’t Jesus until he was born.”

Pretty good memory on your part.

I wrote it down.

I knew that. So, what’s the issue?

Wait, there was something else you said the last time we talked. “He is how I participate in your world without stepping on it.”

Okay, that seems clear enough. The single point in common between the two spheres. But some part of this is still stuck in your craw. I can feel it.

What kind of God says “stuck in your craw”?

Since I said it, and I’m the only God there is, I guess every kind of God says it. It’s a colorful idiom. I like that part of English.

It just sounds weird coming from you.

Remember, I communicate with you in a form that is accessible to you, that resonates with your own particular humanity.

Are you saying that I get things stuck in my craw easily, or that I’m the kind of person who uses expressions like that?

Neither. I mean you’re the kind of person who appreciates the texture of language. Geez, don’t be so sensitive. I thought you wanted to talk about Christmas.

I did. I mean, I do. You’re the one who changed the subject.

Let’s not quibble. Just tell me what’s on your mind.

When Jesus was born, was he more than just an ordinary human baby? Or did you do something to him after he was born?

Yes.

Yes what? I asked you two different questions.

Yes, he was more than just an ordinary human baby, and yes, I did something to him after he was born.

Okay, I didn’t expect that.  How can it be both?

What does The Book say about it?

If you mean the New Testament, Luke tells about Gabriel coming to visit Mary.

Do you remember what he said to her?

“Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

A little farther along in the story.

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.”

Almost there. Try verse 35.

Wait a minute. You always act like you don’t know anything about the Bible, but you know chapter and verse in Luke’s gospel?

Just because I don’t quote it all the time doesn’t mean I don’t know it. Luke 2:35 says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

I knew that.

Of course you did. But do you understand what it means?

It means Jesus was a miracle.

Every newborn baby is a miracle. Anything else special about him?

He didn’t have an earthly father?

Ah yes, the Virgin Birth. Parthenogenesis. So important to some of you.

Why do you say it that way? Don’t you believe in . . . oh, wait, that’s a silly question. Never mind. But it’s an important Christian doctrine.

What do you know about zygotes?

You mean fertilized eggs?

Right. How long ago did your kind figure out the particulars of human fertilization?

Sometime in the 19th century, I think.

And how was human conception explained before that?

Several different ways, I guess, but one of the most common was the homunculus.

Exactly. A reasonable conjecture in a primitive world, but totally wrong. It was a great day when your kind first began to discover how intricate and beautiful the whole process is by which you come to be.

Are you telling me that Luke has something like the homunculus in mind when he describes how Mary conceived Jesus?

He certainly didn’t know anything about zygotes. Everyone back then thought the man was the source of the child, while the woman was only the repository, since the child grew in her womb. But how could Jesus be a real human without the genetic material from both a father and a mother? At the very least, he wouldn’t have been a man.

You lost me there.

Y chromosome? Mary didn’t have any. No Y chromosome, not a male.

But isn’t that what the Holy Spirit was for?

You think the Holy Spirit has a Y chromosome?

No, of course not. But couldn’t you just . . . you know, make one?

You know that’s not the way I work.

So how did it get there?

Before I answer that question, let’s look more closely at what Gabriel said to Mary. Why don’t you read it—that’s the NRSV you have there, isn’t it?

It’s the translation I like best. It says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

So, what does Gabriel say I will do?

I assume you are the one he calls “the Most High.”

That’s right. El Elyon. It’s one of my older names.

Well, he says your power will “overshadow” Mary. What exactly does that mean?

It’s very rare, because only a few of your kind can encounter that much of my power without being consumed by it. But Mary was an exceptional case.

So this was a “Moses and the burning bush” kind of thing?

More like Moses on top of Mount Sinai, but yes.

What made Mary so special? She was just a young girl, wasn’t she?

Yes, but her nature was unalloyed. Her faith was so pure, and it so permeated her, she was able to resonate with my power rather than resist it.

Is that why you picked her?

It wouldn’t have worked any other way. I wanted to enter your world and actually be part of it. But to do so, I had to become one of you. Which means being born, just like all of you are.

So, is that when she conceived?

Who do you think I am, Zeus? This is not Greek mythology, and Mary was no Leda. Go back to The Book again. What does it say?

It says Mary was a virgin.

Not that part. The part we were talking about before.

It says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore, the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”

Therefore. That’s the key word. What comes after “therefore” is a result of what comes in front of it. Jesus was holy, and he was called “Son of God,” because I came into your world through him.

I’m not complaining, but that really doesn’t make things any clearer.

Still hung up on the biology, eh?

 It’s hard not to be.

Think about it as a second act of creation. The first time, I spoke and imposed order on the chaos that was left behind when I withdrew my presence. I conceived of all the intricate patterns that cause the basic building blocks to clump together in various ways to form matter, then I spoke those patterns into the void, creating everything that is. That was a long time ago, but I never get tired of watching it all unfold. It’s pretty amazing, if I do say so myself.

So, when you “overshadowed” Mary, you “spoke” some kind of pattern into her, and this second creation took place?

Not bad, especially since you got off to such a slow start.

And what you “spoke” was the Word?

That’s what the Fourth Gospel says, but all that business about the Logos will just confuse you. The original Hebrew word is much closer to what actually happened.

Which original Hebrew word? Dabar?

Yes, but not the noun form. The verb, but with the sense of a noun. Think of it as “the speech act,” almost as if it has its own separate existence, apart from me, but not quite.

So instead of “the Word became flesh,” we should say “the Speech Act became….” Became what?

A zygote.

Okay, I was not expecting that.

Why not? That’s how all of you start out, as a single cell from which you develop into these wonderful, complex, sometimes exasperating creatures that I call my children. Why wouldn’t Jesus have started out that way too?

That’s not the part I wasn’t expecting.

Biology again?

Are you trying to tell me that Jesus didn’t have any biological parent?

Is that any harder to understand, or believe, than his having only one?

So, Mary was his mother only in the sense that she….

Bore him. That’s right.

And Jesus was….

Fully human? Normal? All 46 chromosomes? Yes.

Wow. I need a little time to process this.

You know about in vitro fertilization, I assume.

Sure.

Then think of this as “in Spiritui” fertilization. Since my Word is generative by nature, it always makes things happen. But when I spoke it with so much power, it manifested itself physically, using the sub-atomic building blocks around it to do so. That way, it manifested itself in the exact same way all human life enters the world, as a fertilized egg that will develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally a newborn baby.

And as the willing “handmaiden,” Mary was not destroyed by such close contact with you.

Exactly. Instead, she was forever blessed.

So, Mary was….

A sacred surrogate.

The Real Winners in 2024

Democrats trying to figure out HOW the 2024 Election outcome happened must resist the temptation to point fingers and say "I told you so."

There is a difference between identifying causes and assigning blame, and that distinction must be maintained. Recriminations won't help anyone and will only fracture the party more than it already is.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi, I'm talking to you . . . but to others as well.

Though we have differing views on how the timing affected the outcome, we must continue to hold President Biden in esteem for his years of service to our country and his remarkably selfless act of stepping down to let someone else run. Which one of us in his position could/would have done this?

And, we must continue to respect and thank VP Harris for having the courage to step into the fray on such short notice and devote herself entirely to the challenge of standing toe-to-toe with one like her opponent. The failings that led to her defeat belong more to the current state of the Democratic Party than to her.

The bottom line is that sexism, racism, and xenophobia were the victors in this election. Those of us who thought we Americans could set aside such puerile biases and choose a leader based on character, temperament, and judgment thought wrong.

If we MUST point a finger, then let us admit that our willful naivete regarding our collective national character is to blame. Many of us have said, "I thought we were better than this." We aren't.

Now, as we start trying to figure out what to do next, let us at least reclaim a realistic assessment of ourselves: we are a flawed country, inhabited by flawed people and led by flawed leaders. But we have also demonstrated at times in the past that we are capable of transcending those flaws. Hopefully, we can do so again.

The Hard Work of Reassessment

The outcome of the 2024 election (and not just at the presidential level, but across the board) is prompting me to undergo a top-to-bottom reassessment of my understanding of this strange political/geographic/ontological construct I was born into 71 years ago.

And one of the first by-products is the final admission on my part that trump isn't the source of our problem, but rather the most obvious and easily identifiable manifestation of the cancer that has been gnawing away at our country's soul for an indeterminate length of time. I already knew this, of course, but have resisted making it central to my worldview. No more. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

A potent catalyst for this new resolve was reading the following transcript of a radio call-in show from 1994 with guest Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Thirty years ago, the defect in our national character was already on full display.

TRANSCRIPT:

On the Air in the Midwest (October 29, 1994)

“You’re on Talk Radio 95, The Charles Walter Show, where you hear the news when it’s news! Joining us this evening, the United States secretary of labor [Robert Reich]! Here to take y-o-o-o-u-u-u-r calls! … John from Garden Park. You’re on Talk Radio 95!”

“Hello?”

“You’re on the air, John! Do you have a question for the secretary?”

“Yes. Mr. Secretary, have you ever held a real job in your entire life?”

“Well, John, I used to teach.”

“Just what I thought. You don’t know nothing.”

“Thank you, John! Diane from Oak Brook, you’re on the air!”

“Hi, Charlie.”

“Hi, Diane!”

“Love your show, Charlie.”

“Thanks, Diane! A question for the labor secretary?”

“Why does the secretary think government has all the answers?”

“I don’t think government has all the answers, Diane.”

“Yes you do. You and all the other liberals in the Clinton administration. Ever heard of free enterprise? Socialism doesn’t work!”

“Thank you, Diane! Next up, Peter from Lakeview! Pete, you’re on the air!”

“Great show, Charlie.”

“Thanks, Pete! Your question?”

“I don’t understand something.”

“What is it you don’t understand, Pete?”

“I don’t understand where these guys get off.”

“Your question for the labor secretary, Pete?”

“Mr. Secretary, why do you think you have the right to tax honest hard-working people? It’s our money.”

“Pete, your federal taxes pay for national defense, Medicare, highways, environmental protection, air-traffic control, safe workplaces, all sorts of things you rely on.”

“It’s my money. I should decide what I need. You have no right.”

“Thank you, Pete! We’re cooking tonight, folks! The board’s all lit up! Ted from Orleyville, you’re on the air!”

“I really appreciate your show, Charles.”

“Thank you, Ted! Your question for the secretary?”

“Yes. Mr. Secretary, you’re a fucking —”

“Michelle in Garden View! You’re on the air!”

“I’d like to know why we spend billions and billions of dollars on welfare for people who do nothing all day but sit around and watch TV.”

“Michelle, all welfare spending is less than 3 percent of the federal budget, and most people on welfare are off it and into jobs within two years.”

“You’re lying.”

“Tony in Lakeview! You’re on the air!”

“I just lost my job. My company went to Mexico. I want to ask the labor secretary how anybody can get a good job in America if we have to compete with Mexicans who are paid a nickel an hour?”

“Good question, Tony! Mr. Secretary?”

“Tony, I’m sorry you lost your job. But there are millions of good new jobs out there, some of them exporting to Mexico and other countries. You can get —”

“Good new jobs? Where? The new jobs pay nothing. They pay shit. You’re talking out of your asshole.”

“Afraid that’s all the time we have! Mr. Secretary, thanks so very much for being with us this evening!”


We have let ourselves become a nation of hateful, angry, spiteful, ignorant, selfish people who have no concept of what is required to live in healthy, mutually responsible community with one another.

And yesterday, we elected the infantile poster child for THIS America to a second term, opening the door for him (and HIS Masters) to end democracy as we know it.

The marriage of boorish, myopic ignorance and unrestrained oligarchy.

The Morning After

I have voted in all 12 presidential elections since 1976 (I was eligible in 1972 but didn't feel I was ready, so I sat it out), and I have never voted for a Republican. Not because I hate Republicans. I just feel the values ostensibly represented by the Democratic Party align more closely with my own than with those of any other party and will be better for America.

For the record, as of this morning, I'm 50/50.

A fundamental shift in American presidential elections in 2016 laid the groundwork for an insurrection in 2020 and the now election of the dictator-wanna-be who incited the insurrection four years ago.

Before then, at least during my lifetime, this pattern prevailed: two dominant political parties nominated conventional candidates, ran conventional campaigns, did and said all the right things when a winner was finally declared (yes, 2020 was different, but it still ended with the system intact), and cooperated in the same peaceful transfer of power.

As of today, all bets are off. We have no way of knowing how bad it might be. The hackneyed cliche is actually apropos. Our situation is unprecedented.

With majorities in both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court in his pocket, if he wishes to, trump truly can be a dictator on Day One . . . and every day thereafter. Who will stop him? And if he doesn't serve out his term (however long that might be), his Faux-Hillbilly MiniMe is itching to step in and show all of us how governing is really done.

In the past, when my chosen candidate lost, I was disappointed, but I could accept the election results and keep working toward helping America become more like what I have always hoped it could be. But now, I don't know how to respond (other than trying to line up words in some way that makes sense).

But I do know this. At no previous time in my life have I been so disappointed in my country and my fellow citizens. The appalling reality that a majority of Americans who voted chose this man, knowing full well who he is and what he is capable of is simply beyond my comprehension. If, knowing him for what he is, they voted for him because they share his values, then we are so different, I fear never being able to understand who they are and how they think. If they were once again deceived by him and believed his endless lies, then I can pity their naivete, but not without ruing their ignorance, which has quite possibly undone all of us.

Reagan, HW Bush, and W? Not my choice (and certainly not without their faults and limitations—just as the candidates for whom I voted), but comprehensible. But trump? Twice?? I simply can't wrap my head around it.