Just Incarnation

Catherine Keller, in her book On the Mystery, pleads with the reader to stray away from the black and white world we live in with either an absolute or dissolute, and offers a “third way” as a new means of approaching the questions of life. Keller’s “third way” stems from process theology (Keller 11), which is a new way of thinking about the relationship between faith and life. In one chapter in particular, Keller uses this method to address justice and com/passion in process. In the midst of two opposing views on this topic, Keller effectively presents a third way, which on the surface makes a lot of sense, but upon deeper analysis raises many questions and is not a practical or resolute solution.

Keller discusses a major question about God’s relation with his creation. Is God passionate and actively a part of us? Keller points out the two sides of this question, with the absolute being that “God is immutable and impassable”, and since “passion is a movement of the soul”, God is “dispassionate” (Keller 125). The dissolute would be the opposite, that God is always with us, and passionately cares about us. Keller proposes a “resolute relationality”, a “third way” (Keller 128). Keller depicts love as a process, that “com/passionate divinity is truly involved in an open-ended interactivity with all of us creatures” (Keller 128). She goes on to say that this does not make the mystery of God any more understandable, it makes “it more incarnate” (Keller 128). This is where the questions begin to arise: with the word incarnate. Many Christians immediately twitch, for when one thinks of incarnation they immediately think of Jesus, and not just actions of compassion by humans. Putting humans and Jesus on the same level is unorthodox and certainly questionable.

Keller’s suggestion must be analyzed in order to understand what she is trying to say. Firstly, what is Keller calling justice? She defines justice as “the gauge of collective well-being”, essentially the movement towards goodness. Therefore, if movement towards goodness is moving towards to ultimate good, which is Christ, then when we are just; God is incarnate with us. I think the issue with this idea stems from what general consensus on what exactly incarnation is. By definition incarnation is taking of flesh or embodiment. So, when we act compassionately, God is embodied in us. This concept of “imagining God differently allows new images of the human to emerge” (Keller 129). My biggest concern with this concept is Keller’s lack of providing scriptural backing. However, I don’t think this idea has no support from scripture. The New Testament states, “No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us” (1 John 4:12 New International Version). This essentially states that God is present in us when we show compassion. This yields a process of “interacting in the open-endedness of infinity” (Keller 129).

For the most part, I find Keller’s “third way” appealing, yet it is not resolute. My major issue with it is the use of the word incarnation. I feel as if referring to us, sinful humans, as incarnations in moments of just action, takes away from the splendor of Jesus. How exactly does Keller establish a means of determining what exactly is a just action and movement towards the good? To be Christ-like can always be a goal, but at what point can we say whether or not one’s compassion is truly worthy of God, and in a sense embodying God? These questions cannot be easily answered, as humans I don’t believe we can know and claim that God is certainly present. This uncertainty, therefore, detracts from the compassion of Jesus by using the same word, incarnation, to describe God’s presence in his son. In theory, Keller’s different perspective makes sense, but in practicality it just adds more ambiguity to an already ambiguous topic.

Catherine Keller’s “third way” of dealing with the absolute and dissolute ways of dealing with justice and compassion in a broken world, provides a new outlook on God’s compassion in the world. The idea that God becomes incarnate in humans through their just actions is a compelling argument, and could very easily be true. However, the uncertainty and indistinctness regarding how to distinguish compassion and incarnation creates a vagueness, which detracts from Keller’s argument.

Catherine Keller. On the Mystery (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 111-131.