Gathering Those Driven Away: A Theology of Incarnation

possible.

Preface

A few friends gather on Christmas Eve, sharing the joy of the season. At one point the women each tell a story that captures the meaning of Christmas for them. One woman chooses to accompany the stories with improvised piano music. In this theology of incarnation narrative and music are equally essential to its meaning. The first woman recalls her boredom at a Christmas Eve service. She is about to depart but sees a woman sitting alone, holding a child to her bosom, oblivious to the service. There, at that moment, I came upon the sanctuary, the holy place, I had been seeking so long in vain. The woman is simply dressed but her "grand and gentil bearing made of the open bench an enclosed chapel. Her face displayed gladness and dejection, Yet what was communicated through it all was a sense of affable serenity, of loving devotion—radiating gloriously from her dark, downcast eyes. . . . The child also seemed to me uncommonly lovely. It stirred energetically and yet quietly, and seemed absorbed in a half-unconscious dialogue of love and yearning with its mother."¹ The woman became a glorious tragic figure, who has influenced my life and my inner being more than anyone in this world. . . . Although I have had nothing but sorrows to share with her, yet I count my association with her among the loveliest, weightiest of my life. The beautiful baby grows up to be killed in a war: he died so heroically, and so senseless, for the cause of freedom.² The three women tell stories which are ordinary moments of life: a chance encounter in a church, a spontaneous baptism, the near-death of an infant. Each vignette traverses the tenderness of love and the anguish of death. Each of these ordinary mothers’ stories becomes the story of the incarnation. In their memories of Christmas, of serenity, death, love, they see that every mother is Mary and every child is Christ. Only the mother also sees the heavenly rays already streaming out from him.³ Joseph enters at the end of the dialogue, putting an end to the theological pontificating of the men.

For me, all forms are too rigid, all speech-making too tedious and cold. Itself unbounded by speech, the subject of Christmas claims, indeed creates, in me a speechless joy, and I cannot but laugh and exult like a child. Today all men are children to me, and are all the dearer on that account. The solemn wrinkles are for once smoothed away, the years and cares do not stand written on the brow. Eyes sparkle and dance again, the sign of a beautiful and serene existence within. . . . The long, deep, irrepressible pain in my life is soothed as never before. . . . I look upon all things with a gladsome eye, even what has most deeply wounded me. . . . And so I have roamed about the whole evening, everywhere taking part most heartily in every little happening and amusement I have come across. I have laughed, and I have loved it all. It was one long affectionate kiss which I have given to the world. . . . Come, then, and above all bring the child if she is not yet asleep, and let me see your glories, and let us be glad and sing something religious and joyful!⁴

  1. Schleiermacher, Christmas Eve: A Dialogue on the Incarnation, 58.

  2. Ibid.

  3. Ibid., 63.

  4. Ibid., 85, 86.

Introduction

And in that day, says the Beloved, I will assemble the lame and gather those who have been driven away.

Paraphrased from Micah 4:6

If my sister or brother is not at the table, we are not the flesh of Christ. If my sister’s mark of sexuality must be obscured, if my brother’s mark of race must be disguised, if my sister’s mark of culture must be repressed, then we are not the flesh of Christ. It is through and in Christ’s own flesh that the other is my sister, is my brother; indeed, the other is me. . . . "The establishment of the Church is re-creation of the world. But it is only in the union of all the particular members that the beauty of Christ’s body is complete" [Gregory of Nyssa].¹

For me, the genesis of theology is pain. When my heart is broken, I expect theology to walk with me. It is, naturally, not my only companion in pain, but it is the one that erupts in writing. Theology is an academic discipline, a handmaid of the church, a doctrinal tradition. But it is also sapientia. It is longing for wisdom: pain seeking understanding. I do not find theology consoling because it provides me with correct answers. This is impossible and not even to be desired. Correct answers, even imagining there were such things, could help only the thinnest strand of mind. It might satisfy certain aspects of discursive reasoning, but that is neither bread nor roses for the suffering heart. Theology is a practice that uses words and ideas, books and concepts to throw one’s mind and heart toward the eternally Erotic Abyss that is our heart’s desire. Theology lingers at the margin of concepts, passing back and forth between the womb of Divinity and the discipline of thought. Its language is shaped by the tradition in which it finds itself, the voices past and present who have written their longing and pain in the language of doctrine. Like poetry, its truth is evocative rather than literal. Its universality is the power of a particular voice to convey its pain and consolation.

The wound that moves in this particular piece of writing is the fight over sexual minorities in the Christian churches. It pierces me like a knife to know that some Christians insist that desire obscures the divine image: it renders lovers of Christ unable to minister, unable to parent, unable to share Communion, unable to be people of faith. The heart that is led to love and desire outside heterosexual marriage is understood to be uniquely unsuited to love and desire Christ.

The wound of this is not limited to the situation of gay, lesbian, and queer Christians: a small group of dispensable persons. The conflict over sexuality that troubles the weaker brethren tears the veil off Christianity’s more general betrayals of the gospel. Recently the Vatican was quoted as saying, in an eerie echo of the chief priests, that it was better to hide the abuse by priests than to expose the honor of the church to criticism. Better a few suffer than the whole church be dishonored. Along with the irrelevance of children, the secondary humanity of women is so naturalized that it becomes laborious to cite examples. These moments when vulnerable members of the body of Christ are shown to be dispensable reveals something about the core identity of the church.

This might become clearer by a contrast. During World War II the people of La Chambon-Sur-Lignon spontaneously made a complex and dangerous underground that created schools to hide Jewish children and that helped thousands of refugees over the border. They were mostly Protestants scratching out a living in the French mountains near the border with Switzerland. But in the moment of historical crisis, they knew exactly where they stood and what their faith required. In interviews they became uncomfortable, not understanding the fuss: what else could they have done?² Such a stark contrast with the casual cruelty of homophobia, the acceptance of child abuse, the denigration of women!

The situation of queer Christians reveals the wound in so much of Christianity: it cannot perceive in its own members the beauty of Christ’s body. Christians disagree about many things, as we always have. The author of the Johannine Letters gives us clues how to navigate disagreements. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. . . . Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. . . . By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. . . . There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen (1 John 4:1, 7–8, 13, 18–20). First Peter makes a similar point: Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaining (1 Peter 4:8–9). The way we treat one another is the sign of how we dwell in the divine presence. It is not a political or social issue; it is the most visible fruit of faith. If we fail here, we fail everywhere. If we revile any person, we defile the roots of our faith. Hard-heartedness toward sexual minorities is like finding a dead canary in the coal mine. Invisible poison has killed a tiny, insignificant bird but it will kill us too. But this is true of every person we are tempted to think of as dispensable: illegal immigrants, people without health care, the destitute of other lands, desperate people whose minds have been seduced by violence. It is true of the land itself, which cries out against our ravages.

There is no power that can resist that of the Divine Eros, who created humanity in its own image. To imagine that we humans could overthrow the power of ultimate reality is to imagine a Manichean world in which good and evil hang in the balance; in some ultimate and fundamental sense evil can contest the goodness of creation. We humans are free only to be what we are: bearers of the divine image. Everything else is bondage, and it is this bondage from which incarnate Wisdom seeks to free us. We human beings certainly share the solidarity of suffering that comes from this bondage. We are cruel and ignorant; we mar our beauty with self-loathing or consumer obsessions. We harm one another and ourselves by unskillful use of our sexuality. Adultery, sexual abuse, callous sex between spouses, betrayal, and objectification are all ways in which we harm one another. Domination of a partner, psychic cruelty, the implacable deadening of a loveless marriage can work catastrophic spiritual harm. Joyless promiscuity that honors neither ourselves nor our partners can forge chains that conceal the divine image from us. But of all the things that hold us in bondage, desire for our lover is the least likely to work us lasting harm. It is a form of love and as such is healing, lovely—a particularly potent sacrament of the eternal lovemaking between God and creation. Gay men and lesbians can use their sexuality in trivial or harmful ways, like everyone else. But how many girls and women have been abused by fathers, uncles, dates, pastors, strangers? How many wives or girlfriends must endure the casual cruelty of a dominating lover? This continent of normalized heterosexual suffering seems very large compared to the relatively small scale of homosexual violence. That sexual violence is a particular vice of too many heterosexual men is well known. Yet there is no call for heterosexual men to deny their sexuality altogether because some of them use it badly. They are not in principle excluded from ministry or community.

The other side of same-sex desire is the healthy, stable, and loving relationships and families it sustains. It does not seem to be a variable in whether a person is a good partner or parent or pastor. The existence of particularly wise, talented, compassionate, and creative gay and lesbian pastors and priests means that the calling to ministry by the Holy Spirit does not respect the boundaries of gender or sexuality. The existence of happy, stable families parented by same-sex couples means that being heterosexual is neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for a healthy family. That gays and lesbians generate healthy relationships, families, and ministries is simply a fact. They exist and so it must be possible. If healthy faith, committed relationships, and stable families are signs of blessing, then it does not seem God hates sexual minorities.³

The life-giving possibilities of queer desire and the harmfulness of many heterosexual relationships are not hidden, not secret. People magazine often has stories about both forms of desire, as does Oprah or Dr. Phil. They are no more difficult to see than other obvious truths: Jews were not vermin infecting an otherwise healthy Europe. Neither the Irish nor the Africans were subhuman beings without culture, worthy only of death or servitude. If you deprive women or black people or factory workers of education, they will be less educated than white, well-educated men. Native American children did not require salvation through incarceration in demeaning and abusive schools. Early Christians were not atheists and they did not eat babies. These are examples of outsized, outrageous, obvious lies, but ones that not only structured society and shaped history but in most cases were manufactured with the help of Christian theology and Scripture. The ease with which lies and deception become common sense is intrinsic to the way in which the power of domination works in history and in the church. Simple facts, the events of history, the teachings embedded in tradition and Scripture, the meaning of our identities are all vulnerable to ruthless prevarication. Lies hide obvious truths.

Every one of the groups singled out for mistreatment has an interesting culture and bears a distinctive, irreplaceable wisdom. Every socially and theologically manufactured degradation defaces individual persons whose unique beauty is lost to themselves and their community and to the family of humanity. If sin means anything at all it is this: to violate the goodness created and bestowed by a generous Divinity and to do so in his name. This is a general point. More specifically, to accept demeaning lies about sexual minorities and same-sex desire is to defraud precious human beings of their power to recognize themselves and others as bearers of the divine image. To use Scripture to do so is a particularly repellent abuse of what should be medicine and food from our Beloved. To imagine that same-sex desire so uniquely disqualifies someone from the human race that we are required to break communion with those who tolerate it seems the grossest violation of almost everything characteristic of gospel faith.

The world is full to overflowing with pain. It is a relentless source of dismay for a person of faith to struggle with the omnipresence of radical, destructive suffering. But for the source of suffering to come from the church and be justified by its Scripture and traditions is a kind of toxic, crushing pain that is hard to endure. It is particularly wounding for abuse to come from one’s own home. Where does one turn to discover that one is beautiful, cherished, smart, interesting, important, if one’s parents deny this every day? How can we be formed for love and respect if those most intimate to us withhold these? When the church itself speaks outsized lies about us, where do we go for truth? When the church withholds divine love, where can we go to learn our true name? We can run away from home. We can create a new family and identity. But we will be forever defrauded of the intimate nurture of our original family. Our first language will always be lies and danger.

The genesis of this book is pain. But it is mostly a long love letter to the Beloved, incarnate in the world, in Scripture, in Jesus, in every human being—even those that one might find irritating. I find in my tradition enormous nurture. Wisdom refracts herself in every culture and for every need. She is vindicated by all her children (Luke 7:35). The institutional church may have needs for exclusion and hostility, for purity and moral righteousness, for stability and the illusion of continuity. But the gospel also presents other faces of Wisdom, other aspects of faith. The gospel is an odd interjection of some other reality into the midst of the powers and principalities that dominate history, and the outcast has a particular wisdom about the shadow side of power. The gospel’s countersign to might never gains the upper hand. It never displaces the main engines of power that govern world events. It tells the story of a kingdom always within and around us, but it is not a kingdom of this world. It speaks the truth about this world. The gospel does not remove us from the violence of the world or neutralize the lies it tells about us. But it listens to our pain and believes our stories. It tells us we are beloved and that we are essential to the story of the Divine Eros. Without our particular, unique, unrepeatable beauty, the beauty of creation would be incomplete. Without mothers, the motherhood of God would be invisible. Without queer lovers, the full range of the Divine Eros would be unfulfilled. Without the outcasts, Wisdom’s joyous indifference to social norms would be unknown. The witness of Christianity’s rejected and despised is essential to the gospel.

The witness of the great diversity of Christ’s lovers is of an entirely different order than some tepid obligation to be inclusive. The church requires the voices of those driven away because these are ones that Wisdom herself uses: lovers of Christ who were declared heretics or were burned or consigned to silence, those who are difficult to find in seminary curriculum, womanist, feminist, queer, activist. They may not make up the structure of the institutional church, but without them the body of Christ is hopelessly maimed and dismembered. We can be grateful that the institutional churches have what is required to carry Christianity forward through history. But the institution, ingenious in its mimicking of regimes of domination, is not what makes the church the body of Christ. Christ’s own body was poor, brutalized, murdered. He describes the bodies of prisoners, of sick people, of the naked and hungry as his own body. Without those driven away, Christianity cannot be the body of Christ. A paradox lies at the heart of this body: Christianity moves through history carried by the impulses of domination and exclusion. It despises uppity women, no-hellers, contemplatives, queers, and thinks even less of those people outside Christianity altogether. But without their witness to the nearness and tender mercies of Emmanuel the memory of Christ is impossibly distorted.

The story of how women, slaves, queers, foreigners, and contemplatives were cast out of the ecclesia or kept on in humiliating servitude testifies, in a paradoxical way, to truths prefigured in the Gospels. In the gospel, incarnate Divinity is mercilessly destroyed by the completely predictable and commonplace superiority of might. But the good news of the gospel is that this victory is not the only reality. Through this story we are invited into the tender, fragile, adamantine kingdom of God. This odd metaphor initiates us into the strange world of incarnation because it is a kingdom that is nothing at all like kingdoms of this world: it is more like a hand grenade than an analogue. Feminists and others have been uncomfortable with this metaphor of empire and hierarchy. It did prove an imperfect strategy to subvert the meaning of baseleia by countering the law of empire with the law of love. A kingdom like the one Jesus preached and enacted counters the lies and violence of kings and their laws. But the subversion was too easily reabsorbed into regimes of power, and kings became, again, the upholders of divine right. Their hierarchical and violent justice testified to a divine sovereign that mirrors heaven on earth.

But the metaphors of the kingdom retain their subversive potential. In them we recover a way to interpret and inhabit our own stories. Rome and their lackeys in Jerusalem had no trouble arresting and killing an annoying prophet, incarnate Divinity or not. We should not quickly pass over the fact that whatever kind of power the Divine Eros possesses it did not seem to get much of a foothold against the power of Rome. Christians have turned this story into a theology of sacrificial atonement that keeps the Trinity in total control of the whole narrative, but we might linger over the raw historical fact that Jesus was impotent when the Roman Empire decided to take him down. We might remember this when we are caught in the maw of history, helpless in the hands of violent persons or wanton nature. When an unjust legal system steals our children or executes our sons we can remember that our Savior received no better. The gospel is not about a power that dissolves the efficacy of might.

On the other hand, neither is the gospel a bowed head, a hope that this will all get sorted out farther along, Lord, farther along. Rome ended Jesus’ life but became impotent when it came to ending his story. Something remains: something with no analogue in the kingdom of might. It is conjured through laws of contradiction that use Augustus Caesar’s titles (Son of God, Savior, Prince of Peace) to describe the significance of a tortured criminal. Crazy, amoral stories linger in the air about sheep and seeds and widows and fathers and kings who behave in ways no patriarchal authority would ever behave. A meal gathers strangers and abolishes their social standing. When they slip out they are slaves again, women subject to the paterfamilias. But for a moment, like slaves in American hush arbors, they bore the full luminosity of their divine image. The incarnation of Wisdom in Jesus of Nazareth is announced in an impenetrable interplay of success and failure, victory and defeat. If we use it as a lens—perhaps a kaleidoscopic one—for understanding the displacement of Christ’s lovers by their own church, our situation may take on a different meaning and our proximity to the Beloved might be witnessed anew.

Jesus suffered defeat at the hands of Rome, but the news of some other kingdom was not silenced. The defeat was predictable; the persistence of this whisper is not. The victory of patriarchy for control of the church is likewise perfectly predictable. Privilege and power are not easily renounced. The rule of love is exceedingly dangerous in a totality that maintains its political power through terror, privilege, and theologies of sovereignty. The failure of the kingdom to create nonpatriarchal institutions is foreshadowed in the gospel itself. Christ befriended women, as he did outcasts, lepers, soldiers, and sexual deviants. He entrusted a small group of women with the story of the Messiah’s love and his victory over death. But their words seemed to them [the apostles] an idle tale, and they did not believe them (Luke 24:11). Many male disciples did not believe them, and much of the church they created in Jesus’ name still does not believe them. The one, true apostolic church is built on the testimony of those who rejected the apostles chosen by Jesus. Incarnate Wisdom is merciful and does not reject those who reject her. The church has survived through two thousand years in many alien and difficult lands. But the story it tells about itself in history books is the story of those who betrayed the gospel and retold it to serve their own needs. It is like the story of Ireland told by the British or the story of the American West told by the U.S. cavalry.

For all of its brilliance and variety, mainstream theology has rarely extended its full reach. It has not been able to stretch fully into the awareness of the Divine Eros as the foundation of all reality, within which Christians are only the tiniest drop. It cannot embrace the random, chaotic, amoral beauty of the cosmos, irreducible to our needs or our ordering.⁴ It violates the universal implications of the commandment to love by envisioning humanity split into sinners and saved. It cannot translate divine mystery into humility about our small efforts toward understanding. These constraints on spiritual practice and theology are like the mutilations the Greeks used to inflict on their slaves: cutting a tendon in their leg so they could hobble around in service of the master but could not escape. The condemnations of Christianity’s great theologians—Origen, John Scotus Eriugena, Marguerite Porete, Meister Eckhart—are not because these betrayed the gospel. They did not enslave anyone or conflate the Divine with something merely human or reject the healing power of Christ. They reject the idea of hell. They identify the deepest nature of the Divine as abysmal love. They embody compassion in the pursuit of wisdom. This is not to say that canonical theologians do not offer brilliant insight into the human spirit in its search for the Divine. But by shackling our theology to the relentless assertion of authority, we have destroyed books and bodies that moved boldly beyond what institutions could tolerate. We have silenced some of our best spirits, transforming their devotion into a capital crime.

Marcella Althaus-Reid proposes another way: The queer nation of the world represents in this way the second coming of God the Stranger. Curiously, it seems that we can know God better through a radical negation of the way of closeted knowing found in the tradition of the church and theology. This is the queer, stranger God who in our time and age is showing God’s face amongst people who are God’s lovers—and queer lovers at that. ⁵ Attention to the underside of Christian history and practice is an ethical obligation, an attempt at reconciliation after our long violence. It is a spiritual practice as well. Restoring the witness of the underside for Christian theology allows tradition to breathe into its own wounds and dead spaces, integrating what it has attempted to destroy and enlivening its wisdom with the wisdom it rejected.

For many on the underside there is only one word of gospel: love. Know it well, love was his meaning. Who reveals it to you? Love. What did he reveal to you? Love. Why does he reveal it to you? For love. Remain in this, and you will know more of the same. But you will never know different, without end. ⁶ This love includes a call for justice, because it is through justice that the preciousness of the divine image is preserved in community. But this is justice as one of the faces of love, not justice hooded by authority and deformed into just desert. Because those on the underside know so viciously the betrayal of love, it is their witness that draws us back to the Beloved. The witness of love to the despised and by the despised is witness to the fundamental truth of the gospel. Monica Coleman tells the story of Kathi Martin, who founded the GSN (God, Self, and Neighbor) Ministries in Atlanta, to teach this theology to all people but especially the black gays and lesbians who desperately need to believe that they are made in the image of God. Through this kind of ministry they ‘make a way of out no way.’ They ‘walk a way out of no way.’ They ‘love a way out of no way.’ In so doing, they help to create the community of God here on earth. ⁷ The institutional church teaches that love is central to the Christian message, but radical, nonjudgmental, universal love tends to cut against the impulses that preserve institutional authority. Because those on the margins of the church have less invested in the defense of authority, the intensity of divine love is sometimes better remembered there.

The perspective of the margins may or may not be privileged, but it reconnects with the witness of Jesus’ first apostles. We see the Christ who is outside all structures of power, including those of the church. Noel Erskine, a liberation theologian from Jamaica, pointed out in a conversation that the Rastas and other poor Jamaicans believe that the church is in bed with the government. The church is perceived to have thrown its lot in with the powers that produce but do not alleviate the anguish of poverty; it is not capable of hearing in the cry of mothers with no food for their children an echo of Christ’s cry: Why have you forsaken me? Dr. Erskine, who trains ministers for a living, nonetheless emphasized that if we cannot look to the church to decry poverty, neither can we look to it to witness to Christ. Christ is not in that church. Christ is in the streets. The crucifixion of Christ is not only two thousand years ago, it is every day. It is the thorn and scandal of racism, of violence, of hunger, of homophobia, of patriarchy as these mutilate and murder souls who were created to be kingdoms where Christ could dwell. Nancy Lynn Westfield points out that Christianity was in many ways simply another system intentionally designed to silence and render us docile and obedient . . . to strip us [black women] of our humanity, to strip us of our capacity to love and be loved, to strip us of our will to know and be known. . . . These systems of domination told Black women that we will not and cannot determine what is ‘good’ for our selves. ‘Breaking’ us meant that African-American women should only want to know what the ‘master wants us to know. . . . What is ‘good’ for us is told to us by the oppressor—all we need to do is comply. ⁸ Ada María Isasi-Díaz criticizes theology because it does not take seriously the religion of the people but seems to prefer the doctrines and dogmas of the church, and because traditional theologies seem to be content with seeing themselves as accountable only, or at least mainly, to the institutional churches. ⁹

Accountability to queer or female or black or Asian bearers of the divine image would challenge certain aspects of traditional teaching. But surely doctrines are made for humans and not the other way around. Theology that holds itself accountable to institutions rather than persons too often reinforces behaviors that support institutional—patriarchal, racist, homophobic—power. Rosetta Ross points out that the behaviors that made post-Emancipation African Americans more acceptable to white people came to dominate the meaning of Christianity. Actions and ideas that benefited white racial superiority made one a good Christian; those that might have benefited their own flourishing were bad. ¹⁰ What benefits institutional power too often become the criteria of faith. The situation of African American women in our culture has been particularly acute. Their witness highlights another feature of the church’s logic of domination. It perpetuates a lie in which oppression and degradation are somehow good for us. Womanist writers call out this lie and insist that obedience and docility are not marks of faith. They separate us from our true selves and therefore from the divine image in us. For women, for subjects of violence, for gay and lesbian and transgendered people, it is necessary to counter the supposed virtues professed by the church if we are to rediscover our faith. We are in the disorienting situation of being embedded in a religious community that trains us to despise the very things that our Beloved created us to be.

It is religious communities themselves and the scholars and theologians who support them that provide the justifications for treating Christ’s lovers as subhuman. The church no doubt does many wonderful, healing things. But it is also the place where Christians go to flee the great revelation of the gospel. It is where we look for tidied-up bodies, bodies better conformed to institutional needs. ¹¹ For many people the institutional church is more than this, of course. But its virtues and ideals look more suspect from the perspective of those who have been harmed by it.

The reflections in this volume work on the hypothesis that the institutional churches and their canonical theologians do not represent the only lineage of apostolic witness from whom we know something about the mystery of incarnation. African American, white, Hispanic, Asian women, women battered or silenced, queers, the afflicted, the poor, the imprisoned can trace their own witness to the idle tale of women who were dismissed by male disciples. Mother Christ no doubt vivifies the institutional church but she also wanders outside the church, no more constrained by it than by the body that Rome crucified. When the voices that have been driven away are gathered back together, we do not get the one true, apostolic faith. But we are reminded of those traumatized women whom Jesus thought would be the most fitting witnesses to survival within the predations of might. We fold our story in with theirs; our witness is rooted in theirs.

The subject matter of this book is the incarnation: God from God, Light from Light. I stand in the ancient tradition that understands self-disclosure as an essential quality of ultimate reality and that in Jesus of Nazareth we find a particularly potent example of this disclosure. Ultimate reality cannot be or be like anything in creation. If it were, it would simply be another piece of the furniture of the cosmos—Zeus or gravity but not YHWH. When we fall in love with the incarnation, we do so because we yearn for the unbegotten Good and we see this unnamable Abyss refracted in Christ. Because we really do experience salvation in Christ and we conceive of Christ as the full manifestation of the Godhead, it has been easy for us to reduce God to a local deity, concerned only with our corner of the cosmos and only the patch of history that relates to Jesus of Nazareth. If we begin by remembering that it is the transcendent Good, the one who refuses Moses a name because there is no name for this reality, we may enter more joyously into the incarnation without requiring that it exhaust the Divine Eros and her relation to creation. The structure of the book reflects this sense that meditation on incarnation rests in meditation on the nondual ground of reality. An outline may help orient the reader.

Chapter 1—He Feeds on Ashes: Christology and the Logic of Domination. This chapter is a purgation. It sets out a logic of domination that has given shape to much traditional Christology. It presupposes but does not rehearse the criticisms of feminists, womanists, and others who find the atonement to be offensive and the exclusivism of Christianity to violate its gospel of love. Uncovering the logic at work in the rhetoric and theology by which certain strands of Christology came to dominate Christian consciousness is intended to deprive them of their obviousness and open the way to a more generous understanding of incarnation and its salvific power. I use Athanasius as a kind of personification of the logic of domination. One can dip into history at almost any point and find an equally appropriate candidate. As the author of orthodoxy who so ruthlessly defended the Nicene Creed, he seems like a good choice.

Divine transcendence cautions us against all of the idolatries we carry around in our heads and in our churches: ideas about God that displace the desire for the Good beyond even our best thoughts. After this initial purgation, we