“Open arms are a gesture of the body reaching for the other. They are a sign of discontent with my own self-enclosed identity and a code of desire for the other. I do not want to be myself only; I want the other to be part of who I am and I want to be part of the other.” –Miroslav Volf
For two thousand years Christians
have debated over how to intelligibly conceptualize and reconcile two
descriptive categories of Jesus in the canonical Gospel traditions on
philosophical grounds. One category meets us in ordinary immanence: the
humanity of Jesus from birth in a feeding trough to bloody death on a wooden
cross, with heaps of sorrow and grief in between. The other category meets us
in mythical transcendence: the divinity of Christ that arrives to us in the
power and influence of Jesus, exploding through resurrection and transforming
the consciousness of an expanding community called the “body of Christ.”
Several councils met throughout the
first five centuries to accomplish this reconciliation. There was the
Antiochene School consisting of those who sublated the divine aspect through
totalized humanity, arguing that Jesus was created and specially empowered to
reveal God’s wisdom and intentions through the indwelling Spirit. Then there
was the Alexandrian School where advocates argued that the divine Creator took
on fleshly form to accomplish our salvation. The ongoing tension terminated
with the acceptance of an unresolvable paradox: Jesus was both fully human and
fully divine.
What if the paradox only exists in
an outdated metaphysics? In both the Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms of
that age, incarnation was a problem. The divine essence was seen as totally
transcendent of this world by necessity. But we know now, via quantum physics,
that all matter is constituted by relationships of energy. The old problem of
incarnation is how two essences can occupy the same space. But from the quantum
perspective, incarnation is ubiquitous if God is understood as “light” (a
mythic archetype for divinity), which in physics amounts to pure energy: the
very basis of matter. God then must be incarnate in all being as its very
ground and future. The new question then is not how God’s incarnation in Jesus
is possible, but how it is unique.
The incarnation of Jesus would have
to be different by degree, not kind. What is this degree? It is Jesus’ full
unity with the divine that makes him fully human, and it is his full humanity
that makes him fully divine. This stands over and against the multifarious
forms of alienation in the general anxiety of the human life. Jesus is more
human by degree, but not other than human.
How does he accomplish this union?
Unlike the Antiochene Jesus who becomes superhuman by making a special claim on
the being of God that you and I cannot, and unlike the Alexandrian Jesus who is
the God-in-flesh making a special claim on human being that we cannot, Jesus
spreads open his arms toward both poles of being as a meeting space. With one
arm reached toward divinity and one toward humanity, he simply makes himself a
space of near-nonbeing—an open convergence between the divine and the human. He
becomes not a demigod but a space between being itself.
The symbol of Jesus spreading out
his arms is found on the cross itself. In Golgotha, a cursed “outside” where
tribal identities no longer persist, Jesus becomes subject to nonbeing and
otherness. In this place of self-emptying, he opens his arms toward the other,
welcoming the other into a cruciform way of life where identities are crucified
and transformed so that each person may embrace the other.
Through the embrace of the other,
self-alienation is dissolved into holistic completion. It is here that one may
become “fully human.” And it is only as one becomes fully human that she may
become “fully divine,” for the divine is the space where being leaves itself to
join with the other toward the creation of fuller Being. It is the sacred space
of emerging wholeness wherein alienation is traded for loving embrace, and it
is the sacred, differentiated unity of beings in love.
Christ hangs at the intersection of
two lines: one is vertical (divine), and the other is horizontal (human). As
such, the cross is the place of intersection, staked into the very ground of
nonbeing and nonidentity. The cross “crosses out” tribal identity insofar as it
honors the human as human, allowing us to flourish as more fully human and thus
become more fully divine.
For it is in the cruciform embrace
of the other that divinity and humanity converge as one voice whereby the earthly
and sacred are inseparable and mutually completing.
